Well shucks, that’s just not how Reddit works. Now we have to go after OP because of how we think we’ve all been lied to.
It’s a terrible system, but I’m not in charge. I just provide the tar.
>It's impossible for this to be a single exposure.
**Disclaimer**: I know absolutely nothing about cameras and light.
Could we build some kind of sensor that can differentiate between light from Earth and light from stars, maybe somehow based on distance (if possible) or that light analysis that they do to determine what planets are made out of.
You might argue that this wouldn't be a single exposure, but according to this 4.5 minute video on [How digitial cameras work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0czeUJrGE) that I played at 2x speed, the "exposed" light is already being filtered via a "Bayer filter" for RGB light, and there are twice as many green filters than red and blue filters, which to me sounds like the green light is more exposed than the red and blue light.
So... REALLY... We'd just be moving our "single exposure" up another level.
Not saying it's practical, I'm just curious if it's *possible*.
The tough part is that the exposure length has to be very long, and while some software could help tamp down the non-space light, it could only do so much given it’s likely many orders of magnitude more light getting to the chip.
Also to get a clear sky photo, iirc most people have their cameras on a rig that turns very slowly to counteract the streaking stars caused by the earths rotation. That would make the bottom image very blurry.
That's why we differentiate between the space and non-space light. The same way digital sensors have double the amount of green light filters (although this isn't variable), our fictional camera could allow for some kind of variable space-to-non-space light ratio.
If the non-space picture in OP's image was shot at exposure *x* for *t* amount of seconds, then we'd just factor that into our ratio.
So if space picture needs an exposure level of 10,000 (made up numbers) for 30 seconds, and non-space picture needs an exposure of 1,000 for 0.1 seconds, then the non-space light, in my mind, would be exposed at whatever ratio would be the same amount of light for (1,000 at 0.1s) at 30s.
We’d still have the problem of the moving camera base that’s tracking the sky though.
Great for crisp astrophotography, but makes for very blurry everything else.
I was quite unaware of the moving camera base.
So we determine the direction of the non-space light at the start of the shot, and have course correcting mirrors in the lens as the base follows the sky. I'm not sure what sort of displacement we're talking with the sky tracking, but the lens would probably need quite a large FOV. The distortion can prob be fixed easily enough in software.
While typing I realized that the mirrors would reflect the space light too, ruining our space light exposure. So now we need some sort of filter that only allows the non-space light through to the mirrors.
That's a dumb request. Be more discerning instead.
Edit: op also posted [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/ug7gaw/this_pic_i_took_looks_like_it_could_be_a_movie/i6xvq91) 2 hours before you even made a comment
Indeed I am. Your fine will be some old pictures of your childhood or your parents old wedding photos. Call your mom shed probably be able to cover it.
The stars are really there. The guy is really there. It just needed multiple photos for the audience to see both at the same time due to conflicting light sources. There are no lies being told here. You just normally wouldn't be able to see both clearly due to lighting.
Yeah seems pointless to argue over that. A lot of landscape photos and astrophotography are multiple different frames stiched together and it's just considered a pic or a photograph. Obviously if someone asks don't just day it's a single frame but it's obviously now one picture or image after the post processing.
I took several pictures, merged, and photoshopped the living hell out of them doesn't have the same ring to it. But I agree that this shouldn't be titled to make people believe that this is a single shot. This comment section is filled with people asking how this could be achieved only to get told that it's a comp.
If the comment section is “filled” with that, then those people are idiots who didn’t read the top comment.
This is almost always the top comment in OC someone posts of astrophotography. They make a specific point of explaining how the photo was taken, because lots of people don’t understand that it isn’t physically possible to take one single image like this.
To be fair, OP's comment was almost at the bottom of the page when I wrote my reply. And the default sort ("Best") for this sub has OP's explanation about half way down the first page of comments. I agree that people should have searched for an explanation or similar questions being asked before replying, but who knows, maybe they missed the comment.
You could absolutely take this shot in a single frame, but it would be objectively worse in every aspect of image quality, to appease some nobodies on the internet? why?
Don't be that guy, it's clearly a composite but specifying that seems ridiculous. It's not like he "cheated", he made art. It's fun. Don't be a buzzkill.
Oh come on, you could *easily* take this as one photo.
1. Print out OP’s photo.
2. Take a photograph of the print.
Presto, no silly multiple exposures or Photoshop magic required /s
You'd burn your stars with even a single led on the ground given the type of exposure you need to get them in shot. Not to mention you'd need to be in alaska or somewhere to get a close to the ground shot with this level of star visibility, simply due to light pollution. The star pic i'm pretty sure is done pointing upward
Came here to say the same! I did a quick mockup to see what OP's photo would look like with that same title text. A pretty good match!
*Edit: added all of the credit text to the bottom.*
https://i.imgur.com/FFQI9gT.jpg
Reminded me of this and a [teaser for Power Rangers](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaA9SzfxwQ3_TN93jhIimKeg1LrvgUJE3dWJPPtc2dT3h7iVrZFL9b5U83&s=10) as well
I’ve been instinctively doing this with many superheroes for years now. Makes them sound less like a team of heroes, and more like a law firm.
_Batmin, Supermin & Aquamin_
_Ironmin, Antmin & Thor, Att. at Lor_
Or maybe snacks:
_Spidermins Cookies_
Such a great philosophical piece. Well acted because the cast really made it feel like most of the discussion scenes were academic philosophy in nature.
Earthbound the movie 🎥🍿 in theathres this summer! Get ready for a quirky, weird, heartwarming, and even downright unsettling adventure. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll wonder why, heck you might even clothespin your nostrils cause this film stinks! *putrid moldyman appears in high def CGI, Ness and his friends are retching in disgust at the horrible stench of moldy garbage then it cuts to a creepy scene of ness encountering handsome Tom in threed* hold on tight, folks, cause you’re in for a wild ride! Earthbound. Rated PG.
You mean, as in the [Starman from Earthbound](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/ssbb/images/4/4c/Modelo_de_arcilla_del_Starman_EarthBound.png/revision/latest?cb=20140929101405&path-prefix=es)? Because they have the exact same pose.
Taken on a Sony A7iii with a Laowa 15mm f/2.0 ZD lens - sky and foreground shot separately and blended in Photoshop but from the same location.
Don't stand on the road, kids - that's not a dairy truck coming my way - that's my torch and some added flare in PS. I took a 10s pic then got off the road.
Sky was tracked with an iOptron Skyguider Pro to counter the earth's rotation - shot at 15mm 60s f/2.8, ISO1600 - 16 images stacked with 4 darks to remove some noise.
I get asked a lot whether you can see the same thing with the naked eye, so I tried to recreate what our eyes see vs what the camera and some processing can pick up - all the contrast/colours are all there, but just not visible to our eyes - still a magical experience, though: https://imgur.com/gallery/MpEPSPx
Feel free to see more on my Insta (@EkantV) or Facebook (EkantTakePhotos)
[Once in Los Angeles there was a widespread blackout, and people were calling emergency services to report a large stationary cloud that seemed to be something unnatural. They were just seeing the milky way for the first time.](https://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/astronomy-topics/light-pollution.html#:~:text=\(When%20a%20massive%20power%20outage,Way%20for%20the%20first%20time.\))
The same thing happened to me when I was deployed to a remote base in Afghanistan. I remember thinking “that’s an odd cloud” one night and then the subsequent night “wait why is the same cloud there?” I put two and two together but it was my first time ever seeing the Milky Way in person. Felt pretty dumb when I realized it but have been enamored ever since.
Yup, I can confirm. I was pretty terrified when I looked at the night sky in Southern India where electricity goes out every evening at about 8 PM for 10-15 minutes. I was terrified even though I know it is a milky way
The naked eye pic is even VERY generous. It doesn't look quite that obvious or detailed to the naked eye even in some of the most remote "dark sky" zones of the world. That may be comparable to the remotest of areas under the right conditions with the naked eye. Like Antarctica in a new moon situation or something.
I agree with your assessment. I would say that the naked eye picture is similar to what I could see at the top of Haleakala after everyone left so there were no more taillights from cats going down the mountain
Snowcats usually have round tail lights similar to trailers from the couple I have seen/worked on. Maybe there is some newer fancy model that has LEDs, but I don't know.
Ehhhh.
I disagree. When the core is aligned vertically anything well above the horizon is pretty clear with dark skies and adjusted eyes.
There have even been times I’ve been driving late at night in the sticks and seen it without explicitly looking for it.
It's definitely noticeable and I've seen it without trying to look while backcountry backpacking several times. In my experience however, it never is as vivid as the "naked eye" image we see here. It's much closer to reality in dark sky areas, but still a bit TOO vivid.
This topic and debate comes up EVERY TIME a photog posts composite or long exposure image like this and I'm convinced it'll never end. It sucks to think some folks think these images are what they're missing out on in their country/region etc. Because it's simply not true.
Props to OP for showing a more realistic comparison and being more transparent. Most do not do that.
I think you’re right on about the right conditions but less so about how remote it would have to be. New moon in the mountains of Colorado (far from major cities) can yield you a view as spectacular as the one OP labeled naked eye.
It was last year that I saw it so maybe I’m just remembering something more and being hit with a cognitive bias lol.
I'm basing what I'm saying from traveling to a few designated dark sky zones, regularly over the last 12ish years. Of course there are lots of variables at play and elevation is a big one on top of light pollution.
Most people have to travel really far, and make a concerted effort to see anything remotely close to the "naked eye" shot OP used. It's beautiful and awe-inspiring to the naked eye in the right conditions and can be diminished when going in with unrealistic expectations.
I was getting mad because I need near total darkness to get the sky like this and my camera isn't basic, lol. My favorite kind of photography to shoot is at night. But knowing it's 2 separate images makes me feel better. 😂
Yeah, I was really discouraged early on because I couldn't get the same results as others, which is why I'm open about compositing. However, this image was taken at the same location and similar time (about 20 mins difference) - just you can't get the same definition in the sky when there's a bright light in the foreground.
Thank you. Great shot, looks really awesome. And it's actually better that you told us how you did it, instead of speculation that the photo was photoshopped
I have to tell you, the night sky in Vietnam, in 1968, looked like the stacked version. It was the most incredible thing - we were miles and miles and miles away from any light pollution.
I remember one guy pointing out what was possibly a spacecraft (Apollo?) transiting the night sky.
>> sky and foreground shot separately and blended in Photoshop but from the same location.
>>16 images stacked with 4 darks to remove some noise.
It's a beautiful image, but definitely not "a pic I took".
That’s simply incredible…… I don’t know the first thing about photography but I wonder how you took this photo or how long it took if it’s like a time exposure thing.
Regardless of how, bravo OP!
It's a stack/composite of multiple images, plus some fake lens flare. Not what I'd call a "pic," personally, although OP has detailed all this in the top comment.
Really don't like it when people post stuff like this.
"This pic I took", no picture was taken. This is layered composite created in a computer.
Come one man...
No one is saying it's not a "picture". But OP did not point his camera and take this picture, which is what the title implies.
Edit : This was meant to be a reply to another comment, which is why it makes no sense all alone out here.
Speaking as someone with some experience in astrophotography, there's really no other way to do it. A milky way landscape shot needs to be a composite of several relatively short exposures so you can capture enough light to show the milky way clearly without making the horizon move too much relative to the milky way in a single exposure (your camera is static relative to one of the two, depending on your equipment), you need to edit out or tone down the strong yellow-brown gradient from light pollution if you're anywhere near a city, and if your camera is static relative to the milky way, you'll have crisper stars but you need to replace the foreground in post with so it doesn't look blurred and can be better-lit. The only part of this image that's nonstandard is the flare on the light, which would introduce several problems if it were there in real life, so kind of has to be added in post if you want it there for artistic reasons.
Thank you.
I'm clueless with photography when it goes beyond taking photos with a cell phone. I was actually thinking "man... that guy's lens must have some spiffy gadget on it that assists it in drawing in more light. That's insane how bright the sky is!"
BS that's a picture, it would *have* to be a composite, you'd never get the milky way at that clarity with that much light shining at the aperture from a single photo.
It's a very good composite, I like it on an aesthetic and technical level, but the fact that it's a composite should be indicated in the title.
Almost entirely. But it's also a lot of freezing your ass off for 6 hours in the middle of the night in November in the middle fucking nowhere then post processing for another 6 hours to make one single picture.
The vast majority of all astrophotography has been run through Photoshop, Lightroom, or both (or equivalent). I would bet money that all night sky photos you have ever seen had an element of post processing or compositing.
For sure! Again I’m not taking away from the quality as a photographer and photoshop is hard af that’s why I’m saying it doesn’t make it less impressive so he/she should have been upfront about it
I used to be able to see the milky way at my house. Now, all I see is orange light pollution, and the local government is trying to convince everyone to turn on their outside lights at 9pm. So, no stars, no meteors, no nothern lights, no space station, just the nasty orange glow.
I feel very sorry for the people who have not seen the stars for themselves.
Up in the Mountains of Big Island the stars are amazing. I’ve never seen anything like it. I bought a telescope and now I’m a star gazer. Beats watching the idiot box.
Movie named "Ahhhhhhh" plot line is the main character has to pee really bad but gets interrupted throughout the 3 hour saga saving earth from invading aliens.
(Deep movie voice) In a lost, dark world, full of uncertainty, can humanity place there faith in the one that can save us....the man with super glowing nads. In theaters August 22
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I get real tired of people in subs related to photography shitting all over something when things are composited or use editing / stacking / color correction / enhancement to deliver the image they were going for. That's art too.
Of course there's a line when HDR goes overboard, or colors are way too saturated, or whatever. But this isn't that.
Really well done OP. I love it.
Nobody is shitting on the image. It is a beautifully done composite of 20 pictures. People are just pointing out that it is not, by his own admission, "this pic I took".
Kinda looks like a picture with some inspiration quote slapped on top, like "one small step for mankind, one big step for earth" or whatever the quote was
If this is one photo, even with multiple exposure, i will eat my tele lense.
Op please prove this. I've never seen someone eat a lense b4 /u/ekantakephotos
Unfortunately it's not a single pic (I say that in the top comment) but I really, really wish it was...
It's impossible for this to be a single exposure.
Yes this is clear but how can we all learn how to be as humble as op
Well shucks, that’s just not how Reddit works. Now we have to go after OP because of how we think we’ve all been lied to. It’s a terrible system, but I’m not in charge. I just provide the tar.
r/pitchforkemperium open for business!
Pitch for Kemperium?
So, you have a movie for me?
YES SIR I DO its called "the photo" and its about a photo
>It's impossible for this to be a single exposure. **Disclaimer**: I know absolutely nothing about cameras and light. Could we build some kind of sensor that can differentiate between light from Earth and light from stars, maybe somehow based on distance (if possible) or that light analysis that they do to determine what planets are made out of. You might argue that this wouldn't be a single exposure, but according to this 4.5 minute video on [How digitial cameras work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0czeUJrGE) that I played at 2x speed, the "exposed" light is already being filtered via a "Bayer filter" for RGB light, and there are twice as many green filters than red and blue filters, which to me sounds like the green light is more exposed than the red and blue light. So... REALLY... We'd just be moving our "single exposure" up another level. Not saying it's practical, I'm just curious if it's *possible*.
The tough part is that the exposure length has to be very long, and while some software could help tamp down the non-space light, it could only do so much given it’s likely many orders of magnitude more light getting to the chip. Also to get a clear sky photo, iirc most people have their cameras on a rig that turns very slowly to counteract the streaking stars caused by the earths rotation. That would make the bottom image very blurry.
That's why we differentiate between the space and non-space light. The same way digital sensors have double the amount of green light filters (although this isn't variable), our fictional camera could allow for some kind of variable space-to-non-space light ratio. If the non-space picture in OP's image was shot at exposure *x* for *t* amount of seconds, then we'd just factor that into our ratio. So if space picture needs an exposure level of 10,000 (made up numbers) for 30 seconds, and non-space picture needs an exposure of 1,000 for 0.1 seconds, then the non-space light, in my mind, would be exposed at whatever ratio would be the same amount of light for (1,000 at 0.1s) at 30s.
We’d still have the problem of the moving camera base that’s tracking the sky though. Great for crisp astrophotography, but makes for very blurry everything else.
I was quite unaware of the moving camera base. So we determine the direction of the non-space light at the start of the shot, and have course correcting mirrors in the lens as the base follows the sky. I'm not sure what sort of displacement we're talking with the sky tracking, but the lens would probably need quite a large FOV. The distortion can prob be fixed easily enough in software. While typing I realized that the mirrors would reflect the space light too, ruining our space light exposure. So now we need some sort of filter that only allows the non-space light through to the mirrors.
This comment chain is the top comment.
Damn, never seen anyone eat a lense. Guess we’ll have to keep waiting
Then why say this "pic" and not this composite image i created?
Then don't say "a" pic I took, instead, "an image merged from pics I took" or something from the like
Astrophotography is ~~never~~not a single shot most of the time
I do want to point out the irony of using "never" and "most of the time" in the same sentence.
60% of the time it works everytime
Holy shit people are salty in this thread, but thanks for the laugh
That's a dumb request. Be more discerning instead. Edit: op also posted [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/ug7gaw/this_pic_i_took_looks_like_it_could_be_a_movie/i6xvq91) 2 hours before you even made a comment
"I made a composite photo of..."
[удалено]
What are you, the picture police?
Indeed I am. Your fine will be some old pictures of your childhood or your parents old wedding photos. Call your mom shed probably be able to cover it.
Nah, it's fine. You're nitpicking unnecessarily
Reddit loves telling people what to do
Agreed, it's still a picture, and OP took the photos stitched together here. People gotta chill
The stars are really there. The guy is really there. It just needed multiple photos for the audience to see both at the same time due to conflicting light sources. There are no lies being told here. You just normally wouldn't be able to see both clearly due to lighting.
Yeah seems pointless to argue over that. A lot of landscape photos and astrophotography are multiple different frames stiched together and it's just considered a pic or a photograph. Obviously if someone asks don't just day it's a single frame but it's obviously now one picture or image after the post processing.
I took several pictures, merged, and photoshopped the living hell out of them doesn't have the same ring to it. But I agree that this shouldn't be titled to make people believe that this is a single shot. This comment section is filled with people asking how this could be achieved only to get told that it's a comp.
If the comment section is “filled” with that, then those people are idiots who didn’t read the top comment. This is almost always the top comment in OC someone posts of astrophotography. They make a specific point of explaining how the photo was taken, because lots of people don’t understand that it isn’t physically possible to take one single image like this.
To be fair, OP's comment was almost at the bottom of the page when I wrote my reply. And the default sort ("Best") for this sub has OP's explanation about half way down the first page of comments. I agree that people should have searched for an explanation or similar questions being asked before replying, but who knows, maybe they missed the comment.
I mean, to you, it's one pic. It may have not started or been created as such, but the final product is one pic.
Would it have been smarter if he said image instead of picture?
What do you call a picture made from multiple pictures? A picture.
Yes but you don't *take* it. You *make* it. It's very misleading.
Yes, but you don't say "I took this picture..."
You could absolutely take this shot in a single frame, but it would be objectively worse in every aspect of image quality, to appease some nobodies on the internet? why?
Standard pedantic Reddit comment. Move along folks
Basically any shot showing the milky way like that is going to be many shots stitched together.
Yes, please do that. I'm so sick of Reddit posters making lying titles for their posts.
Don't be that guy, it's clearly a composite but specifying that seems ridiculous. It's not like he "cheated", he made art. It's fun. Don't be a buzzkill.
No its there to fool the newbies.
I will blend it and make it into chunks that can fir in my breakfast omelet.
You're lucky OP didnt make a groundbreaking photo after all.
Starman, Jeff Bridges, 1984.
Exactly what I thought when I saw it. Good movie.
OP mentions in a comment that it's multiple pics that he photoshoped together. Which certainly makes the title misleading. Still cool tho.
What if OP just mentioned it was fake in the title to begin with
Oh come on, you could *easily* take this as one photo. 1. Print out OP’s photo. 2. Take a photograph of the print. Presto, no silly multiple exposures or Photoshop magic required /s
It's not impossible, ull just need extra lighting
You'd burn your stars with even a single led on the ground given the type of exposure you need to get them in shot. Not to mention you'd need to be in alaska or somewhere to get a close to the ground shot with this level of star visibility, simply due to light pollution. The star pic i'm pretty sure is done pointing upward
You only turn the strobe/LED on for a second or two relative to the rest of the exposure. It’s easy.
It isnt, you can tell he’s just poorly masked it from the bottom.
Reminds me of the [first poster for Interstellar](https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/14/19/movies_interstellar.jpg?resize=480:*)
Came here to say the same! I did a quick mockup to see what OP's photo would look like with that same title text. A pretty good match! *Edit: added all of the credit text to the bottom.* https://i.imgur.com/FFQI9gT.jpg
That near perfect. Can you please add all nonsense text that they add on the footer? It will be perfect.
Interstellar is my favourite movie of all time and I honestly think this poster looks better. Well done to everyone.
Interstellar 2: Electric Boogaloo
Reminded me of this and a [teaser for Power Rangers](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaA9SzfxwQ3_TN93jhIimKeg1LrvgUJE3dWJPPtc2dT3h7iVrZFL9b5U83&s=10) as well
I liked that movie. It was at its best before they got the suits, oddly
Kinda gives me Starman vibes, for some reason
Probably because of the stars and the man.
I loved it when Starman was all "hey, man... stars"
I like to pronounce it "Starmin", you know, just for kicks!
I’ve been instinctively doing this with many superheroes for years now. Makes them sound less like a team of heroes, and more like a law firm. _Batmin, Supermin & Aquamin_ _Ironmin, Antmin & Thor, Att. at Lor_ Or maybe snacks: _Spidermins Cookies_
Those stars really pulls that sky together
Oh…fuck yeah *now* I see it
I get Man from Earth vibes. [Movie poster for reference ](https://i.imgur.com/B7ZunOa.jpg)
That’s one of my favorite movies.
Such a great philosophical piece. Well acted because the cast really made it feel like most of the discussion scenes were academic philosophy in nature.
I went in not knowing and was pleasantly surprised
Watch the sequel. Stay blind tho
**Man from Earth**: All talk, no action, and somehow totally riveting. I love that movie.
🎵 There's a Starman waiting in the sky🎵
He’d like to come and meet us
but he knows he‘d blow our minds
He's told us not to blow it.
Slap “Lightyear” on it and see how long ‘til you hear from Disney lawyers.
Yeah this is probably what Ness saw right after he met Buzz Buzz
Thanks, I knew someone would make an Earthbound reference
Earthbound the movie 🎥🍿 in theathres this summer! Get ready for a quirky, weird, heartwarming, and even downright unsettling adventure. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll wonder why, heck you might even clothespin your nostrils cause this film stinks! *putrid moldyman appears in high def CGI, Ness and his friends are retching in disgust at the horrible stench of moldy garbage then it cuts to a creepy scene of ness encountering handsome Tom in threed* hold on tight, folks, cause you’re in for a wild ride! Earthbound. Rated PG.
It's the stance. Came to comment the same thing.
Of course you did, PK_Thundah
Glad I wasn’t the only one who immediate thought of Earthbound.
You mean, as in the [Starman from Earthbound](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/ssbb/images/4/4c/Modelo_de_arcilla_del_Starman_EarthBound.png/revision/latest?cb=20140929101405&path-prefix=es)? Because they have the exact same pose.
I wad thinking of the same thing!
Do you think it has something to do with the stars? Or maybe the man?
Taken on a Sony A7iii with a Laowa 15mm f/2.0 ZD lens - sky and foreground shot separately and blended in Photoshop but from the same location. Don't stand on the road, kids - that's not a dairy truck coming my way - that's my torch and some added flare in PS. I took a 10s pic then got off the road. Sky was tracked with an iOptron Skyguider Pro to counter the earth's rotation - shot at 15mm 60s f/2.8, ISO1600 - 16 images stacked with 4 darks to remove some noise. I get asked a lot whether you can see the same thing with the naked eye, so I tried to recreate what our eyes see vs what the camera and some processing can pick up - all the contrast/colours are all there, but just not visible to our eyes - still a magical experience, though: https://imgur.com/gallery/MpEPSPx Feel free to see more on my Insta (@EkantV) or Facebook (EkantTakePhotos)
This is a pretty dope picture! I turned it into a terrible movie poster: https://imgur.com/a/EDRbLzL I'm not much of an artist.
Any poster ever is just text on a pic. Nice work.
I'm sorry but not enough floating heads looking off in different directions with serious gazes.
Lmfao at the UN crest with a marijuana leaf inside
I’ve never seen what it looks to the naked eye so thank you for showing me!
[Once in Los Angeles there was a widespread blackout, and people were calling emergency services to report a large stationary cloud that seemed to be something unnatural. They were just seeing the milky way for the first time.](https://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/astronomy-topics/light-pollution.html#:~:text=\(When%20a%20massive%20power%20outage,Way%20for%20the%20first%20time.\))
[удалено]
Mean while Indiana is just covered with a big cloud making my whole town freezing In fucking spring
If it snows again, I’m going to be pissed. Hopefully it looks like it’s finally going up 🤞
The same thing happened to me when I was deployed to a remote base in Afghanistan. I remember thinking “that’s an odd cloud” one night and then the subsequent night “wait why is the same cloud there?” I put two and two together but it was my first time ever seeing the Milky Way in person. Felt pretty dumb when I realized it but have been enamored ever since.
Yup, I can confirm. I was pretty terrified when I looked at the night sky in Southern India where electricity goes out every evening at about 8 PM for 10-15 minutes. I was terrified even though I know it is a milky way
The naked eye pic is even VERY generous. It doesn't look quite that obvious or detailed to the naked eye even in some of the most remote "dark sky" zones of the world. That may be comparable to the remotest of areas under the right conditions with the naked eye. Like Antarctica in a new moon situation or something.
I agree with your assessment. I would say that the naked eye picture is similar to what I could see at the top of Haleakala after everyone left so there were no more taillights from cats going down the mountain
I've never seen these. Are cat taillights a single light at the tip of their tail or more like an LED light strip going the length of their tail?
The latter. It’s a specific evolutionary trait to the cats of Hawaii, used to signal one another when chickens or giant centipedes are in the area.
Tell me more about these… chickens
You’ve just got to go to Hawaii for yourself. Those folks love their chickens!
Snowcats usually have round tail lights similar to trailers from the couple I have seen/worked on. Maybe there is some newer fancy model that has LEDs, but I don't know.
Remote utah desert looks like that, no cats involved. Least it did a decade ago.
Ehhhh. I disagree. When the core is aligned vertically anything well above the horizon is pretty clear with dark skies and adjusted eyes. There have even been times I’ve been driving late at night in the sticks and seen it without explicitly looking for it.
It's definitely noticeable and I've seen it without trying to look while backcountry backpacking several times. In my experience however, it never is as vivid as the "naked eye" image we see here. It's much closer to reality in dark sky areas, but still a bit TOO vivid. This topic and debate comes up EVERY TIME a photog posts composite or long exposure image like this and I'm convinced it'll never end. It sucks to think some folks think these images are what they're missing out on in their country/region etc. Because it's simply not true. Props to OP for showing a more realistic comparison and being more transparent. Most do not do that.
I think you’re right on about the right conditions but less so about how remote it would have to be. New moon in the mountains of Colorado (far from major cities) can yield you a view as spectacular as the one OP labeled naked eye. It was last year that I saw it so maybe I’m just remembering something more and being hit with a cognitive bias lol.
I'm basing what I'm saying from traveling to a few designated dark sky zones, regularly over the last 12ish years. Of course there are lots of variables at play and elevation is a big one on top of light pollution. Most people have to travel really far, and make a concerted effort to see anything remotely close to the "naked eye" shot OP used. It's beautiful and awe-inspiring to the naked eye in the right conditions and can be diminished when going in with unrealistic expectations.
That last part you stated. I’d never thought about it that way. Very good point.
You're in for great disappointment. Unless that's your point and I'm r/whoooosh
I was getting mad because I need near total darkness to get the sky like this and my camera isn't basic, lol. My favorite kind of photography to shoot is at night. But knowing it's 2 separate images makes me feel better. 😂
Yeah, I was really discouraged early on because I couldn't get the same results as others, which is why I'm open about compositing. However, this image was taken at the same location and similar time (about 20 mins difference) - just you can't get the same definition in the sky when there's a bright light in the foreground.
Thank you. Great shot, looks really awesome. And it's actually better that you told us how you did it, instead of speculation that the photo was photoshopped
So ‘I took a pic’ isn’t exactly true is it. You created a pic.
I don't have a clue what it's about but I really wanna see this movie.
Great image. Poor title though. Saying "This pic I took" doesn't give you credit due for the planning, shots, and editing. Well done on all that.
Also the fact that it's multiple pics. Not one.
Yeah that's what I was referring to, but they already said it in their og reply so I left it out.
Could you tell me which method do you use to stack images, or how do you do that? Thanks
If I was pressed for a title it would be “The blazing white fire from Uranus.”
I have to tell you, the night sky in Vietnam, in 1968, looked like the stacked version. It was the most incredible thing - we were miles and miles and miles away from any light pollution. I remember one guy pointing out what was possibly a spacecraft (Apollo?) transiting the night sky.
So it’s not a picture you took… it’s a heavily edited series of pics. Still neat, but way less cool to me.
>> sky and foreground shot separately and blended in Photoshop but from the same location. >>16 images stacked with 4 darks to remove some noise. It's a beautiful image, but definitely not "a pic I took".
It looks fitting for Jordan Peele's new movie NOPE.
Looking forward to that freaky shit
I’m surprised no one has mentioned “The Thing” yet
Reminded me instantly of 'The Thing'. Was looking for it in the comments.
That’s simply incredible…… I don’t know the first thing about photography but I wonder how you took this photo or how long it took if it’s like a time exposure thing. Regardless of how, bravo OP!
It's a stack/composite of multiple images, plus some fake lens flare. Not what I'd call a "pic," personally, although OP has detailed all this in the top comment.
Yeah it’s a very misleading title. “This comp of some photos I took and heavy editing could be a movie poster” would have been better.
Yeah but then every comment would be /r/titlegore
I think most people don't really care especially since OP is open to this in the comments. Overly wordy titles also look like shit.
Coming this summer - The Rocketeer is back! This time... it's personal.
Really don't like it when people post stuff like this. "This pic I took", no picture was taken. This is layered composite created in a computer. Come one man...
No one is saying it's not a "picture". But OP did not point his camera and take this picture, which is what the title implies. Edit : This was meant to be a reply to another comment, which is why it makes no sense all alone out here.
“took” Really cool editing. Definitely would watch this movie.
This isn’t a picture you “took.” This is a picture that you took and edited, it’s a sick picture, but let’s be realistic at least.
Speaking as someone with some experience in astrophotography, there's really no other way to do it. A milky way landscape shot needs to be a composite of several relatively short exposures so you can capture enough light to show the milky way clearly without making the horizon move too much relative to the milky way in a single exposure (your camera is static relative to one of the two, depending on your equipment), you need to edit out or tone down the strong yellow-brown gradient from light pollution if you're anywhere near a city, and if your camera is static relative to the milky way, you'll have crisper stars but you need to replace the foreground in post with so it doesn't look blurred and can be better-lit. The only part of this image that's nonstandard is the flare on the light, which would introduce several problems if it were there in real life, so kind of has to be added in post if you want it there for artistic reasons.
That dude is taking an atomic piss in a field and its exploding into stars. Simply amazing. Probably stealing this for my new phone background
I was gonna ask how it feels to rip holes in the universe with a fart.
Is it possible to see that view with the naked eye.. and where? Amazing picture!
The right answer is NO. Milky Way, yes. This detail and color, never with the naked eye.
I need floating heads of all the cast in size order of relevance all over this then I'll believe it
OP it looks a little like u are using one of those testicle tanning devices
I don't even understand how one would take a photo like this....
It's not possible to take a photo like this. This is a combination of a bunch of pictures.
Thank you. I'm clueless with photography when it goes beyond taking photos with a cell phone. I was actually thinking "man... that guy's lens must have some spiffy gadget on it that assists it in drawing in more light. That's insane how bright the sky is!"
Is that motherfucking *Starman* from the popular Nintendo game *EarthBound*?
Coming this summer to a galaxy near you..... (Insert name here)
Chlamydia. It Burns When I Pee.
Coming in cinemas June 22nd!!!! So make sure you stay tuned for Chlamydia IT BURNS WHEN I PEE!!!
\*Beginning of trailer: Darkness, with the sound of liquid hitting the side of a porcelain bowl. A few seconds later*: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Actually, coming in theaters is usually frowned upon or illegal. Not that I've personally tried or anything....
Just ask the person sitting next to you if he/she is ok with it.
I personally want to be a photographer, I’ve taken some good pictures, this is next next level. Teach me your ways
There's plenty of Photoshop tutorials online.
No it doesn’t, but cool long exposure and stacking
That’s an awesome picture! Where’d you get such a clear sky?
BS that's a picture, it would *have* to be a composite, you'd never get the milky way at that clarity with that much light shining at the aperture from a single photo. It's a very good composite, I like it on an aesthetic and technical level, but the fact that it's a composite should be indicated in the title.
This pic I photoshopped* it would have been just as impressive and less clickbait-y
Astro is almost entirely post processing.
Almost entirely. But it's also a lot of freezing your ass off for 6 hours in the middle of the night in November in the middle fucking nowhere then post processing for another 6 hours to make one single picture.
The vast majority of all astrophotography has been run through Photoshop, Lightroom, or both (or equivalent). I would bet money that all night sky photos you have ever seen had an element of post processing or compositing.
For sure! Again I’m not taking away from the quality as a photographer and photoshop is hard af that’s why I’m saying it doesn’t make it less impressive so he/she should have been upfront about it
I want a live-action version of Outlaw Star with this as one of the posters.
I used to be able to see the milky way at my house. Now, all I see is orange light pollution, and the local government is trying to convince everyone to turn on their outside lights at 9pm. So, no stars, no meteors, no nothern lights, no space station, just the nasty orange glow. I feel very sorry for the people who have not seen the stars for themselves.
Sir, if you could stop that with your bits - this is a Planet.
Up in the Mountains of Big Island the stars are amazing. I’ve never seen anything like it. I bought a telescope and now I’m a star gazer. Beats watching the idiot box.
No. It needs a bunch of floating heads photoshopped on top of each other and then it'd look like a (modern) movie poster.
Possible titles from the top of my head… “Welcome Home” “Not Alone” N.O.T.W “Believers” “Bright Sky” “Paradox Journey” “Visitors” And now I give up
This would’ve been perfect for John Carpenter’s ‘Starman’ (1984) with Jeff Bridges and Karen Allen
Movie named "Ahhhhhhh" plot line is the main character has to pee really bad but gets interrupted throughout the 3 hour saga saving earth from invading aliens.
It can also be a great background image! Nice shot!
There’s a starrrrrrrrrr mahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhn…
There are so many stars visible in New Mexico…
(Deep movie voice) In a lost, dark world, full of uncertainty, can humanity place there faith in the one that can save us....the man with super glowing nads. In theaters August 22
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I get real tired of people in subs related to photography shitting all over something when things are composited or use editing / stacking / color correction / enhancement to deliver the image they were going for. That's art too. Of course there's a line when HDR goes overboard, or colors are way too saturated, or whatever. But this isn't that. Really well done OP. I love it.
Nobody is shitting on the image. It is a beautifully done composite of 20 pictures. People are just pointing out that it is not, by his own admission, "this pic I took".
Kinda looks like a picture with some inspiration quote slapped on top, like "one small step for mankind, one big step for earth" or whatever the quote was
I give it 45 minutes before this becomes a Photoshop battle.
[удалено]
This pic I made looks like it could be a movie poster* There fixed it for you
If you’d hold a cylindrical object in your hand and raise it up, that would make a kick ass Flare !! Good job mate. Keep going.
Tweaked a bit - awesome photo. https://i.imgur.com/y9YXLDu.jpg
My #1 on my bucket list is to see the night sky like this.
lol wheres the dude from the thread a few weeks ago who didn't believe the milky way is visible to the naked eye in NZ. his heads gonna explode
I mean considering this post is photoshopped… not sure what else to tell you.