MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Muskoka Imagery on February 14, 2014, 16:48
-
I'm curious if anyone here regularly submits starscapes to mircostock and if so, is there a common practice for handling the noise associated with this type of photography?
I have several shots to submit of the night sky employing long exposures at high ISO (settings selected specifically to avoid generating star trails). Given the heavy handedness most sites have against noise, I've been hesitant to upload them.
I generally loathe using Noise Reduction on shots like this because it will mute or obliterate the smaller more distant stars in the process, and seems to invariably turn the milky way in to the mushy way when viewed at 100%. I do however, recognize that this attitude towards NR may just be my own personal bias, so am wondering what others opinions are.
Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.
-
I haven't felt any of my star pics would pass muster for microstock and I also don't like what noise reduction does to them. I'm not sure how a long exposure is going to avoid star trails w/o a tracking mount (unless by long you mean under 30 seconds or so). Probably the best way for microstock would be to get a good star pic w/ a tracking mount and then combine that with the rest of the pic. - or go for star trails.
-
could you do some composite to get around the noise.
Probably an extreme amount of work though for microstock earnings.
4000 odd hits on Shutterstock for "star trails". Alot look like composites (or even fabricated) to me + theres heaps of illustrations (4000 are photos)
-
Thanks for the suggestions! For avoiding star trails, I use the 500 rule generously published by http://www.davemorrowphotography.com/p/tutorial-shooting-night-sky.html (http://www.davemorrowphotography.com/p/tutorial-shooting-night-sky.html)
For example, when using a full frame Camera @ 14mm, f2.8, for 30 seconds typically lands me at around ISO 3200 for proper exposure without star trails. That's been pretty much the optimum for me with very little latitude. Change any one of those factors I risk star trails, improper exposure, and/or undesirable ISO.
Attached are a few of the images that I am considering submitting that have used this technique. They will likely need to be reprocessed for stock which is what led me to my original question before I put the time in.
-
Those are great images!
-
You may want to take a look at averaging your photos for noise removal. From what I've read, this is a very non-destructive method that produces excellent results.
Link: (https://www.google.com/search?q=averaging+photos&oq=averaging+photos&aqs=chrome..69i57.3265j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
-
Those are great images!
I agree!
You may want to take a look at averaging your photos for noise removal. From what I've read, this is a very non-destructive method that produces excellent results.
Link: (https://www.google.com/search?q=averaging+photos&oq=averaging+photos&aqs=chrome..69i57.3265j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Thank you for that link.
I never heard about this technique before, but it sounds very interesting, not only for starscapes.
-
@ SHSPhotography
Wooow, this photos are amazing!! :o
-
You may want to take a look at averaging your photos for noise removal. From what I've read, this is a very non-destructive method that produces excellent results.
Link: (https://www.google.com/search?q=averaging+photos&oq=averaging+photos&aqs=chrome..69i57.3265j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Yes, averaging (stacking) is the standard technique in astronomical photography; it produces great results for faint objects such as galaxies
-
fotoVoyager, Beppe Grillo, Ariene thanks for the kind comments! :)
elvinstar - that averaging technique is brilliant! I think I'd need to invest in a tracker for this specific purpose to work with it, but it is definitely something to consider as I find myself doing more and more of this type of photography. Thanks for sharing!
-
Good to see constructive post where I learnt abit about taking photos instead of hearing about being screwed over with partner programs. :)
-
It's always nice when I can be helpful. And you, those are gorgeous photos!
-
Hey you talkin' about me? ;-)
And the chart on the linked site was worth printing for my resource files. I just realized something about time and focal length. The new (used) 8mm is going to allow me longer exposures and less star tails.
Just can't wait for some nice weather and dark skies.
When I landed on the page I saw Morrow and said, Oh of course who else. He's really at the top of the list for best at this. Nice of him to share.
Good to see constructive post where I learnt abit about taking photos instead of hearing about being screwed over with partner programs. :)
You may want to take a look at averaging your photos for noise removal. From what I've read, this is a very non-destructive method that produces excellent results.
Link: (https://www.google.com/search?q=averaging+photos&oq=averaging+photos&aqs=chrome..69i57.3265j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Darn two for one great thread? It's a winner.
-
So, I decided to run a test and took four different photos from the same night sky shoot and processed them adding varying amounts of noise reduction and submitted each to 5 agencies to see which (if any) would be accepted. Attached are the results for anyone else that may be interested.
-
Least Detail / No Noise (the one accepted by SS) care to post an example? And do I understand that right, you ran up the noise reduction on that one, which means, no noise, low detail? Did I understand right?
ISO, time,lens?
So, I decided to run a test and took four different photos from the same night sky shoot and processed them adding varying amounts of noise reduction and submitted each to 5 agencies to see which (if any) would be accepted. Attached are the results for anyone else that may be interested.