[Tallest]

This is Camp Hansen in the Helmand province of Afghanistan btw. How can I take a picture of the sky like this? I have Canon Rebel XT, kit lens. Is it theoretically possible to take a picture of the sky like this and with my shitty camera and lens or do I definitely need something better? Obviously I have a tripod too. Any suggestions to get something even remotely similar? Settings, etc... really awesome shot.

[oneintheory]

that's very unlikely with an XT. i'd need the metadata, but the ISO is probably insanely high.

[Sylon]

Or its photoshopped. I'm highly certain it was.


Here is the issue, in order for the camera to gather enough light to take a photo like that, the shutter would have to remain open for a very long time. The problem with that is, the Earth rotates, and because of that, so does the sky (from our point of view). The stars wouldnt be crisp and in one spot like that, not during that long period of time. Instead, you would get a sprialing effect with the stars, ultimately showing the rotation of the sky.

[Car_Girl]

There's a technique called HDR Photography that might have been used for the image in question. HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. Both responders above are exactly right about their comments which is why it's unlikely that the image was taken by a single shot.

HDR utilizes the optimum setting for exposure for image areas of interest which in this case include the sky and the foreground, two primary areas of interest. Read about this technique and you'll understand the basis for what I'm referring to. It's a much better article than I could summarize in a few sentences but it might give you some ideas on the technique used.

http://www.idigitalphoto.com/high-dy...phy-explained/

One other technique I've seen used with what they call 'the magic hour' where the sun set causes a really nice deep and brilliant blue that isn't as dark as the sky shown. The photographer utilizes a relatively long shutter speed, say 20 seconds or so with exposure set to 'bulb' - manually timed basically. The person taking the image uses a flashlight and 'paints' the foreground - grass, objects in the foreground that are relatively dark since it's getting dark outside and the overall image ends up with the proper exposure for the foreground while the background colors become saturated due to the long exposure time. It's another really neat technique that I saw someone use on a photography forum with a tractor in the foreground sitting in the midst of some tall grasses and a brilliant blue sky at sunset. If I can find the photo I'm referring to, I'll come back and place a link.

[ichiban]

I know ppl with XTs that can shoot pictures like that. They of course modify them pretty extensively. I don't remember all the details, but they do remove a film that's on top of the sensor, thus increasing the light sensitivity of the sensor. Googling will probably net more results, but i'm lazy :P


p.S didn't see the bottom of the pic, that is definitely a multiple exposure shot. There's no way the bottom don't get blown out.

[MisterSkiMask]

I am no expert, but it looks like the ridge on the hill surrounding bottom of the pic is the perfect place to cut two pictures together. Definitely some photoshop work done here.

[bosstones]

I'd bet on image editing. Mainly because of ichiban's comment. Also, earth vs sky....they don't seem to mesh in terms of lighting and general tone.

[vachss]

I took this shot a couple of weeks ago in Winjana Gorge, WA - not as interesting a backdrop as in the OP's image, but the same general effect. Other than a quick adjustment of levels/cropping/sharpness it's straight out of the camera.




The trick is to balance foreground illumination with the proper time exposure of the sky. In my case 15s at f/1.8 / ISO 3200 for the sky, and during the exposure I turned on my headlamp and played it over the nearby trees for a few seconds. This isn't the best example of this (I'm just starting to process pictures from my trip), but I'm quite sure you can get a pic like that posted by the OP without any fancy cutting and pasting.

[Memphis1]

^^ and if you mess with it a little...

[rgrovr]

Wow.. awesome ^

[bosstones]

^^^ Yeah, that Keeley Hazell pic is pretty sweet. So is the pic he took. lol

[ChasVS]

Originally Posted by 320what

This is Camp Hansen in the Helmand province of Afghanistan btw. How can I take a picture of the sky like this? I have Canon Rebel XT, kit lens. Is it theoretically possible to take a picture of the sky like this and with my shitty camera and lens or do I definitely need something better? Obviously I have a tripod too. Any suggestions to get something even remotely similar? Settings, etc... really awesome shot.

That a simple shot. Set camera to manual mode, f11 and 30- 45 sec exposure. Focusbto infinity. Iso probably 200 - 400 . Use the count down timer so you won't be touching the camera during the exposure.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by ichiban

I know ppl with XTs that can shoot pictures like that. They of course modify them pretty extensively. I don't remember all the details, but they do remove a film that's on top of the sensor, thus increasing the light sensitivity of the sensor. Googling will probably net more results, but i'm lazy :P


p.S didn't see the bottom of the pic, that is definitely a multiple exposure shot. There's no way the bottom don't get blown out.

It's a double exposure. Many people use that for night time shots. Some even do even more exposures. I read about it a few years back but never tried it so I don't know 100% how it works either.

[chinoxs203]

looks like i got something to try this weekend

[Koroush]

Wait so how is this possible?

Can somebody explain properly?

[sworks335i]

Originally Posted by Koroush

Wait so how is this possible?

Can somebody explain properly?

In my view of this photo I think it can easily be done if you are in a dark enough spot where the stars are bright and are the brightest things in the sky with no polution from the local walmart parking lot.

It is possibly by having a Tripod, Camera and Shutter Release. You would put the camera in bulb mode and hold the shutter of your camera open for maybe a minute. If you look closely you will see the the stars are slightly blurred and moved from the rotation of the earth but not streaks like what you would have if you left the shutter open for 5-10 minutes. The image in question does have a seemingly high ISO setting but that also could easily be the quality of the camera.

Either way the goal is to allow as much light to make the stars show up but a quick enough shutter so they are not streaks in the sky. Clearly a balance you would have to play with to meet the overall goal and look you are going for.

[vachss]

OK, here's a more detailed explanation:

A proper exposure to bring out Milky Way structure is going to be somewhere around 10-30 seconds at f/1.4-2 and ISO 1600-3200. Star trailing (as is just beginning to visible in the original image) occurs when the apparent rotation of the star field projected on your image sensor is more than a pixel or two over your exposure time. For me at 24mm with 6 um pixels this means that I can expose up to about 4-6 seconds without noticeable trailing. For other cameras/lenses multiply the 4-6s by (24mm / focal length) * (pixel size / 6 um) to get the max exposure time without trailing. Note though that this number is a worst case scenario for the western or eastern skies where apparent rotation is greatest. Shoot near the North Star (or the Southern Cross down under) and the trailing will be much less and exposures can be longer. Shooting near the northern or southern centers of rotation I often use 20s exposures at 24mm and show no trailing.

Now this pretty much sets your exposure for the sky. The foreground exposure will be controlled by whatever ambient light source is present. If the buildings in the OP's photo were faintly lit - flashlights, brief exposure to headlights, etc. - then the amount of light received by this sort of exposure should be about right to produce the image shown in a single exposure. If the buildings were well lit by outside lights, however, then this sort of exposure would strongly overexpose the buildings and a separate shorter exposure just for the buildings followed by blending of the two frames, as suggested by some of the other posters, would be necessary.

[Clueless]

I believe this photo has been taken using a very long exposure and a tripod.

I don't believe it has been Photoshop'd or HDR'rd as if you look closely you will see the ghost of a number of persons in the lower right corner. There is also no evidence of editing on the skyline around the antennae and the stars are slightly elongated.

In answer to the question about how to blend, it is a very simple technique.

Here is an unsharpened image I have done some years ago doing it with Photoshop as mentioned in another thread...



Cheers

J