Night Sky Shooting / Astrophotography on X-T2 : ETTR? ISO 1600?

Hi All - I had my first attempt at doing some dark sky territory shooting of the Milky Way with the X-T2 and everything came back underexposed from Death Valley National Park.

Q1) Should I have cranked up the EC to ETTR to get more information? I've read conflicting information.

Q2) Does the forum agree that ISO invariance starts around ISO1600 and up? or is it ISO 800 and up?

Q3) Foolishly I didn't use the histogram and just went by what I saw on the screen. What are some settings to use it properly?

-Turn Pic Preview Effect OFF

-DR200

-Highlight -2, Shadow -2

-Daylight White Balance

Anything else?

I'm going to Acadia National Park to try one more time this weekend and want to make sure I come back with better night sky (landscape) photos.

I have a few examples I can share from Death Valley, but here's just one of them:

I suggest reading this: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/how-to-make-an-amazing-photo-of-the-milky-way-galaxy/

And there are other tips and reviews on this website.

shiftyonthemic wrote:

Hi All - I had my first attempt at doing some dark sky territory shooting of the Milky Way with the X-T2 and everything came back underexposed from Death Valley National Park.

Q1) Should I have cranked up the EC to ETTR to get more information? I've read conflicting information.

Q2) Does the forum agree that ISO invariance starts around ISO1600 and up? or is it ISO 800 and up?

Q3) Foolishly I didn't use the histogram and just went by what I saw on the screen. What are some settings to use it properly?

-Turn Pic Preview Effect OFF

-DR200

-Highlight -2, Shadow -2

-Daylight White Balance

Anything else?

I'm going to Acadia National Park to try one more time this weekend and want to make sure I come back with better night sky (landscape) photos.

I have a few examples I can share from Death Valley, but here's just one of them:

I've been pretty successful with starscapes and other astro work with the following basic settings:

ISO 3200
25s max exposure length (else you risk star trailing)
Wide open (f/2.8 in my case -- Zeiss Touit 12mm lens)
Shoot RAW for maximum post processing latitude

Even at those settings, your shots might appear somewhat underexposed. However, there's enough processing latitude to give you plenty of contrast and detail (one reason to shoot RAW in this case).  NR at that ISO is still pretty manageable with minimal "star eating" issues.

I invite you to try stacking instead of ETTR

I made a full tutorial last year https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/milky-way-and-light-pollution-photography-tutorial-using-fuji/

shiftyonthemic wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

I've been pretty successful with starscapes and other astro work with the following basic settings:

ISO 3200
25s max exposure length (else you risk star trailing)
Wide open (f/2.8 in my case -- Zeiss Touit 12mm lens)
Shoot RAW for maximum post processing latitude

Even at those settings, your shots might appear somewhat underexposed. However, there's enough processing latitude to give you plenty of contrast and detail (one reason to shoot RAW in this case). NR at that ISO is still pretty manageable with minimal "star eating" issues.

Jerry-- Did you boost the EC to get a more neutral histogram?

I don't recall all the different settings in LR, but you definitely have to boost contrast and clarity and apply some NR.  Getting the right balance and maximum retention of details is the trick, and each exposure will be a bit different.

I agree with Vegetalab, stacking is the way to go. I didn't get up to speed with stacking until I ran across Starry Landscape Stacker (Mac). And now that I have. . . we're due to be in Acadia in two weeks as well, and I'm looking forward for a do-over on a location done earlier this year.

(Nice walk through of the stacking technique, Veg.)

shiftyonthemic wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

I invite you to try stacking instead of ETTR

I made a full tutorial last year https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/milky-way-and-light-pollution-photography-tutorial-using-fuji/

Nice detailed write up on stacking with the X-T10!

- Did you have the DR to Auto, 100, 200 or 400?

- Where was the EC dial at? 0? Did you not care to look at the histogram?

Edit: Folks are suggesting

• DR100
• Pro Neg Std.
• Highlight tone -2
• Shadow tone -2

In his tutorial, vegetaleb says to set the camera to save raw files, not joegj so DR, Film Sim, tone settings won't matter, everything is done in processing, either after stacking if the stacking program accepts RAF files like Sequator, or before if you need to feed the program with Tiff files (in this case you can minimally process the raw files for lens distribution for example, and adjust the white balance if it is off).

By the the way I just tried Sequator in Linux (using wine) and it works great! I found it best for me to process raw files in RawTherapee (adjusting white balance, lens distortion, vignetting, choice of demosaicing algorithm) and let Sequator stack 16-bit Tiff files (using "accumulation" for composition computing options). Then I save the result as linear Tiff which I process in RawTherapee for final result.

shiftyonthemic wrote:

Histogram is based off the jpeg preview baked in the RAW. This is why I am asking re: choosing a flatter film sim when shooting in the field.

I haven't done any dark sky shooting (hard to do in NYC) to test whether the DR100/DR200/DR400 affects the RAW. Many mixed opinions whether it does or doesn't from the threads I've gone through.

I will try Sequator in Linux after the trip.

To my knowledge, the histogram in RawTherapee has nothing to do with the embedded jpeg. It either from the RGB data cooked in RT, or you can also toggle he actual raw histogram if you want.

And from a recent shooting I've done with DR400 setting, the raw file produced is just a plain underexposed ISO 800 raw file. In other words, for astrophotography stay away from DR settings. And forget about the camera histogram, the night sky is mostly black, it's logical that the histogram is to left.

Sebastien Guyader wrote:

By the the way I just tried Sequator in Linux (using wine) and it works great! I found it best for me to process raw files in RawTherapee (adjusting white balance, lens distortion, vignetting, choice of demosaicing algorithm) and let Sequator stack 16-bit Tiff files (using "accumulation" for composition computing options). Then I save the result as linear Tiff which I process in RawTherapee for final result.

I just took a look at Sequator to try to process a milky way shot from an Oregon visit last year and the results appear to be pretty incredible.

This was the my base image straight out of camera, 20s, ISO 1600, probably f/2 on the Rokinon 12 f/2.

Here is Sequator's results using 2 additional Star exposures. Note that I was on a little table top tripod when I shot these and my framing appears to have shifted slightly; I can only assume what is going on in the bottom part of the image is part of the "Reduce Distortion Effects: Complex" setting I chose, but I don't have time to mess around further with this tonight.

You can clearly see how my framing shifted a bit on the right hand side of the frame.

That's one heck of a starting point!  That's with Star images: Unify exposure checked, Align stars, Accumulation, Sky region: Partial, Auto brightness On, Reduce Distortion Effects: Complex, Reduce Light pollution, Uneven.

Might as well turn this up to 11 while we're here. Slapped a preset on it in On1 and I'm calling it a night.

I can't wait to see what you guys produce when on proper tripods without the frame shifting between stacking inputs.

Jake

You have to use Raw and not compressed (x-t2/20)

vegetaleb wrote:

I invite you to try stacking instead of ETTR

I made a full tutorial last year https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/milky-way-and-light-pollution-photography-tutorial-using-fuji/

That's good advice.

Say for example a nightscape:

14mm F2.8 at F2.8

ISO6400

30 seconds

NR off, LENR off (you could use LENR but it doubles the exposure time).

Take 6-12 shots and stack them using Sequator free software.

Noise reduction is best done by getting enough signal rather than post processing smoothing.

6 images stacked is usually pretty noise free without any processing noise reduction.

Fuji cameras are very clean in long exposure. Just remember Fuji uses a different approach to ISO so ISO6400 is more like ISO4000 on a Sony. No issue just bump it up a tad.

You can also do ISO3200 and boost more in post. Not really that important except watch the star colours. If you push it too hard with high ISO the stars lose colour quickly. In that case back off the ISO or the exposure time.

Longer focal length lenses even if fast will require very short exposure times and would mean either lots of stacking or lots of images to form a mosaic. Mosaics are harder.

Stacked nightscapes give many times better results that a single exposure pushed hard in post that really never looks that great.

Oh I nearly forgot, I prefer to use auto white balance. I know someone who recommends to use daylight white balance but the examples I have seen and in my own use doing that look overly warm, too yellow and orangy. False colours in my opinion.

Fuji and Sony do excellent auto white balance, one thing I like about both those systems.

Greg.

shiftyonthemic wrote:

Sebastien Guyader wrote:

In his tutorial, vegetaleb says to set the camera to save raw files, not joegj so DR, Film Sim, tone settings won't matter, everything is done in processing, either after stacking if the stacking program accepts RAF files like Sequator, or before if you need to feed the program with Tiff files (in this case you can minimally process the raw files for lens distribution for example, and adjust the white balance if it is off).

By the the way I just tried Sequator in Linux (using wine) and it works great! I found it best for me to process raw files in RawTherapee (adjusting white balance, lens distortion, vignetting, choice of demosaicing algorithm) and let Sequator stack 16-bit Tiff files (using "accumulation" for composition computing options). Then I save the result as linear Tiff which I process in RawTherapee for final result.

Histogram is based off the jpeg preview baked in the RAW. This is why I am asking re: choosing a flatter film sim when shooting in the field.

I haven't done any dark sky shooting (hard to do in NYC) to test whether the DR100/DR200/DR400 affects the RAW. Many mixed opinions whether it does or doesn't from the threads I've gone through.

I will try Sequator in Linux after the trip.

I usually used Velvia when doing Fuji nightscapes just to get a boost to the colour. But you can get that anyway in post processing.

All those items you mentioned are simply not important, just 30 seconds, wide angle lens, wide open and ISO6400 RAW.

Its a physical thing. You need to capture photons and that takes time, hence stacking.

Pushing hard an image that never got many photons in the first place no matter what settings never looks that great.

Gotta catch the photons first.

Greg.

JakeInChicago wrote:

Sebastien Guyader wrote:

By the the way I just tried Sequator in Linux (using wine) and it works great! I found it best for me to process raw files in RawTherapee (adjusting white balance, lens distortion, vignetting, choice of demosaicing algorithm) and let Sequator stack 16-bit Tiff files (using "accumulation" for composition computing options). Then I save the result as linear Tiff which I process in RawTherapee for final result.

I just took a look at Sequator to try to process a milky way shot from an Oregon visit last year and the results appear to be pretty incredible.

This was the my base image straight out of camera, 20s, ISO 1600, probably f/2 on the Rokinon 12 f/2.

Here is Sequator's results using 2 additional Star exposures. Note that I was on a little table top tripod when I shot these and my framing appears to have shifted slightly; I can only assume what is going on in the bottom part of the image is part of the "Reduce Distortion Effects: Complex" setting I chose, but I don't have time to mess around further with this tonight.

You can clearly see how my framing shifted a bit on the right hand side of the frame.

That's one heck of a starting point! That's with Star images: Unify exposure checked, Align stars, Accumulation, Sky region: Partial, Auto brightness On, Reduce Distortion Effects: Complex, Reduce Light pollution, Uneven.

Might as well turn this up to 11 while we're here. Slapped a preset on it in On1 and I'm calling it a night.

I can't wait to see what you guys produce when on proper tripods without the frame shifting between stacking inputs.

Jake

There is an option in Sequator to mask the landscape and it does not do that blurring and stacks them accurately on top of each other with no motion blur. I use that all the time and it works well.

You are going to get motion blur without that setting.

Greg.

Use "freeze ground" so land parts don't look blurry and select the sky part only

The current version of Sequator supports compressed RAFs just fine.

Sebastien Guyader wrote:

The current version of Sequator supports compressed RAFs just fine.

Good to hear!

Some memory saving is welcomed, my 1 year old 2TB hdd is already full

Astrophotographer 10 wrote:

There is an option in Sequator to mask the landscape and it does not do that blurring and stacks them accurately on top of each other with no motion blur. I use that all the time and it works well.

You are going to get motion blur without that setting.

Greg.

Noted, thank you for the tip Greg!

vegetaleb wrote:

Use "freeze ground" so land parts don't look blurry and select the sky part only

Thank you for the tip Jeff, that must be the setting to which Greg was referring. I visited your blog just now and appreciate you taking the time to write such a thorough tutorial on Milky Way photography (in fact I see you mentioned that setting in your blog post).

I perused your blog a bit and it looks like your other tutorials will be helpful as well. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!