Looking forward to the tutorial, where will we find it?
I'll probably post it on my facebook and website. This is assuming that I have the energy to actually record myself doing it while in AZ/UT and can screen capture the processing to put it all together. Video work isn't my thing so it may just be a regular web tutorial but I'll just have to see how it goes!
This is a cool image, but as a photograph of an actual scene I don't find it convincing. I'm certainly no purist when it comes to image making, and love to see aggressive processing used to convey a fantastical interpretation of a scene, or even an interpretation that more accurately reflects what the shooter felt or witnessed while being there. This one, however, just doesn't persuade me for a couple of reasons;
1. The Milky Way is far too bright. I've shot the galaxy many times in dark conditions, and I've never seen it anywhere close to being that bright in real life;
2. The foreground values are too bright, and it seems evident to me that they were shot well before or after the Milky way was at its zenith in terms of brightness/contrast.
I like what you are doing compositionally, but would prefer a more subtle (though certainly not puristic) approach to developing the final image from the RAW information.
Astro landscapes are highly subjective - for the photographer and the viewer - since the camera can record much more detail than our eyes can see. I don't like vanilla ice cream or Picasso, but many do. I noticed everything that Arka said and for Arka's taste, that's good too.
I guess my point for the astro landscape is,
As the long the photographer is deliberately creating the final result, I'm ok with it. Give it to 100 people and it would be processed 100 different ways.
This is a great image. The light painting is masterfully done.
I agree with what has been said about the overall feeling of the scene and the sky is definitely brighter than what would be witnessed if you were just standing out in a dark field. No arguments from me there. But you also wouldn't be able to see your own feet without external lighting, long exposures, etc. What I set out to do is push the boundaries of what the camera can capture and, with creative light painting, create a scene that appears to be illuminated (at least somewhat) by the bright Milky Way above. No part of this would be visible with your naked eye but a black foreground and silhouetted buildings against a dark sky with faint stars just wouldn’t be interesting and engaging. It's such a fine line to create an image that can convey light yet shot in total darkness. But just like how a ND filter can change water to what your eye can't see, so much of astrophotography is subjectively left to interpretation and I’ll continue to experiment!
rparchen wrote:
I agree with what has been said about the overall feeling of the scene and the sky is definitely brighter than what would be witnessed if you were just standing out in a dark field. No arguments from me there. But you also wouldn't be able to see your own feet without external lighting, long exposures, etc. What I set out to do is push the boundaries of what the camera can capture and, with creative light painting, create a scene that appears to be illuminated (at least somewhat) by the bright Milky Way above. No part of this would be visible with your naked eye but a black foreground and silhouetted buildings against a dark sky with faint stars just wouldn’t be interesting and engaging. It's such a fine line to create an image that can convey light yet shot in total darkness. But just like how a ND filter can change water to what your eye can't see, so much of astrophotography is subjectively left to interpretation and I’ll continue to experiment! ...Show more →
I did not intend through my comment to criticize your experimentation or creative image processing. As I mentioned, I am no photographic "purist" and have little patience for those who would bludgeon others over the head with the mantra of "if it's not subject to the creative and technical limitations of film photography, it's not a photograph." No doubt this kind of imaging requires tremendous pre-visualization in the capture steps, and post-processing creativity. I love that sort of thing (I do it myself), and believe it is just as difficult (if not more) than planning the perfect exposure at the perfect time. What I offered was a subjective opinion on what I thought was and was not working; for my taste, that Milky Way is far too bright. But to each their own!
dgdg wrote:
In January the milky way core cannot be seen by us in the north. You just can't pull out awesome detail like this during the deep of winter. Fear not, mid march the Milky Way core returns just before sunrise!
David
To add to what David said, also keep in mind the OP used a star tracker. No matter what time of year you shoot the Milky Way, shooting it with a star tracker will always let you capture a better, more defined Milky Way. We have seen many a great Milky Way shot here in FM that was shot without a tracker, but using a tracker allows the light of the Milky Way to be captured more intensely and thus end up with a lot more detail.
dgdg wrote:
Astro landscapes are highly subjective - for the photographer and the viewer - since the camera can record much more detail than our eyes can see. I don't like vanilla ice cream or Picasso, but many do. I noticed everything that Arka said and for Arka's taste, that's good too.
I guess my point for the astro landscape is,
As the long the photographer is deliberately creating the final result, I'm ok with it. Give it to 100 people and it would be processed 100 different ways.
This is a great image. The light painting is masterfully done.
David
You don't like vanilla ice cream? I can eat vanilla ice cream all day long!
Well that's freakin sick. Never used a tracker and no idea how it works with getting the shot and then blending but the result is pretty crazy. Great comp and balance of lighting.
aF
Feb 19, 2015 at 03:50 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Really cool photo! Thank you for sharing it with us.
If it was mine, I'd be tempted to turn down the saturation especially in the sky some for a little more naturalism. The green is especially distracting to me. But everyone is different.
The green is air glow.
It can be lovely or annoying. Some nights there is none, other nights is stands out.
Suppose one could reduce green saturation with a mask over the sky portion.
Beautiful. Great job combining the two exposures seamlessly. I would think that the windmill would leave a "shadow" of less-exposed stars as the sky tracker moved, but maybe you shot the stars from a slightly different location?
I can eat vanilla ice cream all day long!