If this was 13 minutes exposure for Milky Way you must've used a tracker... Which one, if I may ask?
I have iOpteron and I'm so unlucky with it. Awesome shots by the way. I really like the first one a lot. I normally take 30 seconds or less at very high ISO images because, well, I don't use a start tracker and my stars never look as clean (maybe because they are starting to trail already, about 7 pixels trail).
Love the lighting, but I think portrait mode works better. The tree in landscape mode appears too distracting overlapping the horizon (just my opinion). Either way, the first one is amazing and great use of light!
Thanks so much everyone for the comments and kind words
Gregg B. wrote:
If this was 13 minutes exposure for Milky Way you must've used a tracker... Which one, if I may ask?
I have iOpteron and I'm so unlucky with it. Awesome shots by the way. I really like the first one a lot. I normally take 30 seconds or less at very high ISO images because, well, I don't use a start tracker and my stars never look as clean (maybe because they are starting to trail already, about 7 pixels trail).
Gregg,
I am using an Astrotrac mount.
---------------------------------------------
DejanS wrote:
Love the lighting, but I think portrait mode works better. The tree in landscape mode appears too distracting overlapping the horizon (just my opinion). Either way, the first one is amazing and great use of light!
Dejan
Dejan,
Thanks. It may work better in portrait mode. I am going to have to try it and see.
---------------------------------------------
dgdg wrote:
I think this tree could go both ways. Ordinarily I wouldn't want a tree to overlap, but I think a little overlap here, helps it stand out a bit more.
David
David,
Thanks and I like the tree overlapping just a bit. It helps bring the foreground and sky together IMHO.
I like the 2nd edit much better but there is rarely anywhere near that amount of light near the horizon when shooting the Milky Way (I've shot that exact same location too). It's generally pitch-black out unless you have moonlight, which will then drop the amount of visible stars. It still seems a bit unbalanced but there is much left to interpretation with night photography. Great concept but I'd like to see a darker horizon (barely visible) with light on just the foreground. All preference though!
Klaus,
Great photography, and post-processing. Nice to know that you did not risk your life on a cliff - especially since the foreground needs to be blended in anyway.
My preference goes for #2.
I like the subtle difference in your edit of #1. It does help a lot. Unless we are shooting at a time when the moon is lighting up our foreground, obviously the amount of light we allow in the foreground is an artistic approach. I think with mine, I would still make them a bit darker, but then who am I to argue with the great success you are having with your vision. So if it works, and people like it, then continue to go with it.
