Light painting in the night sky.
Oct 15, 2018 11:30:23 #
You might wonder why I didn't put this in the astrophotography section. Well, for starters, those folks are way beyond anything I could do. There is some really stunning stuff, over there, and anything I am liable to do is pedestrian, by comparison. Besides, this is really not about astrophotography. It is more about nighttime photography than anything else.
I only get a chance to shoot the night sky about once a year. Where I live, the light pollution is pretty bad, so nighttime shots are never that interesting. These shots were taken on a recent trip up to the Sierras, to visit friends. They live in the mountains, and there is no light pollution. There are also bears, out there, so venturing into an area that had fewer trees was contraindicated. Also, I would have loved to shoot the Milky Way, but it was the wrong time of year, for that. The Milky Way was mostly in the southern hemisphere.
I shot these with a full frame camera, on a tripod, using a Rokinon 14mm, f/2.8 lens. The lens is manual focus, but it does have the AE chip that would allow me to use the lens in aperture or shutter priority, if I wanted to. That doesn't really come into play, when shooting the stars. These were shot at f/2.8, with a 30 second shutter speed, using ISO 2000.
It was not possible to get a shot without a lot of trees, mostly because I didn't want to venture too far from the house in that pitch black. We had just returned from a sumptuous feast, and any self-respecting bear would have been able to sniff me from a few miles away. (Residents in that area occasionally wake up to claw marks on their cars, so the threat is not imaginary.) It is good to have some terrestrial markers in the photo, anyway, to give one a sense of perspective.
The first shot is just a straight shot, with no light paining. You can easily see the silhouettes of the trees. The lighted parts of the trees were courtesy of lamps, inside the house.
I reviewed the shot I took, and thought that I might try painting the big tree, on the right, with a flashlight. I made two mistakes when I did that, but I couldn't see those mistakes until I put the shots up on the computer, a couple of days later. First, I let the flashlight linger too long on the trunk of the tree. Second, I did not paint the entire top of the tree. I only painted the center of the top of the tree. I didn't do this on purpose, and I really couldn't tell I did that, until I went to examine the photo, on the computer. That is when I noticed my mistake. It looks as if the tree has a giant, black halo. It I had not explained this mistake, you might even think that this was a completely inept attempt at inserting a tree, in post processing.
There is some amount of post processing I do, to enhance the stars. I have found that it is not enough just to increase contrast, in certain parts of the shot. A better approach, in my opinion, is to use a luminosity mask to brighten only the stars, but not too much. Then, duplicate that layer, adjusting the opacity so that a little extra brightness comes through, but not at the expense of lightening the black sky.
So, here they are, for your perusal.
I only get a chance to shoot the night sky about once a year. Where I live, the light pollution is pretty bad, so nighttime shots are never that interesting. These shots were taken on a recent trip up to the Sierras, to visit friends. They live in the mountains, and there is no light pollution. There are also bears, out there, so venturing into an area that had fewer trees was contraindicated. Also, I would have loved to shoot the Milky Way, but it was the wrong time of year, for that. The Milky Way was mostly in the southern hemisphere.
I shot these with a full frame camera, on a tripod, using a Rokinon 14mm, f/2.8 lens. The lens is manual focus, but it does have the AE chip that would allow me to use the lens in aperture or shutter priority, if I wanted to. That doesn't really come into play, when shooting the stars. These were shot at f/2.8, with a 30 second shutter speed, using ISO 2000.
It was not possible to get a shot without a lot of trees, mostly because I didn't want to venture too far from the house in that pitch black. We had just returned from a sumptuous feast, and any self-respecting bear would have been able to sniff me from a few miles away. (Residents in that area occasionally wake up to claw marks on their cars, so the threat is not imaginary.) It is good to have some terrestrial markers in the photo, anyway, to give one a sense of perspective.
The first shot is just a straight shot, with no light paining. You can easily see the silhouettes of the trees. The lighted parts of the trees were courtesy of lamps, inside the house.
I reviewed the shot I took, and thought that I might try painting the big tree, on the right, with a flashlight. I made two mistakes when I did that, but I couldn't see those mistakes until I put the shots up on the computer, a couple of days later. First, I let the flashlight linger too long on the trunk of the tree. Second, I did not paint the entire top of the tree. I only painted the center of the top of the tree. I didn't do this on purpose, and I really couldn't tell I did that, until I went to examine the photo, on the computer. That is when I noticed my mistake. It looks as if the tree has a giant, black halo. It I had not explained this mistake, you might even think that this was a completely inept attempt at inserting a tree, in post processing.
There is some amount of post processing I do, to enhance the stars. I have found that it is not enough just to increase contrast, in certain parts of the shot. A better approach, in my opinion, is to use a luminosity mask to brighten only the stars, but not too much. Then, duplicate that layer, adjusting the opacity so that a little extra brightness comes through, but not at the expense of lightening the black sky.
So, here they are, for your perusal.
Oct 15, 2018 11:47:21 #
I was on the edge of my seat 'til I finished reading this, worried that you were writing from the hospital, Jim 
Seems like we need more to "ground" us and for scale. I rotated #2 to remove the bits on left and to make the tree more prominent. It's in your pm inbox
This type of photography seems similar to shooting the moon, choosing between documentary or making part of a composition. I recall some striking night sky shots that have abandoned buildings and landscape in foreground. But "just" a frame mostly filled with tiny white dots is difficult to embrace IMO.
Seems like we need more to "ground" us and for scale. I rotated #2 to remove the bits on left and to make the tree more prominent. It's in your pm inbox
This type of photography seems similar to shooting the moon, choosing between documentary or making part of a composition. I recall some striking night sky shots that have abandoned buildings and landscape in foreground. But "just" a frame mostly filled with tiny white dots is difficult to embrace IMO.
Oct 15, 2018 15:01:13 #
Linda -- I like what you did with it, although I'd prefer a bit more of the tree silhouette at the top of the frame. It's not that I really like that silhouette, but I do think it frames the starry sky. That is another area I should have painted with the flashlight, but did not. Next time, for sure.
It was much more difficult than you'd think, to get a nicely framed shot with some trees, but mostly stars. That 14mm lens on a full frame camera is really quite wide, and the gaps in the trees were much too small. Clearly, some cropping was required.
It just occurred to me that I probably should have used a flash, rather than a flash light. A flash would have illuminated much more of the tree tops, but would not have affected the night sky. I hope I can remember that, the next time I find myself in a place with no light pollution. (Ironic, isn't it? You look for a place with no light pollution, then you add light.)
It was much more difficult than you'd think, to get a nicely framed shot with some trees, but mostly stars. That 14mm lens on a full frame camera is really quite wide, and the gaps in the trees were much too small. Clearly, some cropping was required.
It just occurred to me that I probably should have used a flash, rather than a flash light. A flash would have illuminated much more of the tree tops, but would not have affected the night sky. I hope I can remember that, the next time I find myself in a place with no light pollution. (Ironic, isn't it? You look for a place with no light pollution, then you add light.)
Oct 15, 2018 15:15:22 #
Anvil wrote:
It just occurred to me that I probably should have used a flash, rather than a flash light. A flash would have illuminated much more of the tree tops, but would not have affected the night sky. I hope I can remember that, the next time I find myself in a place with no light pollution. (Ironic, isn't it? You look for a place with no light pollution, then you add light.)
Oct 15, 2018 15:43:53 #
kenievans
Loc: Dallas
I really like the first one better than the second one but I would crop out those little bits in the bottom. I see the pattern the stars make. They have a rhythm and movement and just that touch of the lighted tree to the side gives me the perspective. I think the painted tree in the second one distracts from the star pattern. Thats just MHO.
Oct 15, 2018 16:36:35 #
Thanks for your comments. I know what you are saying, and I agree. Originally, I thought the tree silhouettes needed a bit more detail, rather than being simple, black shadows. That is why I tried the light painting. It didn't work out as well as I wanted it to, so it certainly became a distraction. One cannot help but focus on that crazy, black halo around the lighted tree.
Oct 16, 2018 09:04:48 #
I moved my screen to eliminate the leaves from the bottom photo (green-topped tree), and really like the effect it makes, especially as a Halloween photo.
Oct 16, 2018 09:55:07 #
You are right -- neither the green-topped tree, nor the reddish one, adds anything. Thanks!
Oct 16, 2018 10:38:42 #
First of all, I think that the two images are "saying" totally different things. The first is all about the sky and the tree sort of gets in the way. The second is all about the tree. I guess what bothers me most is the angle of the tree. I would like both better if the tree were straight up. When doing the light painting, you might try using a less powerful light so that the tree shows up but doesn't overpower the sky. I've tried this a few times. I actually did it with "live view" turned on, so I could watch the screen and let it tell me when I had enough light. Also, it looks like it's white light. You might try a flashlight that has a warmer tone. I have never been able to get a picture of the stars, so I applaud you in that effort. (Well, I did, once, back in film days. But when I tried to scan the negative, my scanner program thought the stars were dust spots and eliminated most of them!)
Oct 16, 2018 10:59:28 #
Thanks. Indeed, that flashlight was too harsh, and I had it turned on too long. If I recall, it was an LED flashlight, so the light was so white it was probably blue. I get to practice this so rarely that it is difficult to learn more than one, new thing at a time. I improved my shot of the nighttime, starry sky, quite a bit from the last time I tried, but the last time, I didn't even think to try light painting on the trees. Next time I try this, I'll probably take the perfect shot, just as a bear starts tugging on my leg.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.