First, find a *really* dark location with clear skies. The location of that photo is about 250km NE of Melbourne Australia. Great location for that kind of work.
Next, spend about a year practicing and refining your technique. Getting that kind of exposure on the sky requires very long exposures, measured in minutes. Ideally several of those exposures, stacked. Plus dark frames for NR; these must be stacked and properly combined for best effect. All done on a "tracking mount" set to precisely track the sky during exposure.
The foreground requires separate shots while *not* tracking, and the sky and foreground must be combined in post. You can see trailing at the lower left, this is leftover from the foreground exposure(s).
If this all sounds like a lot of learning, it very much is. That's the bad news. The good news is it is a very rewarding learning curve.
I think people are now using multiple shorter exposures and combining them for this kind of sky, rather than one long one.
You are correct, stacking has been the accepted technique for digital, and it won't change any time soon. But the exposures are still a minute or more for that kind of sky illumination, even at higher ISOs. Even for wide angle shots, tracking is a requirement.
Kirbic is right, must have tracking for at least an exposure of a few minutes. The basic technique is to shoot an exposure for the sky, with tracking on, and then a separate exposure for the foreground (terrestrial) objects, with tracking off. Then a few hours in photoshop to seamlessly merge the two images:
Kirbic is right, must have tracking for at least an exposure of a few minutes. The basic technique is to shoot an exposure for the sky, with tracking on, and then a separate exposure for the foreground (terrestrial) objects, with tracking off. Then a few hours in photoshop to seamlessly merge the two images:
I think people are now using multiple shorter exposures and combining them for this kind of sky, rather than one long one.
You are correct, stacking has been the accepted technique for digital, and it won't change any time soon. But the exposures are still a minute or more for that kind of sky illumination, even at higher ISOs. Even for wide angle shots, tracking is a requirement.
I dunno. Here's a link to a 30 second, ISO 3200, no tracking, single exposure shot from Bryce Canyon. It's not quite as bright, but that might be partly post processing.
Here is an example of a "quick" shot. Its not spectacular. Didn't take a dark frame, rough altazimuth alignment, 2 images, 30 seconds each poorly stacked. Light pollution present.
Yet, you see things you don't with the naked eye. I agree with other posters, practice. Start with things as bad as the one below, learn from it. Just wish I had more time. :)
Kirbic is right, must have tracking for at least an exposure of a few minutes. The basic technique is to shoot an exposure for the sky, with tracking on, and then a separate exposure for the foreground (terrestrial) objects, with tracking off. Then a few hours in photoshop to seamlessly merge the two images:
