• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GMPhotography

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday April 5

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Kamloops, B.C. Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

46 profile views
  1. Thanks gents Love this type of photography. I plan to spend more time on Milky Way next season and as the season comes to end, shift my focus to deeper space when more deep space objects are in view (M42, M31, M32 higher in the sky etc)
  2. Here is my most recent Milky Way image. I missed the alignment of the milky way with the path by about a month and a half so to make it really work, I had to flip the path horizontally. For all my milky way images, I use the in-camera astrotracking that my Pentax K3II is equipped with (that is, the sensor moves with the rotation of the earth, to freeze the motion of the stars). So, I had to take 3 images. 2 for the sky for a bit of a panorama and one for the foreground, untracked, to maintain detail and avoid motion blurring. No added light, just a long exposure time (160-180s) MilkyPathFinal by Greg Murray, on Flickr
  3. Haha, well, there were around 500 dancers in the circle at the time, so undoubtedly you could see many faces. only 4 or 5 though ever appeared to be sharp and that's because the centre group with the flags were standing mostly stationary while the others danced around them as they entered the circle. Using 1/8s shutter speed at 100mm will do that without any stacking involved.
  4. Thank you Jer It is an awe-inspiring sight to witness. All the colours everywhere, but what the image fails to capture is the deep pounding of the drum.
  5. There are two if you look close I also have this one: I wanted to try this with a different set of images I had taken, but it really did not work the way I had intended, so I tried it on this one. While not exactly what I was after, I do like it and it has given me another idea to try in the future. Spirits Of Our Ancestors by Greg Murray, on Flickr
  6. A stack of 16 longer shutter speeds (1/4 of a second or so) taken of the Kamloops Powwow final Grand Entry yesterday. Cropped the top off as it was unneeded space in the concept. Wanted to catch the wonderful colours of grand entry as I had never seen them before. GrandEntry2017Stack by Greg Murray, on Flickr
  7. No magnification in terms of how you'd usually think of a telescope. It's behaving as a straight up 418mm lens at this point, mounted directly to the camera. Not sure I understand the wording in your second question. I use a proper astronomy tracking mount to negate the earths rotation, and it doesn't matter where you are on the earth, all stars will rotate at the same speed, if there is any difference, it's negligible.
  8. Andromeda M31 shot with Pentax K3II and William Optics ZS 71ED APO 20th Anniv. edition. Stacked in Beta of Starry Sky Stacker finished in Affinity Photo and Lightroom. Made from 11 images x 3 minute exposures, ISO1600, f5.9, 418mm GREG6874-compositewhite by Greg Murray, on Flickr
  9. Thank you pauls :)
  10. We finally had some good weather in my area a week ago, after months and months of cloud cover! These are Arrow Root flowers and they bloom by the thousands in my area. It's been so cold that the bloom is quite a bit later than it normally is. Flower2 by Greg Murray, on Flickr
  11. Oh. I should mention that this is the Orion Nebula. Located and visible as the three stars situated below and to the left of Orion's Belt. The constellation isn't actually visible here, as the field of view is too narrow.
  12. Just my camera with a cheap 300mm lens. There is a misconception out there that every object in space is small and needs a telescope to see. The truth is, that the apparent size (that is, the size the object appears to take up in our sky) of many objects is actually quite large. The only reason you can't see them with the naked eye in their full glory is because they are so dim. Case in point: the full moon is about 1/2 and arc minute or 30 arc seconds. But if Orion were as bright as the moon, it would appear to be about 3 times bigger than the full moon. That's small. The galaxy andromeda would appear to be 6 times bigger than the full moon, if it were as bright, and the biggest I know of is the Carinae Nebula. Which is about 3 by 4 arc minutes (I think). Massive in comparison to the full moon, but oh so much dimmer. You need a lot of long exposures to reveal the detail that is hiding in the darkness. And this is why it is difficult to see with the naked eye. Telescopes work because they gather a large amount of light (some being 11-15" in diameter. Compare that to your eye, which is maybe 1/2 an inch) and then they magnify and condense that light into a much smaller space, so objects appear brighter and thus visible. You may have seen that post floating around on social media "If Andromeda were brighter, this is how it would appear to the naked eye." That is most certainly 100% true. Many people were scoffing at it, and while you can see Andromeda with the naked eye, you only ever see it's bright core region. It's spiral arms only become visible after many long exposures are combined. This is the main reason I like taking these kinds of photographs, to educate folks on the reality that is out there. :)
  13. Here is an image I did of Orion back in Janurary. I've been playing with different editing methods and so far I like this process: 1. Stacking & Stretching done initally in a trial of PixInsight. (in this case, 89 -30s exposures) 2. Export a 32bit tiff & import into AP 3. Use AP to do some more levels, vibrance, selective noise reduction, defringing, and I also use blend ranges to blend one of the source images with the stacked image to save some of the highlight data in the centre. (AP is brilliant with this BTW! Blend ranges, seriously the best function ever. Some refer to the function, confusingly, as Blend options, my version calls it Blend Ranges) 4. Export a 16bit Tiff and import into LR for some final small adjustments. 5. Final export to whatever file type/size needed for sharing/printing/viewing. Orion by Greg Murray, on Flickr
  14. I'm confused. Why are you all referring to "Blend Ranges" with "Blend options"? Is it called something different in the PC version? I know what you're all talking about, but nowehere in my version does it refer to Blend Ranges as Blend Options. Iin trying to explain how this works to non AP users, they get confused easily when the wrong terms are used. Especially since Blend Options in PS refers to the "Normal, Darken, Darken Colour etc etc." settings you can apply to individual layers.
  15. Thanks guys. All theory that I understand, but until you test a lens with a particular process AND scene, you cant decide whether or not the limitations are something you can live with for what it adds to the image, or if the limitations simply take too much away and you're better off without. It's great to say "f7-11 are usually the sharpest parts of the lens" but what if, when focus merging, it's better to have the out of focus areas not so much out of focus? It may be better OVERALL to use a higher f-stop in this circumstance despite the limitations that it has with other applications.