Let me first say that I purposefully brightened this shot considerably for web posting. A few galleries I post on use white for the background, which doesn't work well with night shots IMO. Original version added below...
Hollow rock is an iconic coastal formation located on the North West side of Lake Superior. The Lake Superior coastline "smoothed" with a long exposure. Above you see airglow from the atmosphere. I thought it was an aurora at first, but the kp level for the evening was around 3. Above the milky way lighting the entire scene. This area has virtually no light pollution, the clearest sky I've ever seen to date. I triple processed the shot for land, sea, and sky. 14mm, D800E. Honestly, I can see using the D800E for another few years. I really don't know what they could improve on the DR and detail.
Last month I spent a wonderful few days up on the Northwest side of Lake Superior, near the Canadian border. In fact, the intention of the trip was to capture images like this. I had been planning to get to this area for a couple years now. What ( I hope ) makes for a successful night shot is the composition and elements working together in harmony. A shot of just the Milky Way isn't compelling IMO. In landscape photography you need a strong composition, leading lines, elements that are "near, middle, and far", tack sharpness, mood, and much more. I captured hundreds of images over a couple of nights. This is one of my favorites. What really grabbed my attention was the wet glossy rocks below. I ran a large print of it last night, and it looks fantastic. Detail shot of the rocks attached as well. Thanks for looking.
Stunning! Love how faint details can be see on the island in the 1st shot. Care to share exposure details? Single exposure? One of the best I have ever seen, thanks.
Matt Anderson wrote:
...the intention of the trip was to capture images like this. I had been planning to get to this area for a couple years now...
Its always great when things go as planned!
Matt Anderson wrote:
...What ( I hope ) makes for a successful night shot is the composition and elements working together in harmony. A shot of just the Milky Way isn't compelling IMO. In landscape photography you need a strong composition, leading lines, elements that are "near, middle, and far", tack sharpness, mood, and much more...
I agree, you need a "complete" photo.
I know there are lots of opinion on FM about how a Milky Way should look. However as long as its a nice photo to look at, I could care less if one photographer thinks it should be blue, and another thinks it should be more orange. Just like I don't care if one photographer leaves the stars over exposed (white) and another processes the color back in to them. The composition is what makes it a nice photo and the color is what makes it unique to the artist. None of us have ever seen the milky way in the same way the camera does, so I don't fault people for taking their processing one way or another.
Absolutely fantastic shot. I tried getting one near Niagra, WI around the 4th of July and didn't realize that I didn't have my ISO bumped up and was wondering why I needed 4-5 min exposure times and I didn't get anything like this. I prefer the shot in it's original exposure. Love it. Next time I get up in that area I'm going to remember to set my ISO correctly
I like em both, but also prefer the original. Great work in all respects - esp. the foreground detail (thanks for the close-up). I'd love to see the print! Great work.
JR Photo wrote:
You explained it. Captured it. And now you have it! Well done I might add.
J. R.
---------------------------------------------
Thanks JR!
killersnowman wrote:
lovely stuff matt. impressive that you got a print out of a night mw image. i tend to relegate those to web only display =)
i like the first one the best but the core of the MW is too bright for me. perhaps just bring down the core brightness?
either way nice comp and a great image
-Tyler
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Tyler. I printed a 44" x 44", and it actually looks decent. Star images are hard to process for large fine art prints.
DaleBerlin wrote:
Stunning! Love how faint details can be see on the island in the 1st shot. Care to share exposure details? Single exposure? One of the best I have ever seen, thanks.
---------------------------------------------
Dale, I don't have the exif in front of me, but I believe this was shot a f/2.8 30 seconds ( if you pixel peep you can see a bit of star motion because of the 30 seconds, 15 seconds at 14mm would have been more pinpoint, but less bright )14mm ISO 1600 ( the D800E is so iso-invariant, I use to shoot night shots at 3200 or more, but found 1600 to be a better solution)
Thanks for the kind words.
Brad Williams wrote:
Its always great when things go as planned!
I agree, you need a "complete" photo.
I know there are lots of opinion on FM about how a Milky Way should look. However as long as its a nice photo to look at, I could care less if one photographer thinks it should be blue, and another thinks it should be more orange. Just like I don't care if one photographer leaves the stars over exposed (white) and another processes the color back in to them. The composition is what makes it a nice photo and the color is what makes it unique to the artist. None of us have ever seen the milky way in the same way the camera does, so I don't fault people for taking their processing one way or another.
Assocracer wrote:
Absolutely fantastic shot. I tried getting one near Niagra, WI around the 4th of July and didn't realize that I didn't have my ISO bumped up and was wondering why I needed 4-5 min exposure times and I didn't get anything like this. I prefer the shot in it's original exposure. Love it. Next time I get up in that area I'm going to remember to set my ISO correctly
---------------------------------------------
Thanks a lot !
Hardcore wrote:
Think I prefer the original as well. Great shot Matt!
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Corey ! Congrats again on the featured shot!
Jim Dockery wrote:
I like em both, but also prefer the original. Great work in all respects - esp. the foreground detail (thanks for the close-up). I'd love to see the print! Great work.
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Jim! Print turned out great at 44".
brian_sp wrote:
Hollow Rock, my back yard, or close to it, nice job capturing it with the milky way, i am with most, prefer the original
did you stay in one of the cabins there?
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Brian! I tent camped at Grand Portage marina. What a view ! Interesting campground location I must say. It was an unusual location, I would definietly camp there again.
I hope to return in February when the sun should line up with the hole better...
JimFox wrote:
Hey Matt,
That's a cool location is a cool spot. I prefer the darker version also, it comes across on the web just fine.
Jim
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Jim, appreciate your thoughts !
Scott Kroeker wrote:
Incredible scene. I like the darker version more too.
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Scott!
SidewinderX wrote:
Great shot -- really appreciate the description as well!
dgdg wrote:
I agree this is a great scene. I love the mix of foreground rocks and the distant subjects.
David
Thanks David. Those wet contrasty rocks are my favorite part. ( Showing the dynamic light from the wet sheen )
---------------------------------------------
Thanks everyone for taking time in your busy schedules to comment, I appreciate it.
