Comments: 78
Originalbossman [2009-05-08 15:30:08 +0000 UTC]
Jealous. I can never focus on the stars. Mine always come out blurry. Very nice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Originalbossman In reply to Corvidae65 [2009-05-09 14:26:27 +0000 UTC]
I tried that a while back. Must not have been bright enough. Either that or one of my settings was off. I even autofocused on the moon one night, waited for it to go down and then took my shoot. Still came out blurry. I think I have long exposure noise control on or something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Originalbossman In reply to Corvidae65 [2009-05-12 21:10:15 +0000 UTC]
I believe I use f22. It is small either way no larger than f16. I have no clue what to do. I have the darndest time focusing even using live view with 10x magnification. Still cant see them. But they are bright out. If you figure out a setup let me know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Corvidae65 In reply to Originalbossman [2009-05-13 03:42:06 +0000 UTC]
There's lots of variables I don't know about how you're shooting. I can tell you that I use manual focus as autofocus won't work on my camera for star trail shots. I did shoot this 'Stargazer' shot when there was no moon at all so the stars are a lot brighter. When the moon is full or even half full it blots out all but the strongest of stars. I also illuminated the rocks with a spotlight at the end of the exposure or they would be in silhouette.
I tend to use the lowest ISO my camera has (200) and use a minimum shutter or 5 minutes. For star field shots, I use a higher ISO (400-800) and only expose for 30 seconds or less.
If you're having trouble seeing the stars in the viewfinder to focus you might check the viewfinders magnification setting--most DSLR's have adjustable eyepieces. If not there you might try focusing your shot at a wider apeture so there is more light being let into the viewfinder--then stop the apeture down when you're ready to shoot. f22 is really small for anything but full moon nights when it's really bright out. You might try f9 or f11. It still give a deep depth of field, but allows for shorter exposure times.
also--I've found an 'image stacker' program that allows you to take a 3 minute base shot and a series of 30 second shots and 'stack' them giving you the equivelent of one long exposure--I could note you with the web address for this free software if you would like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Originalbossman In reply to Corvidae65 [2009-05-13 15:14:55 +0000 UTC]
That makes perfect sense. Ive been trying to focus in f22 manually. no wonder it came out blurry. I would love to check out that program. I usually do a long exposure of like 15-20 minutes but they come out somewhat noisey and blurry. Im going to bump my iso to 200 next time to brighten everything up. Thanks for all the tips. I am saving them in a note so that i can call them up next attempt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ranchforman [2009-01-31 05:55:46 +0000 UTC]
Man you even captured the sand on the rocks..
Great shot pard.. Love this one !!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
rafinerija [2009-01-27 23:13:45 +0000 UTC]
Love it, speechless...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Arenetos In reply to Corvidae65 [2009-01-28 21:03:30 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I've got two snow shots I'll be uploading now, one that looks vintage, and the other looks normal (the normal one has a bit of noise though due to how foggy it is here right now)!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TimLaSure [2009-01-26 16:26:46 +0000 UTC]
Awesome shot!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WyrdWanderer [2009-01-26 15:35:15 +0000 UTC]
I like this because it seems to me something of a portal, and you can see the mystery beyond.
And no, not too much info. I wish I could come visit some of these places and take pics with you! I visited the area on our way through to Wyoming Big Horn Mountains one summer. Beautiful place!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
davincipoppalag [2009-01-26 10:44:13 +0000 UTC]
What a place to shoot from.. beautiful John
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>