MC- You seem to have the art of night sky photography down to a science. If you have the time, and the inclination to do it, could you please post a short write up of how one not versed in the art should go about it? Equipment, camera body, lenses, camera settings, technique, anything you think is important in getting a good image. I’m sure those of us who are ignorant on the subject would appreciate it, I know I would.
I can certainly write an in depth post about choosing the right gear, lighting techniques, post processing and etc. It would take a lot work however. I'll just make a brief one here. I'm going to add this onto my "to do" list for my work in progress blog. Going to write up a Laowa 25mm ultra-macro review first. Promised them to do so, feel bad for not delivering.
For camera settings, I usually expose to the right, and use ISO 6400. Might seem high, but if the sky is dark enough, you need it.
The following shutter speeds are appropriate:
24mm 13 sec
20mm 15 sec
14mm 20-25 sec
12mm 30 sec
I don't use those rule 600/500 whatevers. These are from my personal experience.
As for camera and lens, depends on what you want. If one is serious, get a D800 modified, install H-alpha filter, and apply the NikonHacker firmware. One may even convert the camera into monochrome. This is the best current option without getting into cooled CCD cameras.
If not, the D750 is great. I use a D810. For Canon, a 6D/5d mk4 would work a treat. Anything with great high iso performance.
If that's off the table, then use those D7100 types with the 16-55mm kit lens, produces really good results as well.
Be aware of cameras with that in-body 5-axis blah blah stabilisation thing that everyone seems to love. Those generate horrendous long exposure hot pixels... Putting a heat source that's also electromagnetically controlled behind the sensor is just a recipe for hot pixels. Hot pixels come up when the sensor heats up. Readout noise is increased as well due to this. I don't want to go in depth here. Hot pixels can be fixed with long exposure NR most of the time, would be a better idea to have it on. Also it's possible to subtract dark frames in post -- essentially what long exposure NR does.
For the lens, a 14mm f/2.8 Samyang is great. It has virtually no coma -- look up what coma is. Basically, it turns dots into ducks, yuck.
The faster, the better. "Just use a longer shutterspeed" -- no. This will cause the stars to trail. Camera stationary, but the Earth moves.
A fast but cheap lens would be the Samyang 24 f/1.4. Great even wide open, edges become ducks, just stitch a panorama using the best centre frame.
More expensive options? Tamron 15-30 is arguably the best lens for this stuff. It has no coma, great tonality, and strong flare resistance. Sometimes one may shoot near street lights. Flare isn't easy to fix. The Sigma 14/1.8 is really good as well, as I've said, larger aperture makes the milky way brighter. For stitching, the best would be the Sigma 20/1.4, it is however not $500+ better than the Samyang 24.
Now, tripod. A solid tripod is a must. Not a cheapo. I personally use an old Sirui tripod, no centre column. Tripod head is the RRS BH55. A $500 tripod kit should do the trick though.
Additionally, one may also get an equatorial mount. It tracks the stars, allowing longer exposures, greatly increasing the signal-to-noise-ratio. This is worth getting with a cheaper lens instead of an expensive one.
Location, get away from any major cities. I shoot primarily in the blue mountains region is NSW, where light pollution is well controlled. I don't drive, so I'm restricted. This is a handy tool:
http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html Anywhere marked light blue is good, as long as one shoots in the direction of darker blue~black.
Time, get out when there's a new moon. Even a hint of moonlight will throw contrast off, resulting in a lesser-defined milkyway. Also a good idea to get out before moonrise, great results. 1 day before and after a new moon is also good. I use an app called "photopills" that has all this information. One also needs to look up the best times for stargazing. The core of the milky way is not visible during certain months. The best time in Oceania would be June-August, in my opinion. For best experience, make sure it's clear. Clouds can add to the scene though, I kind of like it. Some people do not.
Post processing is simple. Add contrast, clarity, and etc. Just don't overdo it. There's some advanced techniques too. I personally use photoshop to stack multiple frames which increases the SNR. Add in as smart object, align, and set blending to medium. The gain increases dramatically. If there's forground, then this has to be done twice. Stacking the sky will cause foreground to become blurry.
Another advantage of this is annoying plane light trails will get subtracted. Some clouds that get in the frame will also be dealt with.
Want the true colours of the milky way? WB set to daylight. It doesn't look good imo. See below.
Lighting, low level lighting is the best, and most advanced. I use a technique similar to that. I made an add-on for my torch which throttles the output to something very dim, and the torch is on throughout the exposure. See below for example.
LED light panels are better, they are cheap. I have to carry torches anyway, one for self defence (a concealed knife is even illegal in this nannystate) and one to see in the dark, another headlamp for convenience, so I just made a modifier. Read about the technique here:
http://www.lowlevellighting.orgSimilarily, one can just make a very long exposure. The result is flat though, because that's what starlight does, it's flat light.
I haven't tried equatorial mounts yet, will do so next year though.
That's about as brief as I am able to get. Attached are 3 crops.
1: 20 exposure stack
2. 7 exposure stack
3. Single frame
All have been subjected to my usual post processing routine.
