I removed a boat with a white bright light right on the horizon - close to the left jutting landscape - very tough for me
In retrospect, i could have shot the foreground at a lower iso since i darkened it to try to match the sky
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
Anything
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
Sky - 20 secs / F 2.8 / Iso 4500 ( Nikon 14 - 24 - at 14 mm )
Foreground - 300 secs / F 2.8 / Iso 2200
If you would like your image to be eligible for a feature on the NPN Instagram (@NaturePhotoNet), add the tag āigā and leave your Instagram username below.
Karl, This is a terrific Milky Way star-filled image. The sky is spectacular and the wide beach and bay give the image a perfect sense of place. I see that bright light on the horizon, and it is a distraction to me. I understand the difficulty in cloning it out, perhaps content-aware or content-aware fill would do the job. If not, it is still a wonderful image. How did you separate the exposure of the sky from that of the foreground? Are there two images connected with different layers?
Thanks for sharing this magic.
Karl, this is a beautiful and very well executed Milky Way image. The blend of the two exposures looks great, with no halos around the trees (not always easy to pull off but you did). There must have been no wind, the trees look very sharp too. I also think you have great colors in the sky and stars, this is a pleasing WB to use. I personally like blue night skies, even though they donāt appear quite that way in real life. The composition is very clean and simple, but also effective.
This is very subjective, but the only tweak that I would suggest is to ever so slightly burn down the water. I think doing so would place a little more emphasis on the galactic core. But that is a minor nit, overall this is a very lovely night-scape, great job on the blend
This is a beautifully executed night sky. The stars are crisp and clear and the galactic core has just the right amount of contrast. I love the way the core is ever so slightly reflected in the water. But hereās the thing for me. I feel like night sky images are similar to sunsets and sunrises in that, and this is strictly my view, on their own they rarely hold their own as the subject of the picture. When I look at this image I feel like Iām looking at a beautifully executed stage set waiting for the actors to make their appearance. Maybe itās an animal swimming across the inlet or a boat or some object like a rock catching the light. One of my favourite photographers and teachers, Sam Abell, has a dictum - compose the picture and wait. Wait for what? Well, for the most part we donāt know and sometimes what weāre waiting for doesnāt arrive and we have to accept that too. And this might be the case for this photograph - nothing does arrive and you have this very beautiful picture that is still and ever waiting. Maybe you come back on another night, who knows. So, Iām not saying you havenāt done a marvellous job, only that, again, for me, there is something incomplete about it that might have taken this image to another level. Iām not meaning to be negative and I hope you find this helpful.
Night photography is very different from day time. These are long exposures. If you walk in front of my camera at night, you wont spoil my image.
I tried to infuse some life with that smooth long exposure of the water and the reflections.
Thanks for your opinion though @Kerry_Gordon
Thanks Larry @Larry_Greenbaum, Ed @Ed_McGuirk and Kerry @Kerry_Gordon
Yes - these are 2 exposures one after the other - this way blending the water into the sky image is MUCH easier
Like I said, I shot the water at 2200 iso - it should be darker than the sky - despite toning it down a fair amount, I agree with Ed - it needs to be toned down another 1/2 stop perhaps
Next time iso 800 for 5 minutes and with LENR
Karl, Iām quite familiar with night sky photography and have struggled with the same problem in my own attempts as Iāve raised (from my perspective) in yours. But to say that it is as it is because thatās the way it is kind of misses the point. There are always other ways to approach a photograph. As photographers, I think weāre abdicating our responsibility when we say that our choices were determined by circumstances. Of course, circumstances exist - weāre not just dreaming it, there is a world out there. But as photographers, weāre framing it, weāre making choices. Iām not saying you should have made different choices. What I am saying is that you could have made different choices. We can always make different choices. But, in the end, if this is the photograph you intended and envisioned, who am I to say other than and with utmost sincerity - congratulations.
Karl,
Little Hunters Beach happens to be my favorite place to shoot the MW in Acadia NP. I have never seen anyone else there. The solitude is amazing as one stands in the darkness while listening to the cobbles rolling around with the tide. Enough of my rambling as this is a wonderful image. The blend looks good and I like the color of the nightime sky; although that is subjective. My only suggestion would be to straighten the trees on the right just a little. Very nicely done!
Excellent starry night image! Iām enjoying just about everything with this image, even down to the single point of light on the horizon. Yes, you said you clone out a boat on the left and sure, you could have cloned out the light in the middleā¦ but I like that little point of light. Funny, many of us often lament on āeye magnetsā and how our eyes are drawn to distractionsā¦ well, I think this is the case where that point of light acts as an anchor or a place to reset and start overā¦ clearly the milky way and the starry night sky is the main subject, but to me that little point of light almost is what hold the image together.
The forebay, I get the comments about dropping the luminosity a tad, but Iāll vote that it isnāt really a big deal for me. I think the light on balance is pretty good - like thatās what it would be if I were standing there. What works and is important for me is that youāve included enough of the rocky shore - any less than what youāve presented and the lower part of the image wouldnāt contribute what it does now. Also, I think the reflection of the pines in the water is yet another element that adds to the overall success of this image.
Karl,
A beautiful image. I have almost no experience with night skies other than looking at other personās images, so I have no comments on the technique. I donāt mind the bright light on the horizon.
Because the sky without a foreground is often less interesting, for me the real challenge seems to be the addition of a FG that contributes something but doesnāt look too unnatural. The different exposures needed for the sky and the FG often result in a FG that is too bright for my taste. It is, I think, almost inherently unnatural. You yourself mention the darkening of the FG; for me the FG certainly could have been darker.
The appreciation of this kind of images is, I think, strongly dependent on personal taste. I made an attempt with your original post and made the FG darker and increased the contrast in the sky. I can understand it completely if you donāt like the result, but it is the way that I would have processed the image if I had such great files available.
Karl, this is a lovely night shot. Your execution and processing look great, with a nice bit of texture in the beach and the subtle sky reflection in the water. I think the lighthouse light adds nicely to the story. Since you mention it, I see a slightly brighter area along the horizon towards the left, that I suspect is the boat removal. A bit of luminosity burning would fix that, but I also donāt think that anyone would notice it if you hadnāt pointed it out.
