Nightscape Photography with Standard Camera and Kit Lens 

Thanks for that. I'm glad we got this resolves. Great video, by the way.

@@DarkArtsAstrophotography It's the least I could do Joe ... many thanks.

@@nightscapeimages.richard I saw an old building under a nearly full moon early one morning. It turned out well, lighting and composition wise, but when I got home and put it on my computer I could see the noise. So I went back at the same time the next morning and set it to ISO 100 and the sky looked A LOT better. No noise discernible to the eye. In each case I had to use a tripod so using the higher ISO simply doesn't make sense. Why use ISO 3200 in your case? It's better to not have the noise in the first place so one doesn't have to reduce it via software later. Most of the post-production stuff people do could be avoided if they put a little more thought into things when out shooting photos. One thing that strikes me is that I see people doing stuff on the computer, many times spending significant amounts of time, that could be done by spending just a few seconds considering things when taking the photo itself.

@@Anon54387 Thanks a lot for watching and for leaving a comment. Your shooting scenario is very different to this example as you had a "nearly full moon". I challenge you to go out and try that when there is no moon in the sky and see how many stars you can capture at iso100. That is a very much considered comment coming from many years of nightscape experience.

@@nightscapeimages.richard I'll give that a shot on the 26th as there will be no moon. I take it I won't be able to see many stars without upping the ISO. At least if I understood your comment correctly. Still, I do see people spending significant amounts of time doing stuff on the computer that could be avoided if different choices were made when taking the photo. I'd rather, if at all possible, to minimize time on the computer and spend more taking photos. Thanks for the reply. I wasn't expecting one, to be honest, with the volume on this channel. You must enjoy interacting with people. It seems you reply quite a lot. Edit: I just watched your video on focusing to infinity with that small cubby house. Not to beat a dead horse, but couldn't a person reduce the ISO to 100 and just use a bulb for a longer exposure so as to avoid the noise? Perhaps I'm not seeing the problem.

Very kind of you to say Ray, really appreciate you watching.

Taught me more in 28 minutes that Google Pixel doing in one click.

airscrew1 yet you still took the time to read then reply.🤷‍♂️

Well said!! I just found his channel a month or two ago!!

Me too, ffs. I just wish I saw that channel sooner!

Thanks a lot for watching

Faxx bro

Thanks so much for watching Rashid.

Thanks so much Carl, really appreciate you taking the time to comment.

Thanks a lot Josh, yes I am very passionate about helping. Sometimes it's hard to get info because photographers often like to keep their info close to themselves.

@@nightscapeimages.richard Yah its really spooky!

Seen

Thanks a lot John. Good suggestion.

Really pleased you like it David, thanks heaps for watching.

David Madden It is a shame he keeps stressing ‘just a crop sensor’, I almost feel bad for choosing one.

I really appreciate you watching Gabriel

Really appreciate you watching.

Really appreciate you watching Ryan, thanks

Thanks so much for your encouraging words my friend.

I really appreciate you watching Kristoffer.

Thanks a lot for the comment Luke. Really appreciate it. It's a wonderful program isn't it.

Thanks so much for watching

Well it seems half of the world has got that one wrong.

Really appreciate that Duy

Thanks very much for watching. ..really appreciated.

Thanks so much for your support.

Really appreciate you watching Chris

Thanks so much for watching my friend.

Thanks for your lovely comments Aluico, really appreciated

Really appreciate you watching Pratik

Thanks a lot for watching. I feel quite privileged ..!!!

Thanks so much for your support

Really appreciate you watching Martyn

Thanks Marc. I knew when I produced it that I'd get some people saying it was too long but it's almost impossible to do a post processing video without it stretching out.

@@nightscapeimages.richard It was nowhere near too long. I could have watched all night. Very good video!

Thank you

Thanks a lot Josh

Thank you so much for watching. I have many more videos like this one on the channel.

I just subscribed to your channel. You've only 9,998 subscibers to go.

@@kenwalton6711 thank you mate ..only a few left ..I appricate it.I subscribed to you too

I spend a lot of time with new photographers with standard camera equipment so I get asked about it quite a lot. Thanks for watching.

@@nightscapeimages.richard thank you mate ! You are amazing

Very kind of you to say Ekin, thank you

Thanks a lot Richard, really appreciate your comments.

You are very kind Toby, thanks so much for your generous comments.

Hi Jillian, of coarse I remember you. I hope you're doing well. Thanks so much for watching.

Really appreciate you watching Rahul, thank you.

Thanks very much for the comment

Thank you so much Sherry for watching, really appreciated.

Thanks very much for watching and commenting.

Good... Yes... But hella looooooooonggggg and kinda boring

Appreciate you watching anyway ... it has to be long to explain the process ... and boring ... well that's up the individual.

@@oxoConstantinEoxo All learning is. You have to tediously study theory before you go into the field and start learning on your mistakes haha

Thanks Merv really appreciate that.

Really appreciate you watching and for the comment Simon

Thanks so much for watching, really appreciate your comments.

Really pleased you like it

Many thanks indeed

Thanks very much Phil.

appreciate the comment

Really appreciate you watching Peter

Thank you so much for watching

Thank you so much for watching Sigurd and leaving a comment

Really appreciate you watching Martin, thanks so much.

Thanks heaps mate, appreciate the comments

Really appreciate you watching and leaving a comment my friend.

Thank you so much for watching.

Thanks so much for watching Greg, really appreciate your insights.

Thanks so much for watching, really appreciate your comments.

Thanks very much Jure, appreciate the comment

Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment, really appreciate that.

Really appreciate you watching Lightjay Panda

Thanks heaps for watching.

I'm p[leased you like it Alan

Thanks so much for watching

Thanks heaps for watching MrMatte0000, really appreciate it.

Thanks so much for watching Steve. You are correct, there is a lot of work required to get these final results.

I agree Graham they are wonderful

I'm glad you got something out of it Troy, thanks for watching

Yes I certainly did. It takes a lot of work to shoot these videos and I appreciate you watching.

Night videos next

Look at channels like Pierre T. Lambert, McKinnon and others. So many funny moments like these where they depict getting into a car etc, but you just see from the camera placement that they'll have to double back to get it :D

Yes it's certainly worth a go.

@@nightscapeimages.richard I tried it last weekend. Really nice tool, stacked 27x14s images which turned out pretty nicely. The remove light pollution option is pretty impressive imho.

Many thanks indeed, really appreciate you watching.

Many thanks Allen, appreciate your support

Thanks very much for watching Allan. Yes you certainly can take great images with the 200D, especially with the skytracker. Give it a go ..!!!

Thanks for your correction Martim D. Happy for you to add to the discussion. Thanks for watching.

In fact, you could say that a bigger sensor in the same light conditions gathers more light (as quantity of light, not intensity). The higher quantity of light is then distributed on a larger area, so that the intensity of light does not change. It’s like if you have two water reservoirs: one having an area 10 times (for instance) bigger than the other. If you get 1 hour of a 1 mm/h rainfall on both reservoirs, the bigger one will collect 10 times the amount of water collected by the smaller one, but the water level (provided that the areas are constant) will increase of 1 mm on both reservoirs. . Said that, I’d like to add that I really enjoyed the video tutorial and will try out this technique. Thank you 😊

Correction to the correction. "...With allows a better depth of field..." This should read, "allows a shallower, depth of field" but actually, the sensor size and pixel pitch has nothing to do with depth of field. Remember that 'better' is a subjective term. And the whole point of this video is you don't need fancy gear to make great images. Just the skills and determination.

ISO sensitivity is based on area, so of course a large ISO on a full frame sensor has less noise, because in actuality, the ISO has to be (in effect) larger on a smaller sensor because there's less area. The ISO number isn't absolute.

@@Noksus actually , it's not only about the sensor size, but also about the density of the pixels stacked into it. here can fit the "less is more" sentence :)

Thanks so much for watching Jelourd, glad you like it.

Very kind of you to say .. thanks for watching

Thanks so much for watching Dean. Yes all the sky images are exactly the same. The Sequator software aligns the stars so they don't trail.

Really appreciate you watching.

I'm so pleased you like the videos Jono, thanks heaps for watching.

I'm really pleased you like it Jasper, thanks so much.

Thanks so much for watching. I've not used RawTherapee.

Thanks so much Seb

Thanks very much Richard. I'm pleased you enjoyed it.

Thanks Tammy. This tractor is on private property near Newbridge in Central Victoria

Your Sony A7 will be awesome Hells Bells

I really appreciate you watching Jeff

Thanks so much for watching, really appreciated.

Great idea Marcus. Thanks for your insights.

Thank you so much Tanya, really appreciate you watching. The orange gel is a 1/2 cto and the part number here in Australia is 205. Let me know how you go.

Hey Tanya, send me an email if you'd like. rgtatti@hotmail.com

Thank you very much for your kind words.

Thanks so much for watching James

Thanks for watching Anand. The 10 shots were all exactly the same exposure settings. You could do 5 but the resultant noise reduction would not be as great. The Nikon D90 was a really good camera and I had one for years but the high iso noise will be a problem .. that's why we need to do the noise reduction technique. You can use any light source to light paint.

The cheapest wide angle lens to use with the Z6 (with the FTZ adaptor) is the Samyang 14mm f2.8. This is not the best lens by a long way though.

@@nightscapeimages.richard for the first time taking night and sky photo i ordered it. thanks

Haha ... not sure about master but I appreciate your support.

Thanks very much for watching Tim

The app is called Photopills

That app is called Photopills

Thanks heaps as always Carl.

Thanks very much for watching Nick

Thanks for watching. I think it depends on what type of photography you're doing. With this low light night sky stuff it's really important to have good post processing skills for sure.

You could say the same thing about Ansel Adams: Camera & lens - 10% Photography skill - 20% Darkroom/developing skills - 70% Comments like this don't serve any purpose whatsoever.

Yes absolutely it can be done with that camera and lens.

I'm so glad you like it. Thanks for the comment.

Thank you very much for watching Andries, really appreciate the comments.