Long exposure trails?

[NewbyReefer]

How do you get your camera to not move for long exposure shots? I even put a timer on some and walked away so I didn't disturb it at all. I'm using a Cannon T3 with a EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 Lens


My first attempt of star pictures

 

[jroovers]

You need a shorter focal length. There is a rule in terms of exposure time relative to focal length, I can't remember it specifically, but the longer the focal length, the less time you have. Do you have a shorter lens?

 

[ssick92]

Those look like star trails from star movement, not camera movement. The longest exposure I use is 30 seconds for stars. Any longer than that and the the camera starts to noticeably capture the star trail. I'm guessing your exposure was over a minute.

The only way, as far as I know, to get longer exposure shots without star trails is to get a tripod that will compensate for star movement = $$$$. If you're trying to get one of those super long star trail shots those are done by stacking 1000s of single shots of stars as they move across the sky.

Also, getting one of those little infrared remotes to start the shutter is a great +

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[NewbyReefer]

You need a shorter focal length. There is a rule in terms of exposure time relative to focal length, I can't remember it specifically, but the longer the focal length, the less time you have. Do you have a shorter lens?

Yes I have the standard 18-55mm 0.25/0.8ft lens

Those look like star trails from star movement, not camera movement. The longest exposure I use is 30 seconds for stars. Any longer than that and the the camera starts to noticeably capture the star trail. I'm guessing your exposure was over a minute.

The only way, as far as I know, to get longer exposure shots without star trails is to get a tripod that will compensate for star movement = $$$$. If you're trying to get one of those super long star trail shots those are done by stacking 1000s of single shots of stars as they move across the sky.

Also, getting one of those little infrared remotes to start the shutter is a great +

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not trying for the trails. Just want to pick up more star's than I can see with the naked eye.
Don't see many stars outside of the brighter constolations where I'm at.

 

[ssick92]

What settings were you shooting with on the camera?

You want the largest aperture possible and you are also going to need to use a pretty high ISO (800 or 1600 for most cameras or 3200 if you have a really high end camera) to pick up the dim stars. Unfortunately that usually brings noise but hopefully that can be post processed out. I set my exposure for 30 seconds but even then there was a SLIGHT star trail.

PS - Looks like you caught a UFO in your 3rd picture

 

[JaYbIrD1969]

Yeah, youve got some trippy stuff goin on in those photos. There seems to be a light object thats not a star dancing in front of the lens on a couple of those.

First and formost, you need a tripod. a good one. Not a $30 one from walmart,. heres a good place to start your research. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2812431567/five-of-the-best-tripods-for-under-450

Second, you need a wireless shutter release. You can get away with using the self timer, but I highly recommend the remote as its a very versitile photography tool.

If you are after that awesome galaxy look you see on national geographic, youre not going to get it with your set up. in fact, you may need to sell your home to afford that kind of equipment. you can, however capture some fabulous star fields with your camera.

the most important thing to consider is light polution. You need to be in an area where there is ZERO ambient light caused from cities, cars, moon, etc... Think remote desert locations. The tiniest bit of light can ruin a night shot.

First put your camera on manual mode. (The mistake you made is you shot those on shutter priority at 30 seconds. Shutter priority lets you set your desired shutter speed and the camera makes the other adjustments to aquire a ballanced exposure. You do not want this for night shots, you have to trick the camera so you must use Manual mode)
Then set your lens to manual focus and put it on infinity.
Set your aperture to f10 or higher.
set your ISO as low as your camera allows.
Then set your shutter speed to 10 seconds and take the picture.
Review it. If its too dark with not enough stars, move up to 15 seconds and try it again. If its too bright, shorten the shutter speed. When you get to 30 seconds and longer, your stars are gonna start stretching.

When you do this. Stand perfectly still. even the vibration in the ground can effect the tripod and move the camera. Thats another reason I like the wireless release. you can stand a ways off to take the picture.

Finally, let your camera tell you what adjustments to make. And, Theres a lot of info on line from expert photographers that are a simple google search away

 

[jroovers]

I agree with some of the above... but not all of it.

Here is a helpful link with a great, concise overview:
http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Canon_CDLC_Astrophotography_Quick_Guide.pdf

I would use your 18-55 mm lens. The shorter the focal length, the longer you are able to leave your shutter open without getting stair trails. You'll then "see" more stars in your photo (and likely see ones that you don't see with the naked eye). The sort of general rule for this is as follows:

Longest exposure in seconds (no blur) = 250/F, where F = focal length in mm

So, at 18 mm, your shutter speed could be about 14 seconds before you might start to see some trailing. This isn't a hard and fast rule and you might get away with longer exposures, but trial it out.

Also, as long as your tripod is mounted somewhere secure, you can get away with a cheaper version. My tripod is a cheapy and it works. The key is not to vibrate it or bump it, or mount it on something that shakes or vibrates, and use a timed or remote shutter release.

I would start with a Av less than 10. Start shooting with your lens wide open focused at infinitity and if you get distortion or aberations start moving your f-stop number up from there. 10 isn't really going to give you enough light IMO, unless you have a camera that has terrific anti-noise properties and can comfortably shoot at 6400 or beyond.

Another option is taking multiple photos and stacking with software... such as deep sky stacker... just do a google search on it.

 

[Pastey]

Tagging on to the above comments. Remote shutter release makes a TON of difference. You may not notice the camera move when you press it manually but it does and night time photography will show it every time. I ,too, had to ditch my cheapo tripod and get a remote for long exposure shots.

 

[NewbyReefer]

Well I was reading this over and figured I'd give it a try. Of coarse it had to rain and be 50mph+ wind gust. Guess I'll try it again this weekend. I'll post pictures of what I get. Thanks for the help.

 

[ssick92]

I'm really curious as to what weird little thing made those random light trails....

 

[ebacon]

Those look like star trails from star movement, not camera movement. The longest exposure I use is 30 seconds for stars. Any longer than that and the the camera starts to noticeably capture the star trail. I'm guessing your exposure was over a minute.

The only way, as far as I know, to get longer exposure shots without star trails is to get a tripod that will compensate for star movement = $$$$. If you're trying to get one of those super long star trail shots those are done by stacking 1000s of single shots of stars as they move across the sky.

Also, getting one of those little infrared remotes to start the shutter is a great +

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

stars dont move. the earth does.

 

[JaYbIrD1969]

Heres a nice example of a perfectly exposed night shot. Unfortunately theres no EXIF data.

http://www.earthshots.org/2013/03/jurassic-two-by-maurizio-pignotti/

And heres something a little different.

http://www.earthshots.org/2013/03/icy-trail-by-maurizio-pignotti/

 

[BlueCorn]

One of mine:

http://binaryemulsion.photoshelter....ite-Seasons/G0000Fp9lm._Mcu8/I0000QXCYor5G514

 

[worm5406]

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="https://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&hl=en_US&feat=flashalbum&RGB=0x000000&feed=https%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2F100665886462363731490%2Falbumid%2F5491005844355980849%3Falt%3Drss%26kind%3Dphoto%26hl%3Den_US" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>

 

[worm5406]

 

[ssick92]

stars dont move. the earth does.

It's all relative. If you actually want to get technical all stars ARE moving in the universe, but they don't appear to move because it is all relative and we are too far away to see the movements.

The stars are moving according to the camera's frame of reference, and in photography, that is all that matters.

 

[jroovers]

Has anyone in the NH seen comet Pan-Staars yet? It is supposed to be visable now at the horizen to the west near where the sun sets and where the moon rises, just at dusk and just after... its been too cloudy in my area... could make for some impressive astro shots.

 

[JaYbIrD1969]

at the horizen to the west near where the sun sets and where the moon rises, just at dusk and just after

Im a little confused about this^^. I'm hoping to see this thing too

 

[jroovers]

Im a little confused about this^^. I'm hoping to see this thing too

Take a look at this link, it has video and a picture that will show what I'm trying to convey. Its been too cloudy here to get a look unfortunately.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...chers_09_03_2013?ref=ccbox_homepage_category3

 

[NewbyReefer]

Tried it again and the trails are still there but not as bad. It was a 15sec exposure.