1st Mikyway capture w/DSLR

[Comet Hunter]

Single shot exposure at 25 sec's which was maybe 5 sec's too long for non guided. Ist ever image processes in Photoshop too which works kinda like Pixinsight!
New camera& lens, new targets, new processing software, so many new things
Looks now a tad over processed, but now I know what not to do next time.
Taken last night in Brevard NC. My step daughters driveway just had a sliver opening between the trees, but it was just enough!
Nikon D7200 with the Rokinon 2.8/14 lens. @ iso3200,

Lots to learn, but its a start.

 

[JimFox]

That's pretty well done Ed! Congrats on this. You will want to play with the WB a bit, cool it down a bit. The trick is to cool the sky down while keeping some warmth itseelf in the Milky Way.

25 secs is perfect for a 14mm. in fact for years many have shot it at 30 secs. Typically 25 to 30 secs is what you want for 14mm, 20 to 25 secs for 24mm.

It will all come down to pixel peeping. You will find that the edges will always have some stars that are not pin point. I come from the generation that has captured the night sky before the advent of the portable star tracker. Now people tend to pixel peep and want every star pin point. Before then we had to balance noisy skies from higher ISO's with streaking stars. So the shutter speeds I previously listed has been the standard for years.

I do see some people pushing the envelope with shorter shutter speeds, like your suggestion of 20 secs at 14mm. Today, we can shoot multiple shots and stack them to reduce noise, the cameras themselves have better quality at higher ISOs, or people will use star trackers.

There is no right or wrong, but I do use 25 secs as my standard now at 14mm, even with my Sony A6400 crop sensor that has the 12mm f2.0 Samyang on it, I call it my Milky Way Machine as the lens is never removed, and that's all I use it for, so that would equate out to about 18mm in full frame, I shoot it at 25 secs also. I will then vary the ISO based on the brightness of the moon, if there is a moon up.

It's great that you captured this! It's a great first start, and you can decide what settings you want. There are a hundred different ways of capturing the Milky Way, whichever works for you and gives you the result that you want, that's the way to go for you. You have the building blocks, now it's up to you and how you want to arrange those bricks.

 

[Comet Hunter]

That's pretty well done Ed! Congrats on this. You will want to play with the WB a bit, cool it down a bit. The trick is to cool the sky down while keeping some warmth itseelf in the Milky Way.

25 secs is perfect for a 14mm. in fact for years many have shot it at 30 secs. Typically 25 to 30 secs is what you want for 14mm, 20 to 25 secs for 24mm.

It will all come down to pixel peeping. You will find that the edges will always have some stars that are not pin point. I come from the generation that has captured the night sky before the advent of the portable star tracker. Now people tend to pixel peep and want every star pin point. Before then we had to balance noisy skies from higher ISO's with streaking stars. So the shutter speeds I previously listed has been the standard for years.

I do see some people pushing the envelope with shorter shutter speeds, like your suggestion of 20 secs at 14mm. Today, we can shoot multiple shots and stack them to reduce noise, the cameras themselves have better quality at higher ISOs, or people will use star trackers.

There is no right or wrong, but I do use 25 secs as my standard now at 14mm, even with my Sony A6400 crop sensor that has the 12mm f2.0 Samyang on it, I call it my Milky Way Machine as the lens is never removed, and that's all I use it for, so that would equate out to about 18mm in full frame, I shoot it at 25 secs also. I will then vary the ISO based on the brightness of the moon, if there is a moon up.

It's great that you captured this! It's a great first start, and you can decide what settings you want. There are a hundred different ways of capturing the Milky Way, whichever works for you and gives you the result that you want, that's the way to go for you. You have the building blocks, now it's up to you and how you want to arrange those bricks.

Thanks Jim for your feedback. I ran the original though Pixinsight and I think improved it a tad bit.

 

[JimFox]

I like your original better Ed. Not sure if you ran Noise Reduction in Pixinsight, but I am guess you did as the Milky Way now seems to have had it's details smeared, and so many of the stars disappeared. Hopefully you don't mind my saying that your edit went backwards.

In your edit, you didn't correct the WB issue. That's best to correct in Photoshop or Lightroom.

 

[JimFox]

Hey Ed, I hope you don't mind, I did a super quick edit of your original in Photoshop. I took the Cooled it down with Hue slider by -31 and increased the Tint by +19. I also increased the Vibrance by 30, which Vibrance tends to focus on the blue so that helps with the sky also. That changed the background sky to a color that we expect it to be, while leaving the Milky Way to still have it's creamy color. My whole editing took 45 seconds, so I could do more if I had more time, but I didn't today.

 

[Mike Lewis]

Nice image - these are just not as easy to bring off as it would seem like they should be. Jim is an expert, but getting there can be daunting, and honestly, there is really some personal preference in the results too as far as which version you might like best. To my eye, I actually prefer your PI version, although as Jim says, cooling down the WB is really a good idea in any case.

I have some data from southern skies I will be trying to get to work like I like in the next few days. I am hopeful of a pleasing result, we will see. I shot 20 secs at 15mm, so not quite to what Jim is suggesting. As he says, it is all in how closely you examine and also affected by the quality of your UWA lens you are shooting with. My existing lens is just 'OK' - I hope to have something better someday. In any case, this is a great effort!

ML