Skip to content

Milky Way in California's Eastern Sierra in August

In the Northern Hemisphere the bright, complex center of our Milky Way Galaxy is visible above the horizon if you can find an area with dark skies (little light pollution from cities).  This was taken in early August, when the Milky Way is visible to the southwest.  To an observer as the night goes by the Milky Way moves right and tilts up on the left side, and at 10:45 pm it had a tilt perfect for vertical compositions.

The Milky Way in the Eastern Sierra in August

Google+: Reshared 62 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Comments

41 thoughts on “Milky Way in California's Eastern Sierra in August”

  1. Under dark skies on a moonless night (before the moon has risen or after it has set), the Milky Way is visible to the eyes, just like this +Al Alvera.  It takes about 20-30 minutes for your eyes to gain maximum sensitivity for night vision, so I set my camera before leaving the car, and I try not to use lights after that.  In many places, where there are not lots of trees to block the light, the light of the Milky Way alone is bright enough that you can see the landscape well enough to walk around and set up your shots.  In that first 20 minutes before your eyes have fully adjusted you can still see the brightest stars and the general stripe of the Milky Way, so you notice where those stars are in your viewfinder to line up the composition.

  2. If you don't mind my asking, what kind of ISO do you go to for an image like this? I'm assuming you're using a fast lens fairly wide open? I'm wondering about the trade-off of high ISO noise vs long exposure noise.

  3. The image was captured in July 2010 on a Canon 5D Mark II at ISO 6400, on a moonless night.  Here's a blog post on the process +Andrew Wisler:

    Producing Milky Way Images
    http://www.jeffsullivanphotography.com/blog/2011/05/25/producing-milky-way-images/
    Any less of an ultra-wide lens than 16mm and you increase drag in the stars at a 30 second exposure.   Any less light than f/2.8 and you'd have to bump up the ISO beyond 6400.  The noise is high but manageable on a full frame sensor.

  4. Thanks, awesome as usual, +Jeff Sullivan. One reason I should have sprung for the 16-35 when purchasing an UWA for landscape recently (or kept my Tokina 11-16 2.8). Otherwise I'm very happy with my 17-40. There's too much light pollution where I live out east for serious astrophotography, but I'll have to give it a whirl when I can.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...