Reading mode: Light Dark

Best camera settings for Astro photography?

Go to last post
J

Jeff Wahaus

Senior Member
Messages
1,183
Solutions
3
Reaction score
1,266
Location
US
I've been pointing my camera towards the sky recently and have a few questions about the optimal camera settings. My goal is to capture the most detail and dynamic range while avoiding noise.

My gut tells me to expose something like this. To my eyes the sky was very dark (by non-adjusted eye standards as I was just 1 min earlier inside in the lights). The image is obviously overexposed but adjustments in post can deal with that.

ISO 6400, 45mm, 2 Sec @ f1.2
ISO 6400, 45mm, 2 Sec @ f1.2

This shot was hand-held by the way, the E-M1iii image stabilization is amazing!



Using Olympus Workspace I did some extreme adjustments to the highlight/shadow curves and got this:

Highlight +14, Mid -14, Shadow -10
Highlight +14, Mid -14, Shadow -10

This looks pretty good for a single image nighttime shot of stars. There is a fair amount of noise, mostly chroma, and Topaz DeNoise wasn't really able to improve the image unless you want faint stars to disappear (which I don't).

I know stacking multiple images is the way to go for the best dynamic range but that's not really what this discussion is about. For a single image, what tends to be the best settings?

What are the most useful camera settings and post adjustments to preserve detail of the faint stars and yet darken the background and also get rid of noise?

Is it better to overexpose and darken in post?

I tried a few shots at 4 seconds handheld but that was a bit much for the camera to handle (visible movement trails). It's amazing how many more stars the camera picks up than your eyes can see. The shot above managed to capture a comet (or something moving) but it seems it was moving too slow for a comet. In the next frame I took it was still there but in a lower position and more faint (space force?). The adjustments I made in post made the tail disappear more than I would have liked.
 
First of all, get a tripod, if you want to get the most out of this that's the very minimum you have to invest. With your camera I wouldn't shoot above iso 2000, you gain a big drop in read noise at that point with minimal gains past it with only loss in dynamic range. With your camera and that kens you will be limited to 2 to 4 second exposures before you start seeing star trailing. So with your lens wide open and an iso 2000 setting, check your histogram and test exposures in the 2 to 4 second range.

Your edited image looks like it could be clipping darks, go easy on the contrast application. The editing will be different from composition to composition, I'd start exploring stacking if you aren't going to pursue a tracking mount.
 
EricTheAstroJunkie said:
First of all, get a tripod, if you want to get the most out of this that's the very minimum you have to invest.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can appreciate that comment. I actually have 5 of them, the tank, the travel light, and 3 cheapo's I use as flash stands. The IS of the E-M1iii is great but I wouldn't want to use it as a substitute for a tripod.
EricTheAstroJunkie said:
With your camera I wouldn't shoot above iso 2000, you gain a big drop in read noise at that point with minimal gains past it with only loss in dynamic range.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm wondering, instead of overexposing at ISO 6400 you're saying I would get better results exposing normally at ISO 2000? (given the same shutter/aperture)
EricTheAstroJunkie said:
With your camera and that lens you will be limited to 2 to 4 second exposures before you start seeing star trailing.
Click to expand...
At 45mm Micro 4/3 format is equivalent to 90mm full frame. How do you calculate the slowest shutter speed on a fixed mount before trailing is noticed? Is there a formula?
EricTheAstroJunkie said:
Your edited image looks like it could be clipping darks, go easy on the contrast application.
Click to expand...
Right, but it's pretty hard to get a dark sky effect without bumping the contrast. Stacking seems to get around this somehow.
-Jeff-
 
Jeff Wahaus said:
EricTheAstroJunkie said:
First of all, get a tripod, if you want to get the most out of this that's the very minimum you have to invest.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can appreciate that comment. I actually have 5 of them, the tank, the travel light, and 3 cheapo's I use as flash stands. The IS of the E-M1iii is great but I wouldn't want to use it as a substitute for a tripod.
Jeff Wahaus said:
With your camera I wouldn't shoot above iso 2000, you gain a big drop in read noise at that point with minimal gains past it with only loss in dynamic range.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm wondering, instead of overexposing at ISO 6400 you're saying I would get better results exposing normally at ISO 2000? (given the same shutter/aperture)
Jeff Wahaus said:
With your camera and that lens you will be limited to 2 to 4 second exposures before you start seeing star trailing.
Click to expand...
At 45mm Micro 4/3 format is equivalent to 90mm full frame. How do you calculate the slowest shutter speed on a fixed mount before trailing is noticed? Is there a formula?
Click to expand...
That's are a few. A rough and ready formula for micro four-thirds would be about 100 to 150 seconds divided by the focal length of the lens in mm. It depends on how elongated you can tolerate your stars being and where they are in relation to the pile and the equator. 100/45mm would be 2.2 seconds, 150/45mm would be 3½ seconds.
Jeff Wahaus said:
Jeff Wahaus said:
Your edited image looks like it could be clipping darks, go easy on the contrast application.
Click to expand...
Right, but it's pretty hard to get a dark sky effect without bumping the contrast. Stacking seems to get around this somehow.
Click to expand...
An alternative to using the contrast control is to play around with the levels control using lots of repeated small adjustments rather than a few big ones.
Jeff Wahaus said:
-Jeff-
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sittatunga said:
An alternative to using the contrast control is to play around with the levels control using lots of repeated small adjustments rather than a few big ones.
Click to expand...
I didn't adjust the contrast at all, only the highlight, mid, shadow levels (Which seems to be contrast on steroids).
 
Have you tried the Photopils app? You can put in your camera and lens info. The planner will help make recommendations on settings based on the type of photos you want to take. I’m learning but do find it helpful
 
Jeff Wahaus said:
At 45mm Micro 4/3 format is equivalent to 90mm full frame. How do you calculate the slowest shutter speed on a fixed mount before trailing is noticed? Is there a formula?
Click to expand...
Equivalent field of view doesn't matter, only the actual focal length of your lens and pixel size of your sensor.

Like others, the only way this is going to work is if you're on a tripod (image stabilization off) and stacking many (many) 2-5 second exposures. If you have a fully electronic shutter and an intervalometer I recommend using them.

The other way is to again, on a tripod, use a tracking mount that counters the rotation of the earth. Then you would drop your ISO way down and do longer exposures.
 
Last edited:
1llusive said:
Jeff Wahaus said:
At 45mm Micro 4/3 format is equivalent to 90mm full frame. How do you calculate the slowest shutter speed on a fixed mount before trailing is noticed? Is there a formula?
Click to expand...
Equivalent field of view doesn't matter, only the actual focal length of your lens and pixel size of your sensor.
Click to expand...
Okay, that makes sense.
1llusive said:
Like others, the only way this is going to work is if you're on a tripod (image stabilization off) and stacking many (many) 2-5 second exposures. If you have a fully electronic shutter and an intervalometer I recommend using them.
Click to expand...
Um, you didn't really read the OP very well. This is a no stacking thread!
1llusive said:
The other way is to again, on a tripod, use a tracking mount that counters the rotation of the earth. Then you would drop your ISO way down and do longer exposures.
Click to expand...
I was already overexposed at 2 seconds, I don't see how tracking would help. Does low ISO at longer exposures produce better results than high ISO (3200 or less) at shorter exposures? I mean at some point the sky reflection overexposes the image, does low ISO counteract the sky going bright?
 
Jeff Wahaus said:
1llusive said:
Jeff Wahaus said:
At 45mm Micro 4/3 format is equivalent to 90mm full frame. How do you calculate the slowest shutter speed on a fixed mount before trailing is noticed? Is there a formula?
Click to expand...
Equivalent field of view doesn't matter, only the actual focal length of your lens and pixel size of your sensor.
Click to expand...
Okay, that makes sense.
Jeff Wahaus said:
Like others, the only way this is going to work is if you're on a tripod (image stabilization off) and stacking many (many) 2-5 second exposures. If you have a fully electronic shutter and an intervalometer I recommend using them.
Click to expand...
Um, you didn't really read the OP very well. This is a no stacking thread!
Click to expand...
Sorry bud, but if you're going to impose artificial restrictions, you're going to have very limited results. Take the advice you've been given here.
Jeff Wahaus said:
Jeff Wahaus said:
The other way is to again, on a tripod, use a tracking mount that counters the rotation of the earth. Then you would drop your ISO way down and do longer exposures.
Click to expand...
I was already overexposed at 2 seconds, I don't see how tracking would help. Does low ISO at longer exposures produce better results than high ISO (3200 or less) at shorter exposures? I mean at some point the sky reflection overexposes the image, does low ISO counteract the sky going bright?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't be overexposed at ISO 400 or lower, and quality would be better. The only reason high ISO is needed without a tracker is because you are amplifying what little signal you are capturing with aperture area and exposure time. ISO is gain.
 
1llusive said:
Click to expand...
1llusive said:
You wouldn't be overexposed at ISO 400 or lower, and quality would be better. The only reason high ISO is needed without a tracker is because you are amplifying what little signal you are capturing with aperture area and exposure time. ISO is gain.
Click to expand...
The real question here is how to pull out faint stars and produce a reasonable dark background and minimize noise. If I expose at a lower ISO then the faint stars will disappear (or will they?).
 
Jeff Wahaus said:
1llusive said:
You wouldn't be overexposed at ISO 400 or lower, and quality would be better. The only reason high ISO is needed without a tracker is because you are amplifying what little signal you are capturing with aperture area and exposure time. ISO is gain.
Click to expand...
The real question here is how to pull out faint stars and produce a reasonable dark background and minimize noise. If I expose at a lower ISO then the faint stars will disappear (or will they?).
Click to expand...
 
Jeff Wahaus said:
1llusive said:
You wouldn't be overexposed at ISO 400 or lower, and quality would be better. The only reason high ISO is needed without a tracker is because you are amplifying what little signal you are capturing with aperture area and exposure time. ISO is gain.
Click to expand...
The real question here is how to pull out faint stars and produce a reasonable dark background and minimize noise. If I expose at a lower ISO then the faint stars will disappear (or will they?).
Click to expand...
Minimising noise is why people are telling you to to limit your ISO setting. Raising the ISO setting doesn't really increase the sensitivity of the sensor, stop much as it controls the amplification setting at which the image is recorded. Have the ISO too low and you can get banding as you stretch the histogram in post processing, have it too high and you get too much noise and overexpose the brightness stars and lose their colours. Stacking is the best way of increasing the signal to noise ratio of your images, but you've said you don't want to do that. Nevertheless, stacking four images would halve the noise level in your final image.
 
Last edited:
Sittatunga said:
Jeff Wahaus said:
1llusive said:
You wouldn't be overexposed at ISO 400 or lower, and quality would be better. The only reason high ISO is needed without a tracker is because you are amplifying what little signal you are capturing with aperture area and exposure time. ISO is gain.
Click to expand...
The real question here is how to pull out faint stars and produce a reasonable dark background and minimize noise. If I expose at a lower ISO then the faint stars will disappear (or will they?).
Click to expand...
Minimising noise is why people are telling you to to limit your ISO setting. Raising the ISO setting doesn't really increase the sensitivity of the sensor, stop much as it controls the amplification setting at which the image is recorded. Have the ISO too low and you can get banding as you stretch the histogram in post processing, have it too high and you get too much noise and overexpose the brightness stars and lose their colours. Stacking is the best way of increasing the signal to noise ratio of your images, but you've said you don't want to do that. Nevertheless, stacking four images would halve the noise level in your final image.
Click to expand...
It's not that I'm opposed to stacking. My scenario is more of a nighttime landscape photo and getting the most out of the sky. A single image is the goal.
 
Jeff Wahaus said:
1llusive said:
You wouldn't be overexposed at ISO 400 or lower, and quality would be better. The only reason high ISO is needed without a tracker is because you are amplifying what little signal you are capturing with aperture area and exposure time. ISO is gain.
Click to expand...
The real question here is how to pull out faint stars and produce a reasonable dark background and minimize noise. If I expose at a lower ISO then the faint stars will disappear (or will they?).
Click to expand...
ISO has no impact on what stars are recorded, but high ISO will trigger noise reduction either in camera or in post which reduces the appearance of stars. High ISO values also easily blow out stars, destroying their natural color.

Only two things affect exposure: the aperture area of the lens (and its relation to the focal length) and time. ISO is just amplifying what you captured. More time = less amplification needed = better image.
 
Last edited:
This is the site I used to understand the best gain setting for my Canon 6D. There is a graph there for your camera I believe. Look under "Input-referred Read Noise Chart which is the 4th option on the home page.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm

It is a good site.

Also as I beginner out of the $2,538 I've spent on deep sky object imaging so far, and I already had my camera, the ~ $35 I spent for Charles Bracken's The Deep-Sky Imaging Primer 2nd Edition was one of the better spends.

Have fun and clear skies!

--
I believe in wabi-sabi : a world view centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. I appreciate beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete" in nature.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/billpoplawski/albums/with/72157716942456506
https://www.youtube.com/c/twelfthavenuecuisine
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Star Adventurer GTI, Canon Cameras and Shutter release
Replies
2
Views
3K
DebsLP
D
Marco Nero
COMET C/2024 G3 ATLAS this week (PICS).
Replies
8
Views
3K
82Virago
8
J
E-M1III for long tele Astro
Replies
13
Views
5K
Asherax
Asherax
Redcrown
ACR Adaptive Color profile sample.
2
Replies
39
Views
16K
Zeee
Z
E
Emulating Dynamic Range of Medium Format
Replies
18
Views
11K
JimKasson
JimKasson

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top