Milky Way photo post processing: I took these last Friday. This was near Breckenridge, CO. The sky was pretty dark, but there was a house nearby with an outdoor light on that shed some...

RGreenway Loc: Morristown, New Jersey

I took these last Friday. This was near Breckenridge, CO. The sky was pretty dark, but there was a house nearby with an outdoor light on that shed some light on the trees. I am looking for advice on post-processing in Lightroom to get the most out of these! Lens was ZM 15/2.8 on a Sony AR7II. Shot at 3200 and 2000 ISO and 15 to 20 sec exposure. All taken at f2.8.

The last one is puzzling to me. Some of the stars have streaks, but most do not. Was this a movement of the tripod?

mogilvie Loc: San Diego, CA, USA

Or an earthquake. All of the streaks are in the same direction, not from the earth's rotation.

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Very good Greenway, the last looks like there was slight movement of the tripod, even the trees are a little blurry.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

ebbote wrote:

Very good Greenway, the last looks like there was slight movement of the tripod, even the trees are a little blurry.

The streak in Photo #2 is caused by either a tumbling satellite or an aircraft strobe. Keep your exposure times at 15 seconds or less to minimize star tails. Your file sizes were very small. Your best photo was#3 which I copied and then enhanced by upping the contrast and the highlights.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not see how one can see motion blur on thumbnails but then again....

Usually straight steaks in a sky are: Meteorite, planes*, satellites.

If all stars are motion blurred, look at tripod.
If only SOME stars show a blur think small cloud, smoke, rising air
If the earthly things are motion blurred (tree line) think wind - Motion blur, low level rising air will create a 'normal' blur.

Note that you have a bigger problem in the three last images... A flare of some kind.

-----
* Planes sometime show a 'pulsating' quality (image #2) due to their blinking flight lights, red, green and white, color give the plane orientation (outside point of view) and the white helps assessing the speed (or so I have been told). Note that satellites will sometime also show a pulsating quality when they rotate around their own axis.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Oh, there is a section dedicated to night photography, you may want to join it and ask there too. Some of these folks are really experienced.

When asking for a feedback on images either off a 1:1 crop to show details or post the largest original you can (up to 20mb) so folks can see what you are looking at.

UHH thumbnail compression creates a soup that is, well, unpalatable when trying to figure out a specific answer (that and the missing EXIF data - If you did not take it out as I usually do)

Jfordorl

Only the brightest stars are blurred, so it was camera movement most likely at shutter release. The dimmer stars were not bright enough to show the movement.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Jfordorl wrote:

Only the brightest stars are blurred, so it was camera movement most likely at shutter release. The dimmer stars were not bright enough to show the movement.

Your supposition is wrong. It is the Earth's rotation that is responsible for blurring. The camera was tripod mounted and the moment of shutter release is moot.

RGreenway Loc: Morristown, New Jersey

Not sure. The shutter was triggered by a wired remote, so don't think it was that, but the tripod might have been jiggled by me or the wind. It was a carbon fiber travel tripod without benefit of a weight to stabilize it. Only one of about 6 exposures showed this motion artifact, and all we about the same length.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Rongnongno wrote:

.../... * Planes sometime show a 'pulsating' quality (image #2) due to their blinking flight lights, red, green and white .../...

I was corrected in a pm that only the white light is blinking so I am now correcting my post.

If I confused anyone, sorry.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

RGreenway wrote:

Not sure. The shutter was triggered by a wired remote, so don't think it was that, but the tripod might have been jiggled by me or the wind. It was a carbon fiber travel tripod without benefit of a weight to stabilize it. Only one of about 6 exposures showed this motion artifact, and all we about the same length.

Satellite or aircraft. Nothing else would produce the regularity of brightness changes. The distances between bright ares for a tumbling satellite would generally be greater, so my money is on aircraft.

sailorsmom Loc: Souderton, PA

All I can say is they're beautiful images, RGreenway!

RGreenway Loc: Morristown, New Jersey

Thank you! The key is dark skies, and no clouds! Tripod and wire release! Wide angle lens and the camera does all the work!

Rob48 Loc: Portland, ME

RGreenway wrote:

I took these last Friday. This was near Breckenridge, CO. The sky was pretty dark, but there was a house nearby with an outdoor light on that shed some light on the trees. I am looking for advice on post-processing in Lightroom to get the most out of these! Lens was ZM 15/2.8 on a Sony AR7II. Shot at 3200 and 2000 ISO and 15 to 20 sec exposure. All taken at f2.8.

The last one is puzzling to me. Some of the stars have streaks, but most do not. Was this a movement of the tripod?

The blurring in #4 aside, I like this series; they look crisp and nicely framed. Do you have larger size photos. Have you used a delayed shutter or a remote shutter release.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

The last image is indicative of too long of an exposure. 15 seconds or less. Your camera will probably do well at a higher ISO than 3200. 3200 is pretty much the limit for my A57. The other issue that I was discussing was the long streak on the upper right quadrant if photo 2.