Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

First Light With My New DSLR

toilandtrouble123

Recommended Posts

toilandtrouble123

toilandtrouble123

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The LPR filter is on my wishlist. When my budget allows, I'll certainly post on here, its effectivity for night scenery shots. I posted these pics on facebook, and my cousin (who studied A level photography) who is now enjoying her second yr as a primary school teacher, has just asked me if she can steal them for her class's term topic on space. Feeling just an ickle bit pleased with myself :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
toilandtrouble123

toilandtrouble123

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Great start, Can't wait to see some of you aurora shots when you get to capture them,

this link might help with the processing side of it, its mainly geared towards DSO's but im sure you could transfer the basics to what you need, http://www.eprisephoto.com/videos

hoping to take a trip to scotland in september (thinking thurso), knowing that chances of active aurora increase the closer it is to spring and autumnal equinoxes. and keep your eyes open, everyone up north - on the spaceweather site, it says the solar wind from the coronal holes will reach us on the 8th-9th. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lee M

Lee M

Posted
Posted

Another vote for #7 from an artistic pov. Certainly given me some food for thought if conditions are a bit mixed. I've only dabbled a bit with the camera a few times myself. Tried to get some meteor trail shots in Dec. Hundreds of exposures, 1 trail :mad::grin:. Plenty of aircraft trails.

On the LP reduction front - a general question to the floor - why not shoot in RAW & adjust it out in GIMP or Photoshop, Lightroom etc?

Or even just use manual white balance on the camera?

Cheers

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites
toilandtrouble123

toilandtrouble123

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I took the shots in RAW, then had a play with them using Picasa. I posted both the unprocessed shots and then the results on here, to show the difference. I don't have photoshop or lightroom, just a few freeware I thought that I would try out first before going any further into AP. As for white balance, I was advised on another topic to leave WB on auto or daylight, because then, if I shot in RAW, I would have greater control when processing.

Nat xx

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

On the LP reduction front - a general question to the floor - why not shoot in RAW & adjust it out in GIMP or Photoshop, Lightroom etc?

Or even just use manual white balance on the camera?

It's quite hard to get rid of LP effects in processing. There are some gradient removal tools for Photoshop and PixInsight has a gradient remover that works fairly well, but aren't always perfect. Otherwise my experience is that it's a world less pain just not to have the LP there in the first place.

To the best of my knowledge, the white balance on the camera does not affect the RAW images in any way and it's far better to use those for processing than the JPEG images where you tend to get a reduced dynamic range and compression artefacts.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

I took the shots in RAW, then had a play with them using Picasa. I posted both the unprocessed shots and then the results on here, to show the difference. I don't have photoshop or lightroom, just a few freeware I thought that I would try out first before going any further into AP. As for white balance, I was advised on another topic to leave WB on auto or daylight, because then, if I shot in RAW, I would have greater control when processing.

Nat xx

Out of interest, do you have the software CDs that are normally supplied with the camera?

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lee M

Lee M

Posted
Posted

To the best of my knowledge, the white balance on the camera does not affect the RAW images in any way and it's far better to use those for processing than the JPEG images where you tend to get a reduced dynamic range and compression artefacts.

James

Yes, sorry both, you're absolutely right. I was thinking (slowly) whilst typing.

I've got a *bit* of underwater photography experience & filters have pretty much given way to post processing to deal with excessive green cast.

But as you said James, best thing is not to have it in the first place. You don't get many good photos diving in pea soup :laugh:

Once there are at least some breaks in the cloud I'll have to get out there and try to play around a bit more.

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cosmojaydee

cosmojaydee

Posted
Posted

thankyou, for the 6th pic, the exposure was only 6 secs, at ISO 800, f/3.5, can't seem to get my dslr to go any lower on the aperture. the rest were taken at ISO 400. the star trails were 632 secs long for the exposure. what can i do to the settings to improve them?

nat x

The aperture is controlled by the lens , if the lens's lowest setting if f3.5 , thats all you get

As for improvement , you could lower the ISO and increase exposure times

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lee M

Lee M

Posted
Posted

So what setting would you advise to have the WB on then? At the mo, its on daylight.

Nat

Hi Nat,

Brain not in gear earlier, the MWB will have no effect on the RAW files so doesn't matter what it's set at.

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.