|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 71 |
Oct 18 |
Comment |
Even at a higher ISO you really need 30 seconds. At least that's what the night photography books (and my personal experience) say. 20 seconds just doesn't do it. |
Oct 11th |
| 71 |
Oct 18 |
Reply |
The stars are blurred because it was a 30 second exposure to get the detail in the core. 15 seconds gives you sharp stars but little detail. |
Oct 11th |
| 71 |
Oct 18 |
Comment |
That's actually Mars on the left.
|
Oct 6th |
| 71 |
Oct 18 |
Comment |
What a nice trail! It makes for a lovely, calm image.
Maybe it's just the cataracts, but I had to look at it a second time to notice the wildflowers. The first time I thought they were bright reflections on the leaves. Is there some way to make them more prominent? |
Oct 5th |
| 71 |
Oct 18 |
Comment |
I think the golden orange of the foreground blends nicely with the orange reds of the distant mountains and really stands out against the blues. The snow geese balance out the eagle too.
I'm curious how much difference it would make if there were a bit more green in the foreground. |
Oct 5th |
| 71 |
Oct 18 |
Comment |
I really like how the branches of the tree point to the Milky Way in this image. The amount of detail in the tree is pretty amazing for a night photo too. Did you do some light painting or is it a composite or did you just get lucky with some existing light? Nice, nice job! |
Oct 5th |
| 71 |
Oct 18 |
Comment |
Thank you, Mike. The problem is that I got so many good images that it's hard to choose just one! |
Oct 2nd |
6 comments - 1 reply for Group 71
|
6 comments - 1 reply Total
|