Jupiter and the Milky Way visible over Mount Shuksan in Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington.
This was taken at Picture Lake in the National Forest, although there is no lake visible at this time of year. That fact came as a slight surprise to me, but not as much as the 8-9 foot tall sheer cliff of ploughed snow that I needed to climb in order to get from the road to where it used to be. If you look closely, you can see the path I waded through the snow to get to this point.
This is a 2x2 panorama covering a significant portion of the night sky. This used my 16-35mm lens at 16mm, f/2.8, with the camera set to ISO 5000, and with a 30 second exposure time.
The conditions weren't as good as I had hoped, with a reasonable amount of moisture in the air reducing the clarity of the Milky Way and emphasising the glow of the city lights (even in a true dark sky location like Mount Baker, there is still a glow around much of the horizon). However, it's not bad!
Most of the landscape is lit solely by the light of the stars, but there is some light hitting the snow below the trees on the left which is from the Mount Baker Ski Area, closed at night but with some exterior lighting left illuminated.
Significant stars and constellations visible include Betelgeuse, Rigel, Orion's Belt, Aldebaran, Bellatrix, Pollux, Capella, the Pleiades, as well as Jupiter (largest, almost centre), the Double Cluster (containing around 600 stars) and several galaxies (including the smudge at the top right which is the Andromeda Galaxy, estimated to contain over one trillion stars).
I'm a British software developer and photographer living in Vancouver, BC. I mainly photograph landscapes, cityscapes, night scenes, and water.
If you're interested in any...
@claeshields Good luck and enjoy! I look forward to seeing the results! (I waited well over a month for conditions like these, the joys of the Pacific Northwest!)
Goodness me Alexis, another amazing shot. This is my old stomping grounds, I actually learned to ski at Mt. Baker as a kid. This such a beautiful part of our world and you have been able to take it that next step into beauty with this shot, awesome. I really need to learn your ways.
@trbo Thank you! It really is a beautiful area, I still can't believe I both live in such a beautiful city, and can get somewhere like this in just a couple of hours!
@vadamae Thank you! This is edited, you need to do quite a lot of 'massaging' of noise levels and so on to get this into a presentable form. This kind of photography is pushing the absolute limits of today's cameras. Although even unedited, it still takes your breath away when you see the image appear on the back of the camera!
Fantastic, and incredibly beautiful and clear! I noticed you did 30 seconds - what's the maximum exposure length you recommend before you can start to see star movement? And how did you go about identifying all those constellations?
@pocketmouse The 'rule' for calculating exposure length is called the rule of 600, and states that you will not see significant movement until your shutter speed exceeds 600/focal length.
For a 16mm lens, this means you can go as long as 600/16 = 37.5 seconds. However, many pros tend to use a rule of 500 or even 400, as modern high-resolution DSLRs can start to show more streaking than might be desirable with the original rule. I'm trying to stick to the rule of 500 now I have a camera that excels at this kind of photography.
Remember that, as with all these rules, it's based on 35mm focal lengths -- so for crop-frame cameras, you need to multiply your focal length by 1.6 (for Canon), so a 10mm lens on a crop-frame camera is equivalent to a 16mm lens on a full-frame camera, and the 37.5 second rule still applies.
For the constellations, I had a classical education and was a boy scou... ah, who am I kidding. I use a program called Stellarium, you set the location and time and it shows you exactly where all the stars were and what they're called ;) http://www.stellarium.org/
@abirkill Thanks for the explanation and the link :) So the focal length - is that what it would be on a full frame? So if for example I'm shooting at 18mm on a 1.6x crop, would that be an equivalent focal length of roughly 29mm? And the rule would be 600/29 = roughly 20 seconds?
@pocketmouse Exactly right -- you really need a super-wide lens (or a *very* fast wide prime, like a 24mm f/1.4) for this kind of photograph, in order to gather enough light in the time you have available. But you can still take great star trail photos if you don't have a suitable lens for this type of astrophotography.
You could also use a tracking mount (commonly called an equatorial mount) to make the camera follow the rotation of the earth and take much longer exposures, but it's difficult to use these to capture landscapes like this, as they just make the foreground blur instead!
another absolutely magical nightscape shot. Im assuming you have a few shots in this final one given the amount of stars? Love that you share your info....and so much of it....amazing!!! love it!!!
Hmmm, I'm going to be there this weekend. Do I drive all the way up, climb the snowy cliff and freeze my arse off to try for this kind of amazingness? We'll see....But this is a fav for me:)
@westcoastwallis Thanks for the fav! The forecast suggests you might have a chance this weekend if you're lucky, and it's a new moon that sets quite early, which is even better.
This is an astronomical forecast and you really need a transparency of 'average' or higher to get anything reasonable, and ideally a seeing value of average or higher as well -- unfortunately this doesn't always coincide with an apparently clear night.
In case it helps, I found that my arse remained remarkably temperate, but standing around in snow for three hours does nothing for the toes!
@abirkill haha thanks! I'll have to forgo the wine with dinner then and make the drive up. i shoot (during the daytime) at Picture Lake quite often (we have a place in Maple Falls) and am actually meeting up with a few 365'ers there next weekend:)
OMG - I just don't know what to say. I totally have no words. I actually think this is my favourite photo I have ever seen on 365 - amazing amazing amazing. How incredible that you have actually seen that with your own eyes. I'm following you for sure now !
Fantastic capture. On a clear day I can see Baker from my office in Seattle. You just gave me a reason to visit it :) Thank you for sharing info on settings, etc. This is quite helpful. Now, if it would just stop raining for a bit :))
for some reason the site keeps telling me its invalid media nd would not let me post to it, just thought you might want to know just in case you dont see any comments on it , i could not even just fav it! Love it thought and a fav for me also! Let me know if it is my computer or yours and i will come back and fav ! Such a wonderful capture! i was also thanking you for all the help you give to everyone in this community! Your knowledge is priceless! :)
great lens you're using there... I have my eye on the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, you're making me excited about that one. this is an amazing shot, Alexis, fav. you really worked for this shot, during and post.
Absolutely stunning, and I really appreciated you sharing the information on how you got it (outside my skill level and the ability of my camera, but a great learning tool nonetheless, so thank you. Fav!
well, this is totally fav-worthy! I'm very interested in you noise reduction process, so if you feel like sharing some nuggets of information I'm all ears :)
Just been looking through your night shit gallery again. Once again I am in awe both of your skill and of the magnificence of this beautiful world we live in. Thanks for reminding me once again
November 16th, 2014
Leave a Comment
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
For a 16mm lens, this means you can go as long as 600/16 = 37.5 seconds. However, many pros tend to use a rule of 500 or even 400, as modern high-resolution DSLRs can start to show more streaking than might be desirable with the original rule. I'm trying to stick to the rule of 500 now I have a camera that excels at this kind of photography.
Remember that, as with all these rules, it's based on 35mm focal lengths -- so for crop-frame cameras, you need to multiply your focal length by 1.6 (for Canon), so a 10mm lens on a crop-frame camera is equivalent to a 16mm lens on a full-frame camera, and the 37.5 second rule still applies.
For the constellations, I had a classical education and was a boy scou... ah, who am I kidding. I use a program called Stellarium, you set the location and time and it shows you exactly where all the stars were and what they're called ;)
http://www.stellarium.org/
You could also use a tracking mount (commonly called an equatorial mount) to make the camera follow the rotation of the earth and take much longer exposures, but it's difficult to use these to capture landscapes like this, as they just make the foreground blur instead!
Thanks for the fav!
This reminds of the sky in Death Valley when there were so many stars I couldn't find the constellations any more.
Just marvelous
If you are thinking to try, keep an eye on this site:
http://cleardarksky.com/c/ArtstPtWAkey.html
This is an astronomical forecast and you really need a transparency of 'average' or higher to get anything reasonable, and ideally a seeing value of average or higher as well -- unfortunately this doesn't always coincide with an apparently clear night.
In case it helps, I found that my arse remained remarkably temperate, but standing around in snow for three hours does nothing for the toes!
Good luck!
Outstanding as usual...FAV !