Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Madrugada_Eterna t1_iu33lnh wrote

The sky was taken using a tracking mount so the stars won't trail. A separate photo of the landscape was taken and the sky was replaced with the tracked image.

Multiple photos of the sky were taken and stacked together to reduce noise and bring out the the faint details.


wolftamer9 t1_iu51xvc wrote

Man, I've been driving to the mountains on clear nights every once in a while and taken star photos with my dad's camera (and sometimes just my phone), I can't imagine taking to this hobby enough to pay for a proper tripod and camera tracking mount. Let alone, say, an actual telescope with a camera mount or something? That would be cool to have but it doesn't seem worthwhile to buy.


RWDPhotos t1_iu3ytzy wrote

Thing is with these foreground composites is that it creates a false impression, as if to say that’s what that area should look like under perfect circumstances, but the relative fov of the sky shot may not necessarily mix with the foreground, and it all just seems rather arbitrary to include a foreground at that point. Would just rather see the sky comp than an arbitrary foreground add.


MrJackDog OP t1_iu4b0ne wrote

Fair point, and to each their own. Sometimes I’ll just keep the sky alone, but I go to lengths to represent the land and sky as astronomically correct — always same focal length, optics, tripod position — ensuring the final sky integration matches single shot in terms of astronomical position. So, it’s not arbitrary in the sense that this was the landscape under Cygnus as it set on the night I was imaging. It’s not a single shot itself and that is its strength and weakness depending on what you like.


monkeybomb t1_iu4c290 wrote

I'm trying to understand the process a bit. In the pre-composite sky image, do you have a blurry forest? Edit: I should say, pre-composite after stacking the sky images. I'd be interested in seeing a progress video.


MrJackDog OP t1_iu4gome wrote

I didn’t do a video for this shot, but a did a short video of the components of a similar composition. I don’t know if Instagram links work on this sub, but you can see it here:


monkeybomb t1_iu4i6z2 wrote

Awesome, thanks. Looks like fun work.


MrJackDog OP t1_iu4qvdo wrote

thanks, yeah it’s a cool hobby. my other hobby is fishing and I like the aspect of pulling something out of seemingly nothing of both.


RWDPhotos t1_iu4r8td wrote

Well, I mean, kinda like in that instagram link you posted in a different comment, it doesn’t really line up (the sky comp was cropped in a decent amount, so the effective focal lengths were changed). And it can’t really- because of the tracking, so something has to give to fit it in. I think there could be a way to do it where it blends more mildly, but that’s def not your aesthetic.


MrJackDog OP t1_iu4roq5 wrote

The building was cropped at a similar ratio though. But yes, there’s no accounting for taste.


RWDPhotos t1_iu4s6ug wrote

Ok, preference aside, my point being that the sky view isn’t proportional to the foreground. Obviously so, like by 200%. And you’re trying to deny that improportionality. I mean it’s totally fine if you say it’s just part of your aesthetic, but to say that it’s an absolute recreation in terms of proportion is just plain false, which is what I’m arguing on here


MrJackDog OP t1_iu4un9v wrote

well, that’s just incorrect. Both were shot with a 35mm and the two images had the same dimensions. They are in exact proportion.