At least that’s what it feels like in the semi-darkness of a quarter moon with the Big Dipper rising beside it.
Specific Feedback Requested
All comments welcome!
Technical Details
Is this a composite: Yes
Canon R5, Canon EF 24-70 II with adapter at 24mm. f/4.5 for a little more DOF than wide open, 10 sec to prevent too much star elongation, ISO 3200 to get enough exposure in the ambient moonlight. With focus on the tree, the stars are tack-sharp. The right conditions will repeat in a month so if it’s clear I’ll see if f/2.8 is OK.
Four different frames for light painting combined with masking. Power lines removed on the right and road darkened on the left. The Dipper stars made a little bigger as they didn’t stand out as well as they do visually.
I shot the same scene 3 years ago and just now had the conditions to redo it. The R5 sensor did a better job with noise than the 1DX2. A try at that time with the 5D4 had underexposed the sky about a stop and bringing it up revealed a mottled mess. The earlier post (with the 1DX2) is here. The dipper had gotten too high and the next night was cloudy.
Wow, this is outstanding, Diane. I love the light, the colors, and the position of the tree and Big Dipper. I love how the dipper handle caresses the left edge of the tree. Sensational.
Diane, I have to say, this does not work for me. I much prefer your original image that you posted a while ago. Everything about this image speaks of soft, natural light - almost twilight. And it’s lovely. But, for me the lighting, particularly on the upper canopy feels completely wrong in that it simply doesn’t make any sense to my eye and feels totally random, (less so on the lower branches , which seem to have more of the ghostly effect you’re after). But what do I know, after all, you’re the “painter”.
Ah, @Kerry_Gordon, I disagree! No, NOT about your assessment of the image, but about what you know! Unlike me, when you see the image you have no faulty memory of what the scene “looked like” or what it might potentially look like, or what you hope it could look like.
When I “finished” it, I was more pleased with the image quality, compared to the earlier attempt, but not with the painting, but I settled for what I had gotten. I was not happy with the brighter part in the UL but didn’t see a good way to moderate it as it was the initial exposure that I used for the BG. But now (I think) it’s obvious how to reduce it a bit and make a few other tweaks – with the first post open for a reference. When I get a little time, I’ll play with it. Thanks for the opinion – it is much valued!!
PS – I was never any good at painting! That’s why I took up photography.
Hi Diane, your photo grabbed my attention on the front page and I had to check it out further. I really like shots like this and yours looks great. I like how the dipper curves around the tree. I suppose there are dozens of permutations and I could see playing around with some. On reflection, I would tend to agree with Kerry about the upper canopy. I’d like to see what it looks like without the light painting. Maybe the ‘star’ of the show should be the dipper.
I have grown to love this image. It took a bit of time to adjust my way of thinking about it. I see the tree as more of a supernatural object. Almost folkloric. I find the relationship between the lit branches and the night sky to be the crux of the matter. I cropped it to make it more obvious. The image suffers in its presentation on a black background. Within a grey frame the darkness stands out more and the magical tree becomes more obvious in the darkness. The fine composition becomes more apparent. Below is the cropped version just to give an idea of what I like most about this image. In my opinion more stars need to be enhanced in the sky in such a version.
