Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Photography
Low Light & Night
Input needed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BF Hammer" data-source="post: 745421" data-attributes="member: 48483"><p>I have many thoughts here. I will try to keep it organized. First of all, while I have places dark enough to photograph the Milky Way within 90 minutes drive, I have known all along that trying to do that in my suburban back-yard is a fantasy. I can take photos of planets and some deep-space objects, but not the Milky Way. Andromeda is near-impossible too. Light pollution is the price we pay for being safe at night on roads and walking in urban places.</p><p></p><p>My first thought is that in the configuration options of Stellarium is a check-box to apply estimated light-pollution to your sky to filter what you are able to see. Turn it off to see what could be visible, but turn it on to see what really will be visible.</p><p></p><p>Your technical settings are close to what I would do. For a f/3.5 lens I would bump up that ISO to beyond 3200. And you are going to need to take more photos. If your D3500 has an intervalometer like my D7000 and D750 do, it should be taking a 15 second exposure every 20 seconds. And have it take 80 photos, maybe even more. I have a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens available for DX format, so I shoot with it at f/1.8. On my FX D750 I have a Sigma 20mm f/1.4 that I actually use at f/1.8. I will set to ISO 3200 at those settings and take 15 second exposures.</p><p></p><p>Then there is the reason for taking 80 photos at least. You are going to use software to stack the images and the light data will be additive to make the Milky Way pop and blend out that excess noise from the high ISO. If you are using a Windows PC, that software will be Sequator. Mac users have been using Starry Sky Stacker for even longer. The software does the masking of the foreground and handles the movement of the stars across the sky.</p><p></p><p>The key to your photo is a darker night site. You cannot overcome ambient light pollution in a wide-field photo. <a href="https://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#4/44.84/-90.62" target="_blank">DarkSiteFinder</a> is one tool to help, but it is not perfect. In my case, I found a park just outside of a small town that is considerably darker than the map would indicate. There is not a single street light in any direction for a mile. The woods around screen out the street lights of the small town nearby. To the north is all state wildlife refuge and public hunting ground. Just a few farm homes in the location. And I discovered years ago that I can actually see the Milky Way with the bare eye there. Not the colorful version in my photos, but the faint milky-white that the Milky Way gets it's name from.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]347046[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>So I am blessed to have some locations. But if you look at that map on a national level, my location in southern Wisconsin is just all light pollution. I see better dark skies in pockets in California.</p><p></p><p>Edit: after finally reading what the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale" target="_blank">Bortle Scale</a> actually is, maybe that map is more accurate than I thought. My backyard would easily be class 6-7 while I think I would call my country park location a solid class 4. The map says 1-2 class difference and I observe 2-3. The visibility of the Milky Way is one of the key determining criteria for classifying on the Bortle Scale.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BF Hammer, post: 745421, member: 48483"] I have many thoughts here. I will try to keep it organized. First of all, while I have places dark enough to photograph the Milky Way within 90 minutes drive, I have known all along that trying to do that in my suburban back-yard is a fantasy. I can take photos of planets and some deep-space objects, but not the Milky Way. Andromeda is near-impossible too. Light pollution is the price we pay for being safe at night on roads and walking in urban places. My first thought is that in the configuration options of Stellarium is a check-box to apply estimated light-pollution to your sky to filter what you are able to see. Turn it off to see what could be visible, but turn it on to see what really will be visible. Your technical settings are close to what I would do. For a f/3.5 lens I would bump up that ISO to beyond 3200. And you are going to need to take more photos. If your D3500 has an intervalometer like my D7000 and D750 do, it should be taking a 15 second exposure every 20 seconds. And have it take 80 photos, maybe even more. I have a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens available for DX format, so I shoot with it at f/1.8. On my FX D750 I have a Sigma 20mm f/1.4 that I actually use at f/1.8. I will set to ISO 3200 at those settings and take 15 second exposures. Then there is the reason for taking 80 photos at least. You are going to use software to stack the images and the light data will be additive to make the Milky Way pop and blend out that excess noise from the high ISO. If you are using a Windows PC, that software will be Sequator. Mac users have been using Starry Sky Stacker for even longer. The software does the masking of the foreground and handles the movement of the stars across the sky. The key to your photo is a darker night site. You cannot overcome ambient light pollution in a wide-field photo. [URL="https://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#4/44.84/-90.62"]DarkSiteFinder[/URL] is one tool to help, but it is not perfect. In my case, I found a park just outside of a small town that is considerably darker than the map would indicate. There is not a single street light in any direction for a mile. The woods around screen out the street lights of the small town nearby. To the north is all state wildlife refuge and public hunting ground. Just a few farm homes in the location. And I discovered years ago that I can actually see the Milky Way with the bare eye there. Not the colorful version in my photos, but the faint milky-white that the Milky Way gets it's name from. [ATTACH=CONFIG]347046._xfImport[/ATTACH] So I am blessed to have some locations. But if you look at that map on a national level, my location in southern Wisconsin is just all light pollution. I see better dark skies in pockets in California. Edit: after finally reading what the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale"]Bortle Scale[/URL] actually is, maybe that map is more accurate than I thought. My backyard would easily be class 6-7 while I think I would call my country park location a solid class 4. The map says 1-2 class difference and I observe 2-3. The visibility of the Milky Way is one of the key determining criteria for classifying on the Bortle Scale. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
Low Light & Night
Input needed
Top