I'm blown away that such a sky could be exposed with such a "minor" exposure (compared to the weak skies I normally get at 30sec, 2.8, ISO 3200). Really speaks to how little light pollution there is.
I would be inclined to darken up the highlights in the land areas if it were mine, but that's a personal preference thing.
Wow! Spectacular! I'm really loving those low lying clouds on the background. Can't believe you could get this at ISO 800. Isn't this just a remarkable place? I've never been bit I sure would love to.
Beautiful scene. I might try and pull some shadows back in the top two thirds so it looks more like a night shot. As it is now the foreground looks like a "Day for Night" cinematic effect.
Mar 12, 2014 at 07:43 AM
Herb Houghton Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
great shot. must be an amazing environment to be in.
I have a couple nits/questions.
For the sky exposure, on a moonless night, zero light pollution, iso 800, f/2.8, I need about 3 1/2 minutes for proper exposure to get that many stars. I realize with the moon, exposure will be less, but I see more noise than I'd expect for your ISO. Did you push exposure in post?
The clouds/fog on top of the mountains look blown out.
I still like your photo a great deal!!
I think this image has tons of potential. The composition and light are great. With that said, it does look like it's been pushed pretty hard in post processing. It being a night shot, I think keeping it very low-key would go a long way to expressing the mystique of night and that cool moon light.
Such an amazing photo and wonderful place you got to shoot at. I am amazed at how much stars and land mass is lit with such a low iso and no moon light. It really does show the effects of light pollution vs non light polluted areas. Thanks for sharing!
