Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

--Ty-- t1_jdu8qxc wrote

7 minutes exposure, but all the stars are circles and not smeared arcs? How?

21

peeweekid OP t1_jdvqepa wrote

In landscape astrophotography it's very common practice to shoot the sky and ground separately. For the sky exposure you use a star tracker that locks onto the sky as it rotates to prevent the stars from trailing (which of course causes the foreground to be blurry). Then you shoot the foreground without the tracker and line them up the way they would have if it was a single exposure.

19

the-vindicator t1_jdw4cp5 wrote

How did you get that cloud in bottom right of the sky to look stationary?

3

peeweekid OP t1_jdwmy4c wrote

Great question, since the cloud got really weird from the stacked sky exposures I took it from a single frame and put it back where it should have been before stacking.

5

--Ty-- t1_jdwac7b wrote

I get that, I just think that it's important to state whether a photo is an actual photo, or a composite. Once you get into the realm of composites, virtually anything is possible, which means the work should be perceived and judged differently.

−4

ZincMan t1_jdvcc90 wrote

It’s a composite photo. One long exposure of sky with tracking and one still one of the ground put together for artistic effect? Affect ?

5

Hvarfa-Bragi t1_jdu9tyn wrote

Because op lied and this is two exposures composited

4

[deleted] t1_je47fcv wrote

Lying implies he said something that’s wrong. He didn’t.

0

Hvarfa-Bragi t1_je4kpyv wrote

Yeah, he did.

"This is what 7 minutes of exposure looks like" implies a single exposure.

If you exposed for 7 minutes without compositing you'd have star trails or your landscape would be a blur. Op composited two exposures together.

1

[deleted] t1_je7wtmz wrote

I know he did. But he didn’t say single exposure. He didn’t give the full picture, that’s not lying. This isn’t high school.

1

goodbyesolo t1_jdueohp wrote

With a tracking mount?

2