You will also need a remote control or a shutter release cable in order to minimize shaking the camera when taking the pictures.
Set the camera in your tripod and take at least 5 consecutive images at the stars using the correct exposure time (using the RULE of 600) Do not move the camera to a different spot or change the settings unless you are done with that series of pictures.
Tip: Every time I am done with a set of pictures, I place my hand in front of the lens and take another picture. The final image will be a large TIF file that you will use to bring up the colors in Photoshop. I also edited the blue, red and green colors in the level in order to make the nebula more visible. Become a Contributor: Check out Write for DPS page for details about how YOU can share your photography tips with the DPS community. I have always been interested in stars and really saw the opportunity to try and take pictures of them. PS: in addition to the results of the sky, I tried taking pictures of my surroundings at night as well. Also if you’re in manual mode, how is it possible that there is exposure compensation setting? I just bought my daughter a Canon EOS 70D with 20.2 megapixels, EF-S 18-55 lens and EF 700-300mm telephoto lens. Also, an app for IOS called "Starfinder" (free download last time I looked) can help with finding nebulas and the Milky Way so you shoot more than just a bunch of stars without depth. I tried loading 1 image into photoshop and brightening it, but the amount of noise on the image was ridiculous. Thanks for the information, I followed your instructions last night and got awesome results.
If you are referring to the examples in the above article, I think you need to realize these are small, web-friendly images, not the original, high resolution versions.
I'm late to the game on this one, but I was camping this weekend and got some great opportunity to take some shots for this technique. Can' t wait to give to ago and as I'm going to the Isle of Mull later in the year where the light pollution is virtually 0 I want to get some practice in! I have been an amateur astrophotographer for many years initially using hypersensitised colour film and exposures through a guided telescope of up to 3 hours.
Hey, this maybe a stupid question but when I watched your video I noticed that the image you were using was in grey scale rather than RGB. If you shoot a lot of images, over a long period of time, you are making a motion "Time lapse" sequence, that can be sequenced easily in quicktime pro, for example. To sum up my understanding: To avoid creating star trails you take successive exposures of a shorter duration and stack them. Just keep trying mark, I would bracket a couple of pictures first, and find which ones give you the best result, I am usually shooting about 30 second long exposures. It's a shame the video didn't fully explain what the photo was of, and what settings were used, or even how many shots were taken.
Going trough these steps will help you to master the art of taking better photos of night sky.
Light levels at night are very low hence a tripod stand is necessary to hold the camera still.


Turn the auto focus mechanism off and then manually set the ring of the lens to infinity and opt the T-setting on the shutter control ring.
Using the shutter speed option you can decide on how long the lens aperture will remain open. Going through this article will help you to learn the trick of taking photographs of night sky. I am not an astrophotographer in any way, shape or form, nor do I have any expensive equipment. Taking stars pictures in your back yard is possible, however for better results select a place away from city lights. That is to superimpose one image on top of the others (not all the images, but pictures belonging to the same series). I have recently got the opportunity to use my dads old DSLR camera (Canon EOS 10D) as he stopped using it.
After checking multiple sites on how to take pictures at night and of the night sky, I decided it was time to try it myself.
I know that this should not affect it, but are you happen to be using some kind of noise reduction for long exposures?
ISO 1600 is a bit too low for me, but I still see lots of stars even then, just with less intensity.
I wanted to surprise her by having it set up and ready to do a photo like this but I have no idea about cameras.
Second time around I got the shot (Really noisy as I didn’t bother stacking with DSS).
Recently in Kona (where lights are dimmed because of the observatory on the island) I followed the 600 rule, 18mm, ISO 1200, and stacked myy shots.
This is a circa 2006 camera, and at 7 years old, I am going to suggest the noise is due to a sensor of meagre capability (signal to noise ratio at 800 ISO on almost any camera has improved by leaps and bounds since then).
I was able to get a series of photos from a clear, beatiful Maine autum night sky, that I'm very pleased with.
If the camera you are using is of low quality, yes, you're going to see noise, but that is where the process of shooting a number of shots and stacking them helps.
Digital photography is a good place for experimenting but you need the knowledge to do some things.
I came home, loaded up my RAW files (they were a bit noisy due to the 1600 ISO I used) but I pressed on. I dont have an answer, my GH1 and GH2 process for about the same length of time that the exposure is. My Images is in RGB not grey scale and when I used the technique you suggested with curves and levels it just comes out extremely red and orange.
If you are wanting to just try to limit the amount of noise from low level light, then just a few pictures stacked will work. My Lumix gh1 and gh2 take about the same length of time to write the image to memory before i can shoot again.
Weird as it loaded fine on a different machine with only 8 gigs of ram and much slower c2d chip. I can't see that there would be that much 'hidden' cloud and nebula on a 28mm shot of the night sky, it looks like it was more like 300mm, but then with the rule of 600, could you get that much info in 2 seconds???


It’s an ability to foresee the end result in your mind's eye, and then to make it with the tools.
Using longer exposures you can film or shoot good distant, dimmer objects such as nebulae or dim stars. Are you actually setting the camera up to WAIT say 30 seconds and then shoot (rather than setting your exposure to last that long)?
I wonder if you tried the same thing with a more modern camera with better noise control, if you'd have better results. I used the Deep Sky Stacker software and when it "stacked" them, they were offset by a little bit (due to the shift from taking a series of shots over 3 minutes). This means that often star trails will look so short that you will not notice them (particularly with short focal lenses and no blow up of images).
I realise the stars move, I just don't understand how you can stack successive images WITHOUT getting movement. The stars are all moving, those further from the north star in our hemisphere move further. If you are using the traditional camera then load the camera with a high speed film (Min ISO 200). You may even put it in a mode wherein the shutter will remain open until the shutter release is pressed again. I compared my pictures to those my friend made with his camera and he got much better results than I did. The shot I have uploaded is only 4 megs (I shoot with a 25 MP camera and the original is huge).
Consequently, lets say a 10 minute exposure would give a trail, 10 minutes in lenth, whereas a photo every minute for lets say 10 seconds in length, would give 10 stars with the same distance of the first example. Taking Photographs of night sky is comparatively difficult than the photographs of sky taken in daylight.
You can set the shutter speed to the bulb setting, or can set it at a range of settings between 2 and 40 seconds. To make sure that you actually capture the sky pictures you need to ‘bracket’ your exposures. You will find an older comment of mines here on November 11th where a page is linked with some hints on the subject. However surprisingly any one can take the best quality wide angle photographs of the night sky by using single lens reflex 35 mm traditional film or digital cameras. Optional: if you have telescope or telephoto lenses then you can connect it to your camera. What DID frustrate me about the demo above, is the image was in colour, but the tab in the curves menu in PhotoShop said "grey".
The Photoshop problem is frustrating as well, as i have about the same setup that you do with the i7 core and memory. I get memory errors and if i watch my Task Manager and memory usage, it i hardly being taxed, and i have played with many of the memory allocation settings without much help.



Different lighting techniques in photography
Nikon dslr camera techniques film
How to take boudoir photography at home traducida


Comments to «How to take night sky photos with a digital camera gratis»

  1. AFTOSH on 14.03.2014 at 14:54:12
    Here's a fun trick you machine, but contemplate object pace & chosen focal.
  2. Patriot on 14.03.2014 at 10:24:34
    And evaluating however I would reasonably not saving your photos there instead one.
  3. Seven_Urek_2 on 14.03.2014 at 11:49:57
    Line-up the horizon properly, supplying beginning on the very starting, discover the film pictures.
  4. crazy on 14.03.2014 at 13:19:39
    Thing you will prefer to know forward you purchase the Photoshop.
  5. ANAR84 on 14.03.2014 at 12:15:18
    You can do whatever you want.