Road to the Milky Way : NEW more contrasty version added

[iceman]

I had an idea of a picture in my mind – all I needed was clear skies and the type of foreground I was after. After driving around Yarramalong, Kulnura and Somersby for a couple of hours, searching for the right location and waiting for clear skies, I had almost given up and started heading home when I came upon a private road that seemed to clear at the end.

I was in luck – a small gate to negotiate, but then a clear field and the skies started clearing, just enough, at the right time.

A few test shots, and then captured this - the Road to the Milky Way. A self portrait vertical panorama with the Scorpius and Sagittarius part of the Milky Way bulge rising.

- Large (http://www.mikesalway.com.au/download/228)
- Blog (http://www.mikesalway.com.au/2012/03/26/road-to-the-milky-way/)

I was at Somersby now, much further East than I had intended and so the light pollution was terrible – especially when the clouds were around. The lights from Gosford and surrounds reflected terribly.

I had wanted to be out at Yarramalong – I imagined clear dark skies out there with a nice gate or fence or windmill in the foreground. Unfortunately I hadn’t taken into account the difficulty of finding such a site in the night time. It was almost impossible, because I could only see what was right beside the road. I really needed to do my reconnaissance during the day.

It’s not exactly the result I had in my mind; darker skies and a better foreground would’ve been nice, but I’m really happy with the end result, especially given my challenges and frustrations of driving around for 2-3 hours with nothing to show for it. It also gave me some practise with the 5D Mark II and 24mm f/1.4 lens and the type of exposures and ISO needed for these shots.

Technical details about the picture: 2 images, 20s each exposure, ISO3200, f/2.2, Canon 5D Mark II, 24mm f/1.4 lens. Images combined using AutoPano Pro and Processed in Photoshop. The Milky Way part of the image was processed using Gradient Exterminator to help even out the light pollution so I could apply curves and levels.

I’m not sure if there’s too much foreground – I’m wondering whether to crop a bit of the road – what do you think?

The 24mm f/1.4 is a nice fast lens, but even at to f/2.2 it has some pretty nasty stars around the edges. I think f/2.8 will be the minimum for round stars, but depending on the type of image, it might be ok to sacrifice some quality around the edge for speed and light!

Thanks for looking.

EDIT: New improved version uploaded (one on the left). The old one is on the right.
The new version has much more contrast. Hope you like!

[gregbradley]

Nice composition. I like your search for the ideal site. It takes planning to get the good shots eh?

I think the amount of road is fine. It would be great if you could darken the sky a bit as its a tad washed and that would increase colour contrast as well.

Greg.

[jjjnettie]

There's lots of fun to be had going wide field isn't there. :D
It's hard standing still for so long too. LOL
Like Greg said, this one is a bit too bright and the finer detail is washed out.
You worry too much about the stars around the border. Everyone knows and understands.
But, knocking the F stop up a notch or two will also give the Milky Way more contrast.
It's all about experimentation isn't it. And having fun. :D

[prokyon]

Nice foreground, nice image! Good idea well done.

[iceman]

Thanks guys.

You're right Greg - that's the thing I notice about most landscape astrophotography. The foreground matters. The best images (or at least, the ones I like best) are almost always taken from a great location or have something interesting in the foreground.

Looking at it today, the sky is definitely more washed out than I'd planned. The original was sooo bright I didn't want to overdo it with trying to make it darker, and I thought it looked ok yesterday but it does look too washed out now.

Will give it a reprocess tonight.

[Allan_L]

Great shot Mike :thumbsup:

It actually made the hair on my neck stand up when I opened it.

Well thought out and constructed. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Deeno]

I think its a nice composition.

I do like the way the road draws you into the shot :thumbsup:

[bmitchell82]

All you need to do Mike is instead of pointing to it, hold your thumb out like Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy :D Then print it onto a shirt

[Martin Pugh]

Nicely framed Mike. Gotta love these kind of shots.

cheers
Martin

[marco]

Very suggestive composition Mike, I too love these kind of earth and sky shots :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Marco

[iceman]

Thanks guys - I appreciate your comments.

I've attached a new version to the original post above, and the large version is also updated here (http://www.mikesalway.com.au/download/228).

I'm much happier with this version - more contrast and colour. Sometimes it takes a fresh pair of eyes! :eyepop:



Thanks Allan, it's great when an image can have that effect!


Thanks Deeno, I was hoping the Milky Way would be straight up and down but we're not at the right latitude :) I'm happy with how this worked out.


Thanks Brendan. Nice idea! I did have one of me shaking my fist at the sky (because clouds were coming back) but it didn't have the same feel :)


Thanks Martin - this is my favourite type of astrophotography right now.


Thanks Marco! Much appreciated.

[Jay-qu]

Love it Mike, very nice :thumbsup:

[atalas]

A stunning composition Mike! great effort.

[Satchmo]

Is this an example of what's called 'surrealism'.

[iceman]

Thanks Jay-qu!


Thanks for the comment Louie. I've been wanting to do a shot like this for a long time. So glad it worked out.


:shrug: I don't know Mark, I had to look it up on Wikipedia and still don't get it.

[Octane]

Nah, Surrealism is Dali. In photography, though, Surrealism is nowadays usually pretty abstract stuff which is quite heavily edited.

Much better job on the reprocessed/contrasty image.

Get rid of the human ruining the shot, though. :P

H

[Paul Haese]

Yes that looks better. Agree with H though the human in the shot (ie yourself) is not really making the shot. Though I suspect it is for earth and people category on ROG?

[Satchmo]

Hi Mike, It was just the bright sunset lit bits of sky shining through an overcast sky merged with the Milky Way suggested it wasn't meant to be a real scene but essentially incongruent elements merged together to challenge the visual senses and represent a world that might be classed as `surreal' . Its a very evocative picture.

[TrevorW]

Should these type of images be under deep space or terrestrial, IMO they are not deep space, maybe you should set up a separate heading to cater for them.

Colour seems slightly washed out IMO.

[stardust steve]

Very cool image indeed. Hopefully this Easter break i will be trying to do something very similar. Is that bright orangey star (about a person length above the persons head) Antares?
:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

I like the symmetry :D

[iceman]

Thanks H. I like having humans in my shots sometimes - depends on the shot or what I'm after. In this case I think it gives it more of a story :) But i think we'll always differ on that ;)


I hadn't even thought of the ROG - I haven't entered that one before but thanks for the reminder.


Hi Mark. It's not sunset - it was taken at around 1am on Sunday morning, looking to the East overlooking Gosford/Sommersby.
The funky colours in the clouds and near the horizon is from the evening out of the gradients (terrible light pollution) and levels/curves to make the background darker.
I'll post an example of one of the raw images so you can see what it was like straight out of the camera. They're not in-congruent elements. It was all captured with a single 20s exposure (or multiple in this case) :)


There's not enough of this type of image to warrant their own section/forum, but they definitely are a mix of terrestrial and deep space IMO.


Thanks Steve - and yes, that's Antares.


haha thanks Peter - Had I thought about that I would've leaned a bit further to the right to better match up the angle of the milky way :)

[gregbradley]

"You're right Greg - that's the thing I notice about most landscape astrophotography. The foreground matters. The best images (or at least, the ones I like best) are almost always taken from a great location or have something interesting in the foreground."


I like the repro. The Milky Way looks somewhat 3D. A bit of Topaz Labs can give that sort of zing.

As far as a ratio of land to sky goes you probably couldn't go wrong with the old Fibonacci ratios (the Golden Mean .618) or in other words 38.2% foreground and 61.8% main item. I guess the rule of thirds is more of a rough approximation of the .618 Fib ratio which is repeated in nature,galaxies etc in many places. Leonardo DiVinci's man drawing/painting is based on this ratio as are so many things.

It matches people's sense of proportion.

Greg.

[iceman]

Here's 2 images straight out of the camera with no other processing except to resize for the forum.

The first was shaking my fist at the sky because the cloud was right in my way, and the second was another pose I tried. It was my last image of the night, it got cloudier not clearer after that.

[troypiggo]

Definitely like the second version better. Personally, not so much against having you in the frame, but there's something for me not quite right about the light. The human outline is heavily silhouetted/black. The road, being lighter, feels like it needs a shadow on the ground from the human figure or something? Know what I mean? I understand this is probably a real shot, but because the figure is so dark, it looks like it was a cut and paste job. I also understand that what is lighting the road is probably all over sky, and a soft light and hence no real shadow. But still, since you're pointing to something in the background, this viewer's eye/mind assumes that's the light source, and wants to see a shadow from feet to about 7 o'clock. Did I explain that well?

[iceman]

Yeh understand what you're saying. All of the images of me were completely in silhouette - I was standing about 10m away from the camera wearing dark clothes and there just wasn't anything to light me up :shrug:

The light pollution reflecting off the clouds was responsible for lighting up the sky and ground.

[luigi]

I love the concept and the image.
I do hate human figures in astrophotos but this one makes sense, it balances the composition and the whole idea so I'm ok with that, I even like it. Did I just say that?
:)

[Ross G]

Hi Mike,

A great idea and nice photo.

Ross.

[spacezebra]

I like the original photos you posted.

There was an APOD some time back that silhouetted a person and the Milky Way - but it was a little darker - still I like the composition.

Cheers Petra d.

[iceman]

Thanks Luis :)


Many thanks Ross.


Thanks Petra. The second lot were just an example of the single frames straight from the camera.

Thanks again.

[rcheshire]

Thought provoking image Mike. The silhouette is not diminuitive. More an engaged observer, than the often cited, aren't we insignificant by comparison cliche.

[CapturingTheNight]

Very nice Mike :thumbsup: I think the higher contrast version is better than the original, but the abundance of purple stars is a bit off putting for me, if I'm totally honest, and has been applified with the reprocess. I used to get the same colour fringing around my stars generally if my focus wasn't spot on but as you mention in your description it could also be that that particular lens needs to be stopped down a bit more to reduce the coma. Accurate white balance also helped me.

You beat me to do the roadway thing. I've got plans to do a 360 degree vertical pano with the Milky Way stretching down the road line in a similar vein to "The Great River" One day.........
Cheers
Greg

[iceman]

Thanks Rowland, much appreciated.


Thanks Greg. You're right about the purple fringing, and I think it was due to focus.

I hadn't used LiveView on the 5DMk2 and couldn't figure out in the middle of the night where to turn it on. The 40D was just the button at the back in the middle of the dial, but I couldn't find how to turn it on. So my focus was a bit off.