Made a mad dash out to Mono Lake a couple of weekends ago. It's a 4 hour drive for me, so my friend and I
left after dinner and made it around midnight. Shot till sunrise then drove home. . I think the temperature was about 22° F (~ -5°C) so we froze our toes and fingers off. I have a star tracker but it was too cold for me to pull it out and fiddle with polar alignment and the like, so I just shot multiple frames for the sky and then stacked them in sequator for noise reduction and blended with a long exposure foreground with some very low level lighting.
These are all gorgeous and an incredible series! Good job! I know how cold it can get at Mono Lake so my hat is off to you for your midnight adventure!
hm2008 wrote:
Very nice set. It worth the drive.
Cheers mate. Appreciate the comment.
---------------------------------------------
Starfire8 wrote:
These are all gorgeous and an incredible series! Good job! I know how cold it can get at Mono Lake so my hat is off to you for your midnight adventure!
Best regards, David
Thanks David. I take it you have photographed there before then. I went and checked out your gallery. Beautiful and extensive.
---------------------------------------------
Jim Dockery wrote:
Nice work with all of these. The MW shots are other worldly.
Thanks Jim, appreciate it.
---------------------------------------------
kalifornier wrote:
Wow! Just fantastic.
Thanks so much. I see you are a fellow Sacramentan!
---------------------------------------------
psharvic wrote:
Fine work on these.
Thank you so much for the feedback
---------------------------------------------
keepclicking wrote:
Hats off to you for braving the cold weather to get these images. Good work 👍🏻
Love these. Love those little sand tufas. Was just out there a month back and got some great lenticular clouds at sunset. It can get super cold out there this time of year. Also like the MW arch this time of year. One thought would be to brush in some reduction to the green hues on the horizon.
Hathaway wrote:
One thought would be to brush in some reduction to the green hues on the horizon.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you say that? I actually enjoy the fact that the OP left the natural color of the sky as it existed on that night. Without airglow, a clear sky would look the same each and every night.
Jeff wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you say that? I actually enjoy the fact that the OP left the natural color of the sky as it existed on that night. Without airglow, a clear sky would look the same each and every night.
Not recommending to remove the airglow just some of what appears to be color noise from high ISO. There are lots of ways to eliminate it or reduce it but that is one subtle way without significantly altering the exposure.
Hathaway wrote:
One thought would be to brush in some reduction to the green hues on the horizon.
Jeff wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you say that? I actually enjoy the fact that the OP left the natural color of the sky as it existed on that night. Without airglow, a clear sky would look the same each and every night.
Hathaway wrote:
Not recommending to remove the airglow just some of what appears to be color noise from high ISO. There are lots of ways to eliminate it or reduce it but that is one subtle way without significantly altering the exposure.
Ah, so you are talking about on the land, not the sky. Got it!
. I think the temperature was about 22° F (~ -5°C) so we froze our toes and fingers off. I have a star tracker but it was too cold for me to pull it out and fiddle with polar alignment and the like, so I just shot multiple frames for the sky and then stacked them in sequator for noise reduction and blended with a long exposure foreground with some very low level lighting.
