One major step to clarify: disable all noise reduction before outputting your original images and bringing them into your stacking software. Otherwise you're throwing away a ton of information hidden in that noise.
Hi Peter, Sequator is a great stacking tool, even tough I would recommend to shoot the foreground separate from the sky and merge both parts, you´ll get a way better and sharper foreground.
Great tutorial, good job! Amazing pics aswell. This will definitely be handy for elevating my astrophotography to the next level next season! Oh and if you happen to see this Peter, would you mind sharing the playlist for this video maybe?, It's amazing!
The closer you are to the celestial pole with your composition, the longer you can go without trails. The Milky Way is at the celestial equator, which means the 500 rule won't give you sharp stars because of faster apparent stellar motion. If you take some dark frames, that will help but I don't know if Sequator supports it. Starry Landscape Stacker does.
I like that you showed people how grainy photos are caused by not enough light rather than a high ISO, but I think a more fair comparison would have been two images at ISO 40,000 and one 15 second shot vs one 60 second shot. It doesn't really exemplify that ISO doesn't matter much for these shooting scenarios when you shoot at ISO 1600 for the long exposure image. Just some minor constructive criticism. But overall, great video, and looking forward to see more!
Don't you need to maintain the EV? If shutter speed changes by 5 stops you would need to change the ISO by 5 stops to maintain the overall EV. If you only change the shutter speed by 5 stops the will be much brighter effectively eliminating the stars and milky way
@@wallytuescher2175 In the video, Peter is making the point that it is shutter speed and aperture, not ISO, that is affecting how noisy a photo is. He's using the desert floor as an example. In the 15-second, ISO 40,000 shot, it's very noisy and has color mottle. In the 60-second, ISO 1600 shot, it's not nearly as noisy. I'm merely suggesting to do both example images, one 15 seconds and one 60 seconds, at the same ISO to highlight that it's not ISO affecting it. In order to make the exposures even, one could raise the 15-second exposure by two stops in LR to match the exposure of the 60-second image. So, yes, you do need to maintain the EV for a fair comparison, but that's easily done in LR what I'm suggesting
Yep. I've always asked myself, why do I get star movement, no matter what rules I use and differences in my shutter speed. Great tip on 300 rule. Haven't heard it anywhere before but that what was working for me all t he time. Also, using longer exposure against noise is a wrong solution. You get less noise only when you use lower ISO, nothing else. Amazing video, I've learned a lot!
Ok I agree with a lot of the points in this video buts it is completely false to say 40000 iso is not the reason for the noise.... yeah a longer shutter speed obviously helps because it’s allowing for more light to get in, but when you said “to prove your point” about the noise you went from 40000 iso to 1600. 😂😂 💀🤦♂️
Again, my whole point is that people are too worried about ISO, and not the fact that they aren't capturing enough light. More light (longer shutter speed or wider aperture) = less grain. The ISO will amplify the grain to some extent. And for those using an ISO Variant camera, it's actually detrimental to the image quality to use a lower ISO. (If the image is underexposed and then needs to be brightened in Post)
This is a superb tutorial, with clear concise dialogue at an even pace, and a good soundtrack too! Glad you avoided the hype I see in too many YT videos. What was the music Peter? Cheers and thanks from Montréal!
Great channel. Well explained 👌🏼 What would you say is better. A foreground stacked with a program (several 15 sec) or a longer exposure for the foreground which is then blended with a stacked sky?
Hi Peter, Great video, I have a question on the Star tracker. The image your taking with the tracker, is it at the same location that your foreground image is taking or do you have to take it at another location with no distraction or subject matter blocking the horizon. something I noticed on the video that you didn't show the star tracking image before you showed it stacked onto the foreground image. Cheers
Oh my gosh! the thumbnail is what made me click - I'm literally 25 mins away from the Toadstool Hoodoos!! This is so inspiring, though. I've been looking at different lenses and stuff, would love to improve my photography and videography and since I'm out in the desert, I'd love to capture the stars...
Recently I just create my first milky way timelapse video shooting with a single smartphone, that's really a enjoyment when done it. I'd like to try this application and stack a single picture.
weird I have to use 1 sec exposure to avoid startrails on 34mm cropsencor camera. But you do 20 seconds? Btw I had to use 400 shot 1 sec picture to get a decent image
Peter, this would have been more accurately illustrated if you did not change the ISO, only the Shutter Speed (Time). Of course, you would have gotten a "Cleaner" image using a Lower ISO setting as you did. But leaving the ISO at 40,000 and increasing the Time or Shutter Speed would have better illustrated a Cleaner Image with the Additional Light. Also, a good trick to help minimize noise at Higher ISO settings is to Over Expose you Image about a Stop, and when you process it you have to now make it Darker, thereby Compressing the Exposure which helps make the Noise less noticeable. When an Image is Under Exposed, and you Lighten it in processing, you are Expanding the Exposure, thus making the Noise more noticeable.
Stacking allows you to brighten up the pixels, while reducing the noise at the same time. However, in your stack of the milky way, I did not see the image become bright at all, or the details to be more clear, even though it did reduce noise. Any explanation for that?
Sequator doesn't seem to work for me... It either looks the same as a single frame, or it "stacks" them with the accuracy of a toddler. Meaning it doesn't align the stars at all. Dunno, considering it is a pretty simple program, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. I do like the freeze ground feature... if it stacked the stars for me. Gotta try Pixinsight and see if it has a similar function.
People are so confused with astrophotography. This is a very technical hobby and digital signal processing is not something you can pick up over a weekend. I strongly suggest reading about ISO and other stuff here: dslr-astrophotography.com/iso-dslr-astrophotography/
Wait, so you said (in your opinion I'll assume) that photo stacking is cleaner than using a star tracker but you use the star tracker still? Is stacking so clean that the final results look over produced? Also, I have never understood the point of stacking more than 5 images unless you are not only stacking for light values but focus as well in the case you have a subject closer to you that can't be achieved in focus when focusing at Infiniti for the sky. Another time when shooting skyscrapers I needed a 3rd value focus for the name of the skyscrapers because the letters were not clean during long exposure they were blown out. Thanks for your time doing these videos, I'll check out some of your other videos.
I want photos that look like the milky way with the naked eye. These rainbow edits look cool but I want something realistic, at least with our sub par ape eyes.
Would the result be different if I stack the images before the editing, or should I rather stack the images after the adjustments in Lightroom? I always stack the images before doing any adjustments.
Always do: 1.step: images acquisition 2.step: images calibration 3.step: images stacking and normalization 4.step: image final editing and sharpening, Lightroom fiddling, exporting for the web.
If you had everything manually set in-camera, you could stack your RAW photos. A lot of people online recommend stacking RAW images too. Personally, I think that's a bad idea (at least for Milky Way photography). If you stack the RAW data, then no color noise reduction will be applied. In my experience, this will become a major problem after the stack. You should get much better results if you do your basic edits in Lightroom first. This would allow you to fix any vignette, chromatic aberration, white balance inconsistencies, exposure problems, etc... Lightroom should also apply the color noise correction automatically to every photo. Then you can save the RAWs as 16/bit TIFF files. Finally, stack those TIFFs in Sequator or StarryLandscapeStacker. I'd recommend trying both approaches on the same set of images (stack the RAWs, and stack the edited TIFFs), so you can see the difference in the final stacked images.
Hey. Do you have any good solutions how to blend such a foregrounds with a lot of details sticking into the sky? With long exposures they get blurred both sides (because tracker moves with the sky) but in the nature they are smaller ;) that's the only downside I always get troubles with.
Gracias Peter, muy pero muy útil tu vídeo, te lo agradezco muchísimo, eres de lo poco y nada que realmente muestra intenciones de enseñar sobre el tema, que hay en la red. Saludos de Chile
I recommend reading the article. True, she is in French. There is a much more accurate formula for calculating exposure. It takes into account pixel size and sensor resolution in general: "Règle NPF - calcul du temps de pose sans filé d'étoiles"
With gathering more light with longer shutter speeds using a star tracker, do you get more color in the stars and gases than when stacking 10-20 shorter shutter images?
Not a lot of videos like this explaining the difference between star tracking, stacking, or just single shot without tracker. Pretty well explained too.
I'm looking forward to doing some deep space object and Milky Way shoots over the next few weeks. I got the Pentax K1 which has a built in AstroTracer allowing 5 minute exposures of stars without an external tracking device.
My fiance and I both have Pentax Cameras. She has a K-1 and I just got a KP. Both cameras perform amazingly well whit astrotracer. 10/10 can recommend!
Can someone tell me the BEST astrophotography lens that can mount a Canon like Canon T8i or Canon 90D? I heard of IRIX 15mm f/2.4 as well as Rokinon? Any suggestion of the BEST lens that is amazing in all aspects that can take nice shots of the Milky Way as well as Orion Nebula?
Correct. That's why I recommend finding a nearby location to setup the star tracker without any big foreground elements in the way. If you take both photos in the same exact spot, then you'll have a big blurry foreground to deal with. This makes blending much more difficult. However, if you move 20 feet backwards in this case, you could have a completely clear sky for the tracked shot.
If u take the AF one, there is a Focus issue in dark light so it is not recommended. If u take manual focus one, u wont be able to put filters on it. Thats the dilemma
Hi Peter, first of all great video! I noticed that all of the presented images are taken at quite dark locations. But due to the lockdown still going on at the moment in Europe I can't travel far. Does a sky tracker also improve the details in the milky way in more light polluted areas (Yellow areas on dark site finder)? Are light pollution filters, clear sky filters here of any use? Any tips for shooting in those areas? Thanks a lot for your support.
When I'm back in Ohio I live in a yellow zone. The star tracker doesn't really do much for light pollution. But you'll still be able to get a cleaner image. Light pollution filters can help, but often they don't do that much (especially at a wide angle). Although it depends what filter you use.
For light pollution correction, I will first slightly shift the colour temp towards the blue side as Peter demonstrated in the LR's Develop Module or in Adobe Camera RAW in PS, then follow that up inside Photoshop CS-6, using the Colour Balance adjustment (Image->Adjustments->Colour Balance). I click on the box Preserve Luminosity, select Midtones, then shift the first slider towards Cyan to -9, the second slider towards Magenta to -3, to remove some of the green cast, and then the third slider towards the Blue to +24, to remove the yellow cast. I repeat for the shadows. Note that I vary these settings depending upon the shoot location, and if my camera is facing towards a distant city, or north, where I have relatively low light light pollution. This tool will remember the last setting used, so if you have a lot of similar images, just click OK and continue on. You can also automate this using Photoshop's Automator (File->Scripts->Image Processor) if you have tens or a couple hundred images to apply it to. Here's a sample image of Comet Neowise from my IG page, taken in the countryside in Lancaster, Ontario (just outside a yellow zone) about 90 km/55 miles west of Montreal (metro population 4 million) where I applied some NR. instagram.com/p/CC6HBOHn8_E/ Hope this helps! Cheers, Frederic in Montréal. instagram.com/frederic_hore/
Since I have Pentax cameras I ordered the astro tracker GPS unit for $160.00 it can give me a 5 minute exposure for little money by tracking the night sky with the in body Stabilization unit on the camera the cameras come with the software built in it will also stack in camera also if I do multiple exposures
Thank you for this Peter. Besides being interested in trying a Milky Way photo, I want to bracket indoor real estate photos (and basically everything!) and merge them. I tried to subscribe to photoshop and Lightroom, but I couldn't get them installed for love or money, so I'm wondering if this software will help me.
The odd thing to me is, and I have watched many many Milky Way processing videos, none of the videos who recommends Sequator touches on the fact that it does not support the ProPhoto colour space. For example, you use the sRGB colour space, which is the most limited of all colour spaces. That is part of the reason why your stars are just white blown-out dots and contain no colour, even though many stars actually do have colours. The best and easiest solution most likely would be if as many people as possible kindly ask the developer to incorporate support of the ProPhoto colour space.
So if you use a sky tracker/guider, it is going to cause the foreground to rotate as well in the images. How do you account for that? Will stacking software automatically adjust it? In the case with Sequator, freeze ground I assume?
Thank you for this video! I have recently started astrophotography and have been having lackluster stacking results. Your suggested settings in Sequator are helping!
They'll just blur out. Sometimes clouds can make for a more interesting photo too. Especially when you've taken dozens of photos on clear nights, they all start to look the same.
Can you do the same photo stacking technique in Photoshop? I ask because I work from a tablet and don’t have access to Starry Landscape Stacker or Sequator.
Unfortunately not. It will not be able to align photos, especially at 14-24mm. If you had a 35 or 50mm lens, you could probably stack and align up to 20 images though. There's a lot less movement and distortion at 35-50mm, so the software has an easier time.
Thanks for the video Peter. I believe Sequator is pronounced " see' qway tor" like equator with an "s" in front. I've used the program myself with good results. Good tips!
When you use crop sensor then you need to square the crop factor as what matters is the surface of each pixel. For example if you turn on apsc mode on a FF camera it will be the same squared conversion. Like 42 megapixel a7r3 is 18 megapixel in apsc mode. Also the rule of 500 400 300 does not account the megapixels. I usually use the following formula: 6000 divided by (megapixels * focal length * crop factor squared).
I've been testing photo stacking with the comet. If I stack 150 pics, I get really good results. But, if I stack 300, it's amazing. I wouldn't recommend stopping at 20 pics. Take as many as you can possibly get. The more pics you stack, the better the signal to noise ratio will become, giving you a cleaner, more detailed final image.
@@mariokladaric4746 The camera is on a tripod. That's it. No tracking or anything like that. Then I use a remote control to operate the shutter. If I know the comet is going to move from left to right across the sky, I'll have it start more on the left side of the field of view, and let it move across as I'm taking all the pics. Doing it this way means you can't use much more than a 70mm lens. You need to leave the shutter open for about 4-5 seconds to get enough light in, and being zoomed in too much will result in star trails.
Hi guys, for someone who is starting out what brand of camera would you recommend? i use Sony a7 iv for landscape photos can I use Sony a7 iii modified for astro? is Sony ok or it has to be a Canon?
Thanks for all the great info. I'm going to attempt my 1st milky way shot this weekend. No tracker or intervalometer and in bortle class 4 on the east coast. Hopefully I can get something to work lol.
@@PeterZelinka thanks for the info. I have the kit 18-55mm lens, 50 mm 1.8 and 28-75mm 2.8. Which does you think I should try 1st? Hopefully I can get a chance to try tonight. It's super cloudy and rainy.
Great Video Peter! Qq: for the Utah shot, how did you blend the foreground so cleanly on a 4 minute exposed sky? Didnt the blur of that rock jutting into the sky region leave dark blurry blobs after you replaced it with a non tracked FG?
That will happen if you take both photos in the same place, which I don't recommend. I usually move the tripod to a nearby spot without any big foreground elements in the frame and shoot my tracked image
