by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:33 pm
Ihviyvuyfuygi wrote:Just wondering, How could you take exposure for several hours but the moon was not move/stay still?
The way I'd shoot an image like this would be to start with a large set of sequential images, say with 30-second exposures. Then, I'd find all the ones that had meteors in them and erase the background around the meteors. Then I'd stack all those meteor images over the single full landscape image that I found most aesthetic in the sequence. If I was trying to be as accurate as possible, I'd also have my camera on a tracking platform so that the position of the radiant in the frame didn't change over the several hours of data collection. In that case, the sky would be largely stationary (the Moon would move a bit, but it probably wouldn't be apparent with the overexposure), and all you'd need to do would be to cut the landscape part out of all but one image.
[quote="Ihviyvuyfuygi"]Just wondering, How could you take exposure for several hours but the moon was not move/stay still?[/quote]
The way I'd shoot an image like this would be to start with a large set of sequential images, say with 30-second exposures. Then, I'd find all the ones that had meteors in them and erase the background around the meteors. Then I'd stack all those meteor images over the single full landscape image that I found most aesthetic in the sequence. If I was trying to be as accurate as possible, I'd also have my camera on a tracking platform so that the position of the radiant in the frame didn't change over the several hours of data collection. In that case, the sky would be largely stationary (the Moon would move a bit, but it probably wouldn't be apparent with the overexposure), and all you'd need to do would be to cut the landscape part out of all but one image.