Page #: 4/124 |
@4juice | 30 April 17 | |
@3mel | 30 April 17 | |
actually with a DSLR you wouldn't need to use bracketing. you could just work the exposure needed on the foreground and reduce it down by however many times more was needed for the background (if you were using a flash as crail suggested).
|
||
@peta | 30 April 17 | |
@propidol | 30 April 17 | |
3 of my favourites right there.
|
||
@usbcable | 30 April 17 | |
@sisfreak2017 | 30 April 17 | |
@ usbcable - 30.04.17 - 07:59pm You need longer than a minute.. Try 20 minutes 20 mins? Surely that will give star trails instead of how we see them wben sober |
||
@4juice | 30 April 17 | |
@ 3mel - 30.04.17 - 06:47pm actually with a DSLR you wouldn't need to use bracketing. you could just work the exposure needed on the foreground and reduce it down by however many times more was needed for the background (if you were using a flash as crail suggested). What does bracketing even means...and your method is pretty old school, might work well with those old carbon films though. |
||
@3mel | 30 April 17 | |
@ 4juice - 30.04.17 - 10:07pm What does bracketing even means...and your method is pretty old school, might work well with those old carbon films though. so what was your new school method then ? you can't meter the nights sky and get a useable exposure rating for it. |
||
@propidol | 30 April 17 | |
@miaiad | 1 May 17 | |