AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
It is much easier to use than RegiStax, IMO.īTW, the word is "stacking" not "tracking" hence our confusion. Have you tried Deep Sky Stacker? It is free. Yes, I could do it in photoshop, but Starry Landscape is a couple of quid, registax is free and photoshop is a pretty expensive monthly subscription. I can get perfectly decent shots of starry skies, but I always like less noise and I would have said stacking pretty undeniably achieves that. I did view the how-to portion of the program’s posted info and am not convinced that it does anything that can’t be done in PS alone. You may need to blend 2 or more images to get correct exposure of the foreground and the sky, but that’s not really “stacking.”īTW, I have not used Starry Landscape Tracker. Finally, it’s my opinion (& experience) that post-processing is as important as image capture when it comes to night sky photography. Not sure what camera you’re dealing with, but ISO 1600 or 3200 would be a good place to start, depending on the lens selected. Of course, the correct ISO & aperture come into play. If you follow the “rule of 500,” you should be able to get nice images without stacking. Not sure why you feel you need to stack images to get a decent photo of the night sky.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |