3 ms·

I'm not a photography buff by any stretch, so I'm probably flagrantly abusing some language here, but I feel an HDR timelapse of this shot (http://petapixel.com

by eganist 10y ago

I'm not a photography buff by any stretch, so I'm probably flagrantly abusing some language here, but I feel an HDR timelapse of this shot (http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2016/05/zgrether_spacex_07-800x535.jpg http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2016/05/zgrether_spacex_...) would probably be more beautiful than the end result (http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2016/05/zgrether_spacex_01_and_13-800x534.jpg http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2016/05/zgrether_spacex_...) if only because my brain is jarred by the conflict of a timelapsed landing with a still shot of the stars. Both are beautiful in any case.

maxerickson 10y ago
The detail in the final shot comes from pulling together the details captured over time. I guess with lots of messing about the less detailed region around the lander could be superimposed over the more detailed star field, but it would be even more synthetic.
- eganist 10y ago
  So I guess what I meant to convey by that is that the first shot I linked looks overexposed. The second shot I linked superimposed the booster over an unmoving star field. I gave it a fuller read and saw why this turned out to be the case (Lighten on 29 out of 30 layers in Photoshop to achieve the star trail effect). Since he has 30 frames to work with, he has enough data to create the same ultra-long-exposure effect without it looking overexposed. Probably just more Photoshop fiddling, really.
tantalor 10y ago
I think the latter is better because we naturally perceive stars as motionless, especially relative to a rocket shooting by.
ygra 10y ago
Like this? https://www.facebook.com/zgrether/videos/vb.774180124/10156834265610125/?type=2&theater https://www.facebook.com/zgrether/videos/vb.774180124/101568...
ethbro 10y ago
Does anyone have a link to a larger version of the image? Slightly bigger from his (right click disabled...) site: http://www.zgrethphoto.com/Mega-Prints/i-5HKSttR/0/XL/zgrether_Hunting%20Island_spacex%202-XL.jpg http://www.zgrethphoto.com/Mega-Prints/i-5HKSttR/0/XL/zgreth...

by eganist 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

The detail in the final shot comes from pulling together the details captured over time. I guess with lots of messing about the less detailed region around the lander could be superimposed over the more detailed star field, but it would be even more synthetic.

eganist 10y ago
So I guess what I meant to convey by that is that the first shot I linked looks overexposed. The second shot I linked superimposed the booster over an unmoving star field. I gave it a fuller read and saw why this turned out to be the case (Lighten on 29 out of 30 layers in Photoshop to achieve the star trail effect). Since he has 30 frames to work with, he has enough data to create the same ultra-long-exposure effect without it looking overexposed. Probably just more Photoshop fiddling, really.

tantalor 10y ago

I think the latter is better because we naturally perceive stars as motionless, especially relative to a rocket shooting by.

ygra 10y ago

Like this? https://www.facebook.com/zgrether/videos/vb.774180124/10156834265610125/?type=2&theater https://www.facebook.com/zgrether/videos/vb.774180124/101568...

ethbro 10y ago

Does anyone have a link to a larger version of the image? Slightly bigger from his (right click disabled...) site: http://www.zgrethphoto.com/Mega-Prints/i-5HKSttR/0/XL/zgrether_Hunting%20Island_spacex%202-XL.jpg http://www.zgrethphoto.com/Mega-Prints/i-5HKSttR/0/XL/zgreth...