Your pick please

blackstar

Senior Member
I had my Milky Way shot processed to three versions. Please pick one that you deem the best (of the three) and provide your points. To avoid bias, I'll not disclose the different programs used for the three versions until later. Thanks
1.
2020-08-09_22-12-54-DT-s.jpg

2.
2020-08-09_22-12-54-nik-s.jpg

3.
2020-08-09_22-12-54-aurora-s.jpg
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
I like #2. I like it because of the fact we have visible foreground instead of pure silhouette. But I do not like the moire among the trees. The silhouette of #3 in particular reads as "black T-shirt won at a carnival" to me. Number 1 is alright and looks a lot like what Sequator does with the light-pollution filter set to "aggressive".

If the trees had been light-painted with a flashlight for a couple of frames, you could have set that as a base image and processed for #2's sky. That would be a winner.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
Thanks, BF. Like the fact you point out that the foreground is a little visible for good in #2 ( doesn't mean I like #2 the most) but the moire is kind bad. Also, like the idea of light-painting. Maybe for my next field experiment.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
Thanks, Nikonpup. I guess not so many people appreciate #3's brightening sky by the MW. (except Brent?) But I have to wonder if the vividness and bright colors in #3 are easy to achieve by using photo processors?
 

Needa

Senior Member
Challenge Team
#2 The planet/star to the left's intensity appears more realistic. You might try just light painting just the foreground and not the trees also. Don't brighten more than the sky
 
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
For some reason I'm having trouble liking any of them. But since I am not familiar with post processing Milky Way images, I'm not sure why. I think it has to do with the stars. They seem to be far too bright and larger than I've seen with other Milky Way photos. And that takes my eye away from the true subject which is the Milky Way.

Plus there is too much foreground and not enough of the Milky Way. But keep at it! You've reached the point where the real learning takes place. :encouragement:
 

Danno

Senior Member
I like number 2 as well, but I think you could paint the foreground and get rid of some noise. I would not touch the trees either; they look good just that portion below to the edge of the trees.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
Thanks, Needa and Dan, for the same suggestion about painting the foreground, but not the trees. I tried, not succeeded yet. Maybe didn't find the right tool or method yet.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
For some reason I'm having trouble liking any of them. But since I am not familiar with post processing Milky Way images, I'm not sure why. I think it has to do with the stars. They seem to be far too bright and larger than I've seen with other Milky Way photos. And that takes my eye away from the true subject which is the Milky Way.

Plus there is too much foreground and not enough of the Milky Way. But keep at it! You've reached the point where the real learning takes place. :encouragement:

Thanks, Cindy. First, I have realized this isn't a good example of photo composition as you pointed out that the foreground takes too much space. The truth is: night-sky shots are very hard, for ME, to get a good preview of the scene (through viewfinder and live view) even before test shot (all I can see is some bright star and some faint color of the MW). There's no way to know how big the foreground is. But I suppose now if I set exp to iso3200 and speed to 15", I can get a better preview and take better composition...and actually get much better shots with less PP.

Frankly and like you said, there isn't either of the three be the expectation or like of me also. Take aside the factors of the limitations of camera and lens, as well as my photo skills, there is only little sense to compare with others' great MW photos (e.g., Scott, David, etc... ). I know some photographers emphasize the contradictory scene with bright stars and the MW and make efforts to soften or reduce bright stars in PP. As for me, I kind of like to enjoy both if they do naturally co-exist in the sky... AW, my purpose of the post is mainly to check out my PP efforts (for MW shot) as to which way to proceed and how to improve.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
blackstar, right now it is trial and error - most of us go through that at some point. Once you realize what it is you do and don't want, you can hone your skills. If you are in the northern hemisphere, I believe there is a cutoff time to take Milky Way images. It's my understanding that the Milky Way goes below the horizon in the northern hemisphere at some point late in the year before reemerging in the spring (or early part of the following year).

You are off to a great start! :) Keep it up.
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
Blackstar, I actually posted my learning photos in another thread. You start from somewhere and you learn and gain experience. If you create a masterpiece the very first time, you will just find frustration trying to match that again.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
Hi Cindy, Thanks again for your encouragement. I'm keeping going on my learning path. But I can barely go out these days due to the heavy smokey air around our area. :( ... do more PP?
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Hi Cindy, Thanks again for your encouragement. I'm keeping going on my learning path. But I can barely go out these days due to the heavy smokey air around our area. :( ... do more PP?

I'm afraid I can't answer that question since I know nothing about post processing Milky Way images. There must be some way to make the stars not appear so big though. I can't imagine they were that noticeable in the original files, were they? :confused:
 

blackstar

Senior Member
Hey BF, Thanks for your encouragement. Your last sentence reminds me that I am actually a lucky guy who is a bit disappointed at first, but may not have to suffer lengthy frustration afterward... I hope.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
Cindy, I remember, if correct, the visible period of the MW is from March to Oct. I attach the original jpg below for you to see if the stars are unnaturally big or bright... and as I mentioned it's under-exposed, there are lot more stars hiding... (the image looks exactly as I previewed from viewfinder and live View)

2020-08-09_22-12-54-s.jpg
 
Top