How do you photograph the milky way?

[Parrot of Doom]

Obviously one needs to have a dark sky, such as at Galloway, or in the Highlands, but how do the pros get wide shots of the milky way? Do they use a motorised mount and long exposure, or is it lots of shorter exposures, and a bit of compositing on the computer (shifting each layer for movement)?

/edit: like this:

Edited by Parrot of Doom on Monday 28th December 18:33

[fergusd]

You can capture it without a motorised mount, less light pollution makes a massive difference . . . I have one somewhere I took in a desert in the USA, can't find it right now . . . there was also a fantastic sunrise/moonrise/milky way rise video somewhere . . . which was simply many single exposures made into a film . . . stunning . . .

Fd

Edited to add http://www.vimeo.com/4505537

Edited by fergusd on Monday 28th December 20:23

[fergusd]

And as for wide . . . eh, a really wide angle lens ? . . . and remember crop cameras need very wide angle lens to be even slightly wide . . . ;-)

That vid is from a 15mm fish, I'd have thought a sigma 10mm would work . . . for example . . .

Fd

[RobDickinson]

I'd guess you need to shoot at reasonably high sensitivity and short shutter speed otherwise star trails will start to happen?

[fergusd]

Vid says 20 sec exposures . . . so a monkey who can count can do the camera bit ;-) . . . problem is finding somewhere properly dark . . . Scotland being your closest option I would think . . .

http://www.darkskyscotland.org.uk/

Fd

[wendyg]

To me that looks like a star pic from a big radiotelescope, real quality, with a foreground slapped on the front. Others may offer differing opinions?

[Alan Alan Alan]

Or you could try N.Wales Llyn Brenig

I used to go here, admittedly several years ago. Car park on the west side

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

[Rollcage]

Special replacement, not additional, filters needed, but otherwise doable with not too much of a problem.

" The stock anti-alias (AA) filter blocks a range of red wavelengths so the camera will render desireable skin tones. 656 nm is one of those wavelengths that also is emitted by emission nebula (star forming gas nebula). The replacement filter permits passage of 656 nm so that emission nebula can be recorded. "

Quote taken from the vid linked a few posts up!

[fergusd]

Rollcage said:

Special replacement, not additional, filters needed, but otherwise doable with not too much of a problem.

" The stock anti-alias (AA) filter blocks a range of red wavelengths so the camera will render desireable skin tones. 656 nm is one of those wavelengths that also is emitted by emission nebula (star forming gas nebula). The replacement filter permits passage of 656 nm so that emission nebula can be recorded. "

Quote taken from the vid linked a few posts up!

Cheap IR converted D70 (or similar) would probably be perfect . . .

Having said that the stars and Milky Way as seen from somewhere really dark (and high) is something to see, with or without a camera . . .

Lying in the freezing cold watching the satellites and meteors pass overhead with the MW as a backdrop . . . special . . .

Fd

[Parrot of Doom]

Hmmm, I had a look on Flickr and there are dozens.

It seems that with the right combination of a wide lens (I have the Sigma 10mm), and a dark sky, you can get some nice images.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/898622334/m...

My 20D however may be a little bit insensitive, it gets noisy at 1600ISO, so I think I'd have to take about 20-30 images at a low ISO, and stack them.

I think I'm going to wait for some guaranteed clear skies, and then spend a night up at Galloway.

[Simpo Two]

wendyg said:

To me that looks like a star pic from a big radiotelescope, real quality, with a foreground slapped on the front.

I think that's it - the moment I saw that star background I thought 'telescope'.

[Lambochick]

Simpo Two said:

wendyg said:

To me that looks like a star pic from a big radiotelescope, real quality, with a foreground slapped on the front.

I think that's it - the moment I saw that star background I thought 'telescope'.

A radio telescope wouldn't provide an image in the visual range. Also any other sort of telescope wouldn't give you the wide angle view that is apparent in that photograph.

As others have said, all you need is a wide angle lens, and really dark skies so that your exposures don't get messed up by light pollution.

If you have the camera mounted on a motorised mount that is able to track the movement of the stars, then that will allow you to make longer exposures without suffering from star trailing.

[Simpo Two]

Lambochick said:

A radio telescope wouldn't provide an image in the visual range. Also any other sort of telescope wouldn't give you the wide angle view that is apparent in that photograph.

Agreed that it's not radio, but the 'wide-angle view' could simply be done by superimposition. A little burrowing through the URL of the photo in question confirms that it's a 'digitally enhanced double-exposure'. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040223.html

[The Excession]

fergusd said:

Edited to add http://www.vimeo.com/4505537

That is bloody superb! Book marked for the little fella who is currently getting astronomy classes on the clear nights we've had recently.

[fergusd]

The Excession said:

fergusd said:

Edited to add http://www.vimeo.com/4505537

That is bloody superb! Book marked for the little fella who is currently getting astronomy classes on the clear nights we've had recently.

Yup, you can take perfectly good shots of the milky way with a camera shocker . . .

Fd