After spending personal time being totally mesmerized by this remote location, then later sharing it with my shooting partner on another occasion, and then eventually leading clients here, I decided to try to do it some level of justice by attempting to pull off a combination of 2 epic forces (the milky-way and the 3000 foot drop of the gooseneck bend on the Grand Canyon).
Calibrated to a luminance of 120 candelas (should look its best near there).
I have to say this is probably my favorite from you I like the bend - very rugged looking and the tones in this one are fantastic. The detail in the sky is great, and I hope this summer (or whenever) I can get a nice shot of the sky.. one of the few downfalls I have encountered with my 1Ds.
I love the portrait of the Milky Way in this one Mark - are you willing to share EXIF info on that part of the image? The combination here works quite well.
Spectacular catch of the Milky Way! Wonderful sky.
I wouldn't mind a bit of curves work for the land, not to brighten but to give more definition in the canyon.
alichty wrote:
I love the portrait of the Milky Way in this one Mark - are you willing to share EXIF info on that part of the image? The combination here works quite well.
I don't know about this one to be honest. Love the Milky Way, were you using a tracking head for this by the way? but the clarity of the sky makes the canyon look muddied. It's a brilliant concept, the comp is spot on, but... I dunno. Barry might be on to more contrast in the canyon, but I'm sure that would block things up at print size. This is one of those that size and viewing distance is going to make a huge difference.
river rover wrote:
I don't know about this one to be honest. Love the Milky Way, were you using a tracking head for this by the way? but the clarity of the sky makes the canyon look muddied. It's a brilliant concept, the comp is spot on, but... I dunno. Barry might be on to more contrast in the canyon, but I'm sure that would block things up at print size. This is one of those that size and viewing distance is going to make a huge difference.
No tracking head. Super high ISO.
roman.johnston wrote:
I like it a lot, but find that dark shots print quite a bit diffrent than the screen shows. Have you tried printing it yet?
Roman
My web versions are absolutely separate files (starting from RAW) from my prints. I do the web versions as my less scrupulous trial runs. To learn. To get feedback... To see how the file reacts/handles. To see what the obstacles are.... Then when I do the prints, my monitor is calibrated totally differently, and I start from scratch (raw again). I also FROFILE to output (Lambda, Lightjet or Chromira on FLEX) first thing in PS, before even starting to work on it.
No Roman I have yet to print this one. Just did a quick test run on it today. BTW I'll be moved up there very soon (and getting a lab situated up there too). Let's meet up sometime... Think beer and a shoot, but in the reverse order.
Great picture - thanks for the exif. I will try that. I would not have thought to go so high but it seems to work. Thanks for sharing the great picture and technique. Scott
I applaud your vision and execution. I also like the second version more with increased contrast. However ISO 25600 ISO is pretty crazy even for the 5DII which I also own.
Having experimented with night landscapes quite a bit I have a few recommendations which may help you and any others on your next shoot. As we know the darker the skies the brighter the stars. That being the case it also pushes the envelope of our modern digital sensor in terms of both noise and visible detail. This is especially evident as we push the ISO to extremes. One way to improve things is to perform a time lapse blend. Then use transitional moonlight or sunlight for the earth frame.
For example you shoot the milkyway at ISO 4000 ~ 1.5 hours before sunrise. Then you shoot the land ~ .5 hours before sunrise. This predawn light will then be enough to greatly improve visible detail and minimize noise at much lower ISOs. This technique can also be done very effectively with sunset or moonrise/moonset. Here is one example from a photog friend of mine Stan Rose at sunset... then later. Notice in particular the detail in the landscape which cannot be achieved with ultra high ISO: http://www.stanroseimages.com/photo/dunes-night-b/
Once you have that level of visible detail in the earth frame you can fine tune exposure for the blend. This obviously requires greater patience when performing a time lapse vs. pulling out the camera, taking some shots then leaving. But I've also found it worth the wait.
dereksurfs wrote:
I applaud your vision and execution. I also like the second version more with increased contrast. However ISO 25600 ISO is pretty crazy even for the 5DII which I also own.
Having experimented with night landscapes quite a bit I have a few recommendations which may help you and any others on your next shoot. As we know the darker the skies the brighter the stars. That being the case it also pushes the envelope of our modern digital sensor in terms of both noise and visible detail. This is especially evident as we push the ISO to extremes. One way to improve things is to perform a time lapse blend. Then use transitional moonlight or sunlight for the earth frame.
For example you shoot the milkyway at ISO 4000 ~ 1.5 hours before sunrise. Then you shoot the land ~ .5 hours before sunrise. This predawn light will then be enough to greatly improve visible detail and minimize noise at much lower ISOs. This technique can also be done very effectively with sunset or moonrise/moonset. Here is one example from a photog friend of mine Stan Rose at sunset... then later. Notice in particular the detail in the landscape which cannot be achieved with ultra high ISO: http://www.stanroseimages.com/photo/dunes-night-b/
Once you have that level of visible detail in the earth frame you can fine tune exposure for the blend. This obviously requires greater patience when performing a time lapse vs. pulling out the camera, taking some shots then leaving. But I've also found it worth the wait.
Thanks Derek, good info. Sometimes, but not often 25,600 works pretty darn good with super post skills. I use a wide variety of methods depending on the situation. Sometimes "Star Stacker" software is great too.
This is a blend. The lower (land) was shot at 100 ISO near twilight) then darkened to the same luminosity (using point samples in the image) as the 25,600 land was. I basically shot constantly from sunset on through late in the middle of the night using every ISO's and techniques including star stacker multi shots and such. It just happened that my favorite look to the stars at the raw stage happened to be the 25,600 and not the others. So, I went with it. I'm sure the print will have some level of limitation for enlargement, but the file (print) looks pretty good so I am optimistic.
alatoo60 wrote:
Love it. It glows from within. Although, at this level of luminosity, one would expect to see some reflection in a water.
There is faint reflection on the right but not on the left. It was windy down there and there are also rapids on the left.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Thanks Derek, good info. Sometimes, but not often 25,600 works pretty darn good with super post skills. I use a wide variety of methods depending on the situation. Sometimes "Star Stacker" software is great too.
This is a blend. The lower (land) was shot at 100 ISO near twilight) then darkened to the same luminosity (using point samples in the image) as the 25,600 land was. I basically shot constantly from sunset on through late in the middle of the night using every ISO's and techniques including star stacker multi shots and such. It just happened that my favorite look to the stars at the raw stage happened to be the 25,600 and not the others. So, I went with it. I'm sure the print will have some level of limitation for enlargement, but the file (print) looks pretty good so I am optimistic. ...Show more →
Ok, Gotcha. I couldn't tell from your post that you had in fact used a time lapse. With these smaller web images its harder to sometimes notice the visible detail, especially in the first which looked a bit muddy.
I'm very surprised that 25,600 worked for the sky as the loss of detail seems apparent and substantial when I move toward these upper limits at night. However I'm sure there are good noise reduction software tools available to treat these files. I would simply rather start with a cleaner image when at all possible. So are you saying you like the 25K shot more than lets say one you took at 4K? If so I find find this interesting and curious as to why?
dereksurfs wrote:
Ok, Gotcha. I couldn't tell from your post that you had in fact used a time lapse. With these smaller web images its harder to sometimes notice the visible detail, especially in the first which looked a bit muddy.
I'm very surprised that 25,600 worked for the sky as the loss of detail seems apparent and substantial when I move toward these upper limits at night. However I'm sure there are good noise reduction software tools available to treat these files. I would simply rather start with a cleaner image when at all possible. So are you saying you like the 25K shot more than lets say one you took at 4K? If so I find find this interesting and curious as to why?
Yes, on this one (and somewhat unusually) I like the 25K shot better. Although it had more obvious noise (and a lot) it also had more stars and faint milky-way definition. It looked more like a star stacker shot or one used on a tracking device. With aggressive yet careful noise reduction, careful contrast control (including some localized mid tone contrast) and also an innovative way to approach highlight glow, a somewhat satisfying amount of noise (damage) is masked and non noise quality enhanced.
Very cool shot! I bet this looks awesome on pure black! I have no luck with these high ISO pictures Maybe I will soon just ordered that d800e we will see Keep up the great work
Maybe I will soon just ordered that d800e we will see