Sometimes when I present a star trail shot over water, some of the people who look at it think it's "fake" if they don't see a perfect reflection of the stars. As you walk around in daylight, every time you see water does it reflectsomething? No, not always. When there is a reflection, is it as bright as your direct view of the same scene? It may look that way to your perception, but no, photographers know that the reflection is much darker and contains much less light. In fact, we often use graduated neutral density filters of 2 to 3 stops to balance out the direct and reflected images, so we know that the reflection doesn't just contain a little less light, the direct view of the landscape contains 4 to 8 times more light. So how much light is in the reflection? If it's 1/8th of the direct light, that's about 12%.
There are a lot of circumstances affecting how strong a reflected image is. The angle of incidence makes a difference. Light arriving at a small, low angle reflects better. Think of a rock skipping across the surface: you throw a rock to skip down close to the water, and throw it almost parallel to the surface of the water. Light bounces off the surface better at a shallow angle like that too. So a low tripod height will help. If you try shooting from a high tripod, the light at the foot of your tripod has to come almost straight up. Can you skip a rock straight down? No. You can't reflect photons of light very well that way either. Most of the light hitting the water at such a large angle to its surface simply passes into the water instead of reflecting. In clear water, so much light is going in and out when viewed straight down near your feet, you'll typically see the bottom of the lake at your feet instead of a reflection.
But let's apply what we've already considered to this shot at night. You see far more stars after the moon sets. Many stars are barely bright enough to be seen when the moon is up. My typical dark sky exposure is 30 seconds at f/2.8, ISO 6400. The dimmer stars are visible in the sky, but when you cut their light 88% to leave the typical 12% intensity in the reflection, the camera's sensor is no longer sensitive enough at this exposure to pick them up. You'd have to increase the sensitivity 8X to have a good chance of picking them up: ISO 51,200! There are other factors such as the calmness of the water. If that faint point of light moves even a little, it spreads out in the long exposure, and its brightness, its intensity, goes down.
For this image taken when no moon was in the sky, I captured 228 images of 30 seconds each, at f/2.8, ISO 12,800. That compromise overexposed the sky and underexposed the reflection, so in post-processing I darkened the sky and brightened the reflection, but many stars were simply too dim to show up in the reflection at ISO 12,800. So if you want to take a star trail reflection picture at night, break out your 3 stop graduated neutral density filter, set your ISO to 51,200 (if you want to keep the exposure times short), and I wish you luck!
Edit: Here's my blog post on the subject of star trails:
Creating Star Trails Images
http://activesole.blogspot.com/2011/05/creating-star-trail-images.html
Google+: Reshared 45 times
Google+: View post on Google+
Comments
Wow! Very nice Jeff. Great composition.
oh ! ……………………………………..
The reflections in the water are incredible. Well done sir!
inspirant 🙂
Thanks +Brian Bach Sørensen. This was taken at 14mm focal length. I hope to publish a timelapse video version of the movement later today. It's a shame that the 16:9 aspect ratio of HD video caused me to crop the image a bit vertically. I should redo it letter-boxed on the sides.
Good explanation …
impressive!
I really like it astonished +Jeff Sullivan 🙂
asombroso!
It looks other -worldly. Almost disorienting.
wow amazing!
Fantastic +Jeff Sullivan!
oh what is that
So amazing! Well… I admit I, for a second or so, ever thought that "it must be fake!"
me gusta
Piękne!
looks like someone giant made a thumbprint in the sky
…awesome…
go home, sky. you're drunk. – in other news, great photo! 🙂
very cool:-)
Stunning. What a great idea.
I find it so much easier to take a photo +Allen Lau, I can't imagine why people fake them (unless they're under house arrest, and can't get outside without violating parole). This guy may have that problem soon:
http://pdnpulse.com/2012/08/self-proclaimed-photo-montage-virtuoso-is-sued-for-stealing-photos.html
Lol!
Just look at the trees
It's fake
Nicely captured +Jeff Sullivan and excellent description on how to. How many exposures do you need for a full circle? I screwed up and did not realize it till after I had completed 125 of them. I then took an additional 60 before I started to fall asleep on the Tufa, so had to leave.
This is too beautiful is something I never dreamed of seeing required.
Some people say that it takes an hour or two to show the appearance of a complete circle +Maximilian Laue, but you'll get a good sense of the rotation of the earth in 30 minutes, and with dark skies showing plenty of stars, 40 minutes should be more than enough. You can get 3 shots in 2 hours at 40 minutes vs. 2 shots in 2 hours at 60 minutes each, so the shorter the better in terms of photographer productivity. I had a battery die at 18 minutes and those 36 shots show trails:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/RE8oc3QJdfWmG6ALV94XzNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
Of course technically speaking it takes about 24 hours to make a complete circle (a little longer considering the extra correction accounted for in leap years), but you'll get a pretty good sense of that movement in images covering 30-40 minutes.
Impressive!
LOL +Dhruv Malik, yes, I hear that sometimes as well.
One person insisted that my time-lapse of stars over bristlecone pines must be faked because the trees didn't move… trees which take up to 4800 years to grow 30 feet tall.
Perhaps a tree which takes 160 years to grow a foot and which withstands winds over 100MPH on ridges at 11,000 feet might be a little sturdy!
marvaless
Beautiful!
Awesome!!
like&awesome!!!:)
very nice !
🙂
Very creative.
Wow… it's amazing
Beautiful photo +Jeff Sullivan. I have one question though… What, or how did you merge all of the images together?
I've described the star trails stacking process in a blog article +John Minor:
Creating Star Trails Images
http://activesole.blogspot.com/2011/05/creating-star-trail-images.html
Many thanks. I hadn't been able to find a good program for stacking the photos.
that is sweet
Wow keep sharing
beast
thats amazing!!!!
Our world goes in circles… apparently.
Hey les gusta
Mmiren
Incredibly gorgeous!!
i like
ilove you
Fantastico
This is so beautiful!
inspiring
Awesome!
nice
wow
thanks for sharing Jeff, at 51200 wont your noise be so high? with your GND you put the darker side on the sky and lighter on the lake? great work..
Yes +sankar nair, that's one of the reasons I said "I wish you luck". Another reason is that GNDs typically don't work with ultra-wide lenses like 14mm you'd like to use to get a lot of sky (all the way up to the North Star) plus some reflection. You can hand-hold a GND in front of a 16mm lens (most filters/holders vignette and force you to shoot at a much narrower field of view), but who can stand there and hand-hold a filter for 30 minutes? The best option might be to shoot two different exposures, and simply let the reflection shutter times be longer for the reflection. Then however you'd be shooting two different times, and the reflection captured wouldn't be of the stars showing in the sky in the same position (which might not matter if you shoot long enough to completely abstract the apparent movement of the stars due to the earth's rotation).
There are definitely a lot of challenges and tradeoffs,
thanks for the tip +Jeff Sullivan i was out yesterday night got some nice trails but the water was too wavy due to the wind so didnt get enough reflections of trails at all..i have a 5dMkIII and i have noticed the noise performance up till 25600 is manageable..beyond it seems pretty bad..i have a Cokin holder with removable GNDs.. i ll try this next time..:)