Congratulations to Fouve for winning Feature Thread of the Week with 7 votes - View Previous Winners
On June 13th, two days after opening, my family and I were able to visit and camp in Yosemite National Park. We had campground reservations for our family and family's family (2 sites). One of them got canceled (Due to a 50% capacity limit in the campground), so we had to scramble and get a second site on Friday, the 12th (1 day before our reservations). Thankfully, we managed to get one for 5 nights (instead of our original 7).
This park experience for this first weekend it was re-opened was incredible. It felt like how John Muir must've experienced the park with all its serenity, peacefulness, and wildlife. We saw bears, bear cubs, tons of deer, coyotes, and much more.
We rafted down the river with no one else until the very end (There were still people at Sentinel Beach). It was like we had the park to ourselves.
On the last day of our reservations, I helped put my boys to bed in the tent and managed to get away afterwards to get this photograph of the Milky Way over some of the valley. There were more people at this point in time due to the daily passes, but around 11pm (When they all had to head home), I had the famous Glacier Point all to myself with one other couple. I didn't want to leave even though I was ridiculously tired from a week of tent camping with my 3 boys (6-mo, 3-year old, 5-year old). I eventually succumbed at 1am.
That next morning, I woke up to a rambunctious group of boys at 5:45am and we had to pack up and head out. My boys were so upset the next day that we couldn't go back until later in the year (Or next year). Can't wait to visit for our annual family trip again next year!
This image was taken June 19, 2020 from Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park, CA.
Honestly? No this image has some problems. The Milky Way looks artificially added. The mountains are brighter than the sky, where is that light coming from? Did you select mountains and adjust your sky only? It looks like the image is a combination of two separate shots. But the peaks in the distance are far too bright, and they don't match the light in the sky, nor it's their color. The more in the distance you look, the more it should match the color/light in the sky. This image is artificially made or badly processed. So this is the honest criticism from me. If you didn't manipulate your sky it would've been a nice shot. Also, you made your stars pop too much, IMHO. Why? It made the shot so busy, it looks as if it was snowing in space. Also, right next to the horizon line you will have a lot less (almost none) stars. You have tons. That tells me you've substituted the sky and/or moved down the Milky Way to make it align to the mountains. I don't want to be nasty but it does not look good.
I agree totally.......this images has the potential of being excellent.......but as it is it hurts my eyes and confuses my brain. I don't want to be cruel.....but really you won't learn anything if we all tell falsely how great it is. Sorry
Fouve wrote:
On June 13th, two days after opening, my family and I were able to visit and camp in Yosemite National Park. We had campground reservations for our family and family's family (2 sites). One of them got canceled (Due to a 50% capacity limit in the campground), so we had to scramble and get a second site on Friday, the 12th (1 day before our reservations). Thankfully, we managed to get one for 5 nights (instead of our original 7).
This park experience for this first weekend it was re-opened was incredible. It felt like how John Muir must've experienced the park with all its serenity, peacefulness, and wildlife. We saw bears, bear cubs, tons of deer, coyotes, and much more.
We rafted down the river with no one else until the very end (There were still people at Sentinel Beach). It was like we had the park to ourselves.
On the last day of our reservations, I helped put my boys to bed in the tent and managed to get away afterwards to get this photograph of the Milky Way over some of the valley. There were more people at this point in time due to the daily passes, but around 11pm (When they all had to head home), I had the famous Glacier Point all to myself with one other couple. I didn't want to leave even though I was ridiculously tired from a week of tent camping with my 3 boys (6-mo, 3-year old, 5-year old). I eventually succumbed at 1am.
That next morning, I woke up to a rambunctious group of boys at 5:45am and we had to pack up and head out. My boys were so upset the next day that we couldn't go back until later in the year (Or next year). Can't wait to visit for our annual family trip again next year!
This image was taken June 19, 2020 from Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park, CA....Show more →
I love pictures like this.. because it makes me realize whats important and also in a sense how idiotic humanity has become, at each others throats over the most insane and inhumane reasons ever. People are killing and attacking each other because of a color or party affiliation and forget how unique we are and how earth is a floating, rotating rock with 4-seasons and beauty in almost every part of nature, and a VAST universe that leaves one in amazement and wondering what comes next
Gregg B. wrote:
Honestly? No this image has some problems. The Milky Way looks artificially added. The mountains are brighter than the sky, where is that light coming from? Did you select mountains and adjust your sky only? It looks like the image is a combination of two separate shots. But the peaks in the distance are far too bright, and they don't match the light in the sky, nor it's their color. The more in the distance you look, the more it should match the color/light in the sky. This image is artificially made or badly processed. So this is the honest criticism from me. If you didn't manipulate your sky it would've been a nice shot. Also, you made your stars pop too much, IMHO. Why? It made the shot so busy, it looks as if it was snowing in space. Also, right next to the horizon line you will have a lot less (almost none) stars. You have tons. That tells me you've substituted the sky and/or moved down the Milky Way to make it align to the mountains. I don't want to be nasty but it does not look good. ...Show more →
No worries man! Appreciate the criticism. I rarely do Milky Way photography (This is my 4th outing) and really only did it because it was my only chance to shoot that whole week due to it being a family vacation. So, the tips are helpful.
I lowered the sky a bit to remove a tree in the shot when I did the star tracking. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a composition I liked when I took this star tracking shot, so I moved and took my foreground shot to a thousand feet or so right. So, there was a tree that I needed to eliminate from the shot which (with my limited photoshop experience) could only drop it lower to get rid of it as I didn't know another way around it.
The light on the foreground (Half Dome and mountains) was also in the original shot, but that's because I did a 591 second exposure for the foreground. But, I think I also might've added some blur and reduced the contrast to the mountains farther back to make Half Dome a bit more prominent and make the valleys and mountains feel more distant.
I'll learn the more I do this, for sure. If I wouldn't have posted this shot, however, I wouldn't have gotten the tips you gave. I appreciate the comment.
Hey Fouve - to have been out there taking any picture at all, given your camping situation, is enough to earn my respect. This did strike me as more "graphic art" right from the get-go, nothing wrong with that and most importantly in my mind, it reminded me instantly of my time in the Sierras and how awestruck I have been staring up at the sky and stars. So technicalities aside, for me as a viewer this image was successful.
Skyhawk15 wrote:
Hey Fouve - to have been out there taking any picture at all, given your camping situation, is enough to earn my respect. This did strike me as more "graphic art" right from the get-go, nothing wrong with that and most importantly in my mind, it reminded me instantly of my time in the Sierras and how awestruck I have been staring up at the sky and stars. So technicalities aside, for me as a viewer this image was successful.
I definitely took some artistic liberties, but, honestly, didn’t realize or focus on the things Gregg mentioned above. So, I appreciate his comments. I also try to give context around my photographs (when I have some) as, I believe, it makes us much more human and allows for more understanding. So, I appreciate your feedback as well. Thanks!
I think the image has a lot of potential, but this iteration isn't doing it for me. Awesome location, awesome night out under the stars, and I'm jealous of that, for sure.
1. The sky looks forced. I'm not a fan of blue night skies - unless you took this with the moon up, or it was twilight. I've seen blue(ish) MW skies when photographing at a Vermont lake - but it was as the sun came up - and the number of stars dropped as the brightness increased. On June 19 you had a nearly new moon and it would have been below the horizon while you were shooting - so that wouldn't light the landscape nor change the color of the sky.
1a. I think a more natural MW / sky color would work really well here - the warmer tones of the MW and a more charcoal sky would play nicely with the half / half composition - warmer / darker sky against the cool greys and greens of the mountains. You can certainly push a cold feeling - but the tungsten(ish) WB of the sky is a real put off for me. Lots of people eat that up though - so you might sell a lot of prints, but personally I start with something close to reality and then push and pull (a bit) to make the photo work with your vision. Most landscapers are making art, not documentary images - so I understand wanting to make the image fit a certain vision... for me the blue sky divorces me from reality and I can't suspend the belief that this is unreal.
1b. Do you know Roger Clark's work? Despite seeing people attack / bicker with him on other forums I really appreciate his articles and methods to get good astro landscape photos. His shot of Maroon Bells is one of my favourites (https://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/maroon-bells_nightscape_rnclark_c09.28.2013.o-bin6x6c1-1024vs.html) He has a ton of information on his website - so even if you disagree with his approach to color his techniques would give you a great starting place to push and pull from.
2. You are tracking? I think you may have overexposed, or have done something in processing to lose a lot of star color. There is a lot of wonderful color in the MW and the night sky in general. Most of your stars are bright blue / white. 12mm @f4 means a tiny physical aperture - so longer exposures are needed. At 421 seconds you must have nailed your alignment - that is a long time and you are only showing some trailing (that I can see at this low resolution) in the upper left. Maybe test out shorter exposures and consider stacking.
2a. If I had access to this location and a clear night I think I would shoot at 20-35mm or greater and make a mosaic. Using a larger physical aperture lens you'd have faster exposures and capture more detail in the sky and landscape. It would take more time and care - but would be an amazing image.
3. Have you tried removing the purple fringing with the CA tool in Lr (I'm not sure if other apps have similar features)? It won't solve the color problem, but there is alot of purple around the stars. What lens were you using?
4. Stacking... have you tried it? Tracking and stacking the sky and stacking the foreground. The sky might work with something like 4) 1 minute exposures (depending on what apertures you have to play with) or 10 (or more) 30s exposures at higher ISO. The landscape would benefit as well by being able to knock down the noise.
5. Horizon - I agree with a previous poster that the horizon doesn't look right. I've only had the chance to shoot stars with alpine mountains once (Matterhorn star trails) and had sky glow and haze at the horizon, so I don't know if its typically the case or you had a night of exceptional seeing. Those distant stars being so crisp above the mountains feel wrong - I could be wrong here without real world experience - but a quick image search shows that atmospheric perspective seems real with night photography with alpine mountains. Air glow / sky glow can also be beautiful... personally I think working with it in a landscape is the right thing to do (instead of processing it out, like one might try to do when photographing a distant galaxy, etc.)
6. Landscape - I think I would push a bit darker on the immediate foreground and let the mountains stand out a bit more. Maybe a bit of vignette at the bottom and left and right. Half Dome is already dominant and draws the eye in, but my mind sees that as being brighter than the immediate foreground. I think the waterfalls are a bit bright. Making them a bit more subtle I think would help create some depth to the scene. I also think you could pull off a square crop, leaving out the trees on the left and right. It would tell a different story, and be a different image - but could work very well.
Hope to see more, and hope these comments are taken in good faith.
bmike-vt wrote:
1b. Do you know Roger Clark's work? Despite seeing people attack / bicker with him on other forums I really appreciate his articles and methods to get good astro landscape photos. His shot of Maroon Bells is one of my favourites (https://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/maroon-bells_nightscape_rnclark_c09.28.2013.o-bin6x6c1-1024vs.html) He has a ton of information on his website - so even if you disagree with his approach to color his techniques would give you a great starting place to push and pull from.
I like all of your comments except the above. His astroscapes look like a hot mess, and he's clueless about making a clean and natural looking blend in post. That's all.
01Ryan10 wrote:
I like all of your comments except the above. His astroscapes look like a hot mess, and he's clueless about making a clean and natural looking blend in post. That's all.
Fair. Here’s a user right here in FM that makes great mountain astro landscapes:
Previous comments aside, and I think there were good points by all, but I'm sure it was great to be in a place so dark. There are people in this world who can't imagine what they can see or get a sense of how small we are until they get somewhere like this.
I'm going to Alaska in July and I hope to have good weather shoot the galaxy like this.
Nice!
Gregg B. wrote:
Honestly? No this image has some problems. The Milky Way looks artificially added. The mountains are brighter than the sky, where is that light coming from? Did you select mountains and adjust your sky only? It looks like the image is a combination of two separate shots. But the peaks in the distance are far too bright, and they don't match the light in the sky, nor it's their color. The more in the distance you look, the more it should match the color/light in the sky. This image is artificially made or badly processed. So this is the honest criticism from me. If you didn't manipulate your sky it would've been a nice shot. Also, you made your stars pop too much, IMHO. Why? It made the shot so busy, it looks as if it was snowing in space. Also, right next to the horizon line you will have a lot less (almost none) stars. You have tons. That tells me you've substituted the sky and/or moved down the Milky Way to make it align to the mountains. I don't want to be nasty but it does not look good. ...Show more →
I enjoyed the story and could identify with the experience, as I had Forrest Gump point almost to myself for 2 full hours in late May, as well as a number of other fairly heavily visited locations in the Southwest - probably a once in a lifetime experience.
With that said, I agree that the image has been processed extremely heavily. The denoising is turned to 11, which produces a nice painterly effect that may or may not have been intended. In fact I initially thought that the image is a digital drawing and not a photograph.
Gregg B's points about the light not matching the scene are valid, but I am willing to give anyone the artistic liberty to do whatever they want with the light, color, and perspective distortion of their ladscape images, as long as there is not (too much) embelishment and the view is something that I ***could*** have seen with my own eyes.
The Milky Way is the most problematic part of the image for me. The dodging to emphasize the MW has been done to the point where stars in the core are merging into an indistinct white blob. My personal choice is usually to run a dust-and-specs filter on the MW to remove about half the stars and produce a more subtle effect. All of these are artistic choices that we can agree to disagree about.
What is indisputable is that it is impossible for the OP to have seen this particular scene with their own eyes. The azimuth of Half Dome relative to Glacier point is ~60 degrees. On June 20th the galactic center became visible at around 10:50pm at an azimuth of 150 degrees and by 1am was at an azimuth of 195 dgrees. Given the perspective the galactic center simply could not have been where it is in this image. In fact, it was not anywhere within the FOV and was blended in after the fact.
