Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Astronomical Photography Forum
Wide angle astronomy
Jun 7, 2016 11:31:38   #
GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA
 
I got a chance to head out to darker skies Saturday, not dark ind you, just darker

I wanted to head out to catch a glimpse of a bright Iridium flare, and while I was out I figured I might as well get some photos too.

I left one camera running by itself after the first few photos, grabbed 305 30 sec exposures
For a total exposure of 2:30:30.
With an elapsed time of 3:09:50.
I expected a difference to allow for the time between shots, but even counting that, I see a difference of 12:12.
I don't see a gap in the trails that would explain it.

My guess is that every so often the time between would stretch out a couple/few seconds. Without looking at the EXIF data for EVERY one, I can't think of a way to find out.

GT


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jun 7, 2016 11:52:23   #
CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.
 
GTinSoCal wrote:
I got a chance to head out to darker skies Saturday, not dark ind you, just darker

I wanted to head out to catch a glimpse of a bright Iridium flare, and while I was out I figured I might as well get some photos too.

I left one camera running by itself after the first few photos, grabbed 305 30 sec exposures
For a total exposure of 2:30:30.
With an elapsed time of 3:09:50.
I expected a difference to allow for the time between shots, but even counting that, I see a difference of 12:12.
I don't see a gap in the trails that would explain it.

My guess is that every so often the time between would stretch out a couple/few seconds. Without looking at the EXIF data for EVERY one, I can't think of a way to find out.

GT
I got a chance to head out to darker skies Saturda... (show quote)

Very nice work Gordon. Did you go all the way out to Joshua Tree???
Craig

Reply
Jun 7, 2016 12:22:19   #
GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA
 
CraigFair wrote:
Very nice work Gordon. Did you go all the way out to Joshua Tree???
Craig


Thank you!

OH GEEZ!
NO!

I just went out to Saddleback Butte about 20 miles east of home


GT


(Download)

Reply
Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Jun 7, 2016 14:10:46   #
Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM
 
I really like 2 and 5.
Great shots.
You need to quit leaning on you truck so heavy. It's out of alignment now. ;o).

Reply
Jun 7, 2016 14:54:38   #
GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA
 
Albuqshutterbug wrote:
I really like 2 and 5.
Great shots.
You need to quit leaning on you truck so heavy. It's out of alignment now. ;o).


Thank you!




GT

Reply
Jun 7, 2016 20:48:11   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
Like them all, what camera were you using and what was your settings for the Milky Way and the star trails?

Reply
Jun 7, 2016 23:07:17   #
GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA
 
Europa wrote:
Like them all, what camera were you using and what was your settings for the Milky Way and the star trails?


Thank you,

I used Canon 50d for the star trails and 5d MkII for the Milky Way photos.
Star Trails: ISO 3200, 8mm, f3.5, 30 sec, 305 exposures
Milky Way: ISO 6400, 14mm, f2.8, 30 sec
First Iridium flare: 50d, ISO 640, 8mm, f3.5, 30 sec 1 exposure
Second Iridium flare: 5d MkII, ISO 6400, 14mm, f2.8, 20 sec 6 exposures

I added some extra light on some of the images, with a flashlight or strobe.

GT

Reply
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Jun 7, 2016 23:27:56   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
Thanks, I guess the II does a great job with noise.

Reply
Jun 8, 2016 06:54:48   #
Mary Kate Loc: NYC
 
What would happen if you reduced the ISO and extended the exposure time.

Reply
Jun 8, 2016 08:41:44   #
GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA
 
collhart wrote:
What would happen if you reduced the ISO and extended the exposure time.


I've done that too, but, I prefer the 30 max to keep things simple. A standard wired release will work then
Even though there is some movement of the stars, I don't find it objectionable. Much more time and the would really start to streak.

Up to around 3 minutes the II does a great job, but that is with help from Adobe

GT

Reply
Jun 8, 2016 08:54:42   #
dlmorris Loc: Loma Linda, Ca
 
Really nice set! I especially like the last one, with the log seemingly with it's fingers together, and pointing to the sky! Very nice.

Reply
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jun 8, 2016 08:57:06   #
GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA
 
dlmorris wrote:
Really nice set! I especially like the last one, with the log seemingly with it's fingers together, and pointing to the sky! Very nice.


Thank you!

I'm really glad I ran across that dead Joshua!

GT

Reply
Jun 12, 2016 03:01:27   #
SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA
 
Beautiful Gordon!
Sounds like you might have bumped into something I did. I offer the following for your consideration...

When using my intervalometer, I set for a 25 second exposure, then give a 5 second lapse to make sure the shot is saved and the camera has reset.
When I push it, sometimes a shorter storage time causes the rig to delay.
Hence (also) why I use the biggest, baddest, fastest SD card recommended for my meager DSLR. I couldn't do much for the cameras lack of huevos, but I could gulp and buy a fast and huge (64gig-95/90ms) SD card. Been really happy with it.
Generally stores in <1 second. But running 25/5 for a total 30, or 2 winks a minute, I can estimate my count better.

Last time I did a night run I amassed over 3000 shutter counts (1 night). I can see wearing out my camera pretty quickly, and have in excess of 50,000 counts in less than 2 years.
But it is a great way to catch what my eye misses.
And I'm lazy, set it and forget it. Sleep while it works the night shift.

Reply
Jun 12, 2016 12:14:48   #
nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina
 
GTinSoCal wrote:
I got a chance to head out to darker skies Saturday, not dark ind you, just darker

I wanted to head out to catch a glimpse of a bright Iridium flare, and while I was out I figured I might as well get some photos too.

I left one camera running by itself after the first few photos, grabbed 305 30 sec exposures
For a total exposure of 2:30:30.
With an elapsed time of 3:09:50.
I expected a difference to allow for the time between shots, but even counting that, I see a difference of 12:12.
I don't see a gap in the trails that would explain it.

My guess is that every so often the time between would stretch out a couple/few seconds. Without looking at the EXIF data for EVERY one, I can't think of a way to find out.

GT
I got a chance to head out to darker skies Saturda... (show quote)


Well done!

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
Astronomical Photography Forum
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.