| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
It was in the back of my mind Eric.
My 'test' exposures were made on the basis that the shorter exposures didn't reveal the smaller stars, just the larger ones, but maybe the viewing screen on the back of the camera isn't the best viewer? In the dark I found it hard to zoom in and check the detail, but I now feel the long exposures were wrong, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle once it's in the image but I wanted to be able to capture the meteors, the only two I captured were quite faint but unlike the stars they were orange, the same as the clouds and the light polluted sky.
I later concentrated on the darker sky and there are plenty of stars in the images, maybe there would still have been had I made shorter exposures?
To be honest I was surprised how much movement there was in the stars on my image considering it was only 4secs for the eclipsed moon...as well as the moon itself. In contrast the normal moon shot at 1/125th is much sharper but the stars on that image didn't show at all.
I might be inclined to have a play at this myself ...when we get clear skies again!
If you put the camera on continuous, set a fast shutter speed and high ISO and just rattled off 5or6shots, you could stack them to reduce noise and then boost the highlights ( or do that before median stacking maybe) ?
____________________
Eric