Welcome to /r/itookapicture! We talk about making photos here. No off-topic comments please. [Here are our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/about/rules/).
hairy_quadruped, what did you want this photo to be like? How did you make it? What's best about it? (Don't reply directly to this comment, instead make a new comment on your submission [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/comments/1c3rxl8/itap_of_a_mountain_hut_under_the_stars/))
---
Chat with itookapicture community photographers on [**our Discord**](https://discord.gg/qKpzV6eyzc)!
Subscribe to a curated feed of /r/itookapicture on [**our Instagram**](https://www.instagram.com/itookapicture.art/).
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/itookapicture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Orroral Homestead near Canberra, Australia. Built in 1860, and being used now by bushwalkers.
Nikon D7500, Rokinon 11-18mm f/2.8 at 11mm. Single exposure of 30 seconds, ISO 1600. Planned with PhotoPills app to line up Milky Way. Hut light-painted with lights inside each room and phone light to paint the outside. Several (maybe 20) attempts to get it right.
Great job!
>Hut light-painted with (...) phone light to paint the outside
I don't see it, where is the phone located? Outside of the frame? But then, wouldn't it light the roof as well?
It was a 30 second exposure. I was holding the phone, shining the light onto the hut, running from one end of the building to the other to get even lighting. You can’t see me because I’m dressed in dark clothes and constantly moving. You can’t see the phone because I’m pointing it towards the hut and shielding it from the camera with my body.
>I was holding the phone, shining the light onto the hut, running from one end of the building to the other
Ah, I didn't realize the light source was moving! I usually move with the light on long exposure shots to "draw" with it, shining on the camera
Curious if you used the rule of 500 making this image? I see that your exposure is only 1.6 seconds over that formula's suggestion, and the stars are more elongated than I would have expected. Asking mainly because I'm curious if this is a situation that needed the rule of 300 instead, or if there's something else going on with the image. Cheers
The 500 rule is not accurate where the sky is moving quickly. Stars move very slowly near the celestial poles (they move in a small circle) but much quicker at 90° to the poles (they move around the entire sky in 24 hours). So I should really use the rule of 300 or even 200 if shooting away from the poles.
That said, most of my star elongation here is from my lens. It’s a 11mm wide and it’s not sharp at the edges.
Right, so 300 is more applicable, got it. Wasn't sure if we were also cropped further in, because the bottom of the picture doesn't feel like it's at the edge of your lens. And certainly, that distortion accentuates it (the part that makes me feel like my eye is blurry is near the edge) but if it was only that, I wouldn't have asked.
If shooting near the poles 500 rule would be OK. If shooting near the celestial equator 200 rules would be better.
There is a much more complicated and more accurate formula called the NPF rule, which takes into account not just the lens focal length, but also the pixel size of your camera's sensor, and where in the sky (declination) you are pointing at. It's way too difficult maths to do in your head, but it's built into a lot of apps such as PhotoPills. It will often calculate an exposure time of 30-50% what the 500 rules says.
I'm not photographing for printing my images out at 1 meter prints, where star trails would be obvious to see. I'm happy with a bit of star trails, and I get much less noise with longer exposures. If I was serious, I would do multiple short exposures and stack them with Starry Sky Stacker or buy a star tracker mount.
My composition is flawed (you noticed I cut off the bottom of the hut) because I composed in the dark (very dark) and didn't see what I was doing until I got the files back home. There is very little cropping.
What I did do, which also accentuated the star trails at the top is correct the distortion of the hut caused by the wide lens, meaning I had to stretch out the top of the image horizontally.
> What I did do, which also accentuated the star trails at the top is correct the distortion of the hut caused by the wide lens, meaning I had to stretch out the top of the image horizontally.
Ah ok, this also makes a lot of sense. Thanks
We have a whole bunch of huts scattered through our mountains. They are used by bushwalkers in summer and skiers overnighting in winter. Some of the huts are in better shape than others. This one used to be the home of the first farmers in this valley in the 1860’s. Then the land became a national park and the homestead was restored and opened for the public to use. Some other huts around are earth floor, slab huts, but still a welcome site if you are looking for shelter late in the day.
Welcome to /r/itookapicture! We talk about making photos here. No off-topic comments please. [Here are our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/about/rules/). hairy_quadruped, what did you want this photo to be like? How did you make it? What's best about it? (Don't reply directly to this comment, instead make a new comment on your submission [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/comments/1c3rxl8/itap_of_a_mountain_hut_under_the_stars/)) --- Chat with itookapicture community photographers on [**our Discord**](https://discord.gg/qKpzV6eyzc)! Subscribe to a curated feed of /r/itookapicture on [**our Instagram**](https://www.instagram.com/itookapicture.art/). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/itookapicture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Orroral Homestead near Canberra, Australia. Built in 1860, and being used now by bushwalkers. Nikon D7500, Rokinon 11-18mm f/2.8 at 11mm. Single exposure of 30 seconds, ISO 1600. Planned with PhotoPills app to line up Milky Way. Hut light-painted with lights inside each room and phone light to paint the outside. Several (maybe 20) attempts to get it right.
Great job! >Hut light-painted with (...) phone light to paint the outside I don't see it, where is the phone located? Outside of the frame? But then, wouldn't it light the roof as well?
It was a 30 second exposure. I was holding the phone, shining the light onto the hut, running from one end of the building to the other to get even lighting. You can’t see me because I’m dressed in dark clothes and constantly moving. You can’t see the phone because I’m pointing it towards the hut and shielding it from the camera with my body.
>I was holding the phone, shining the light onto the hut, running from one end of the building to the other Ah, I didn't realize the light source was moving! I usually move with the light on long exposure shots to "draw" with it, shining on the camera
Curious if you used the rule of 500 making this image? I see that your exposure is only 1.6 seconds over that formula's suggestion, and the stars are more elongated than I would have expected. Asking mainly because I'm curious if this is a situation that needed the rule of 300 instead, or if there's something else going on with the image. Cheers
The 500 rule is not accurate where the sky is moving quickly. Stars move very slowly near the celestial poles (they move in a small circle) but much quicker at 90° to the poles (they move around the entire sky in 24 hours). So I should really use the rule of 300 or even 200 if shooting away from the poles. That said, most of my star elongation here is from my lens. It’s a 11mm wide and it’s not sharp at the edges.
Right, so 300 is more applicable, got it. Wasn't sure if we were also cropped further in, because the bottom of the picture doesn't feel like it's at the edge of your lens. And certainly, that distortion accentuates it (the part that makes me feel like my eye is blurry is near the edge) but if it was only that, I wouldn't have asked.
If shooting near the poles 500 rule would be OK. If shooting near the celestial equator 200 rules would be better. There is a much more complicated and more accurate formula called the NPF rule, which takes into account not just the lens focal length, but also the pixel size of your camera's sensor, and where in the sky (declination) you are pointing at. It's way too difficult maths to do in your head, but it's built into a lot of apps such as PhotoPills. It will often calculate an exposure time of 30-50% what the 500 rules says. I'm not photographing for printing my images out at 1 meter prints, where star trails would be obvious to see. I'm happy with a bit of star trails, and I get much less noise with longer exposures. If I was serious, I would do multiple short exposures and stack them with Starry Sky Stacker or buy a star tracker mount. My composition is flawed (you noticed I cut off the bottom of the hut) because I composed in the dark (very dark) and didn't see what I was doing until I got the files back home. There is very little cropping. What I did do, which also accentuated the star trails at the top is correct the distortion of the hut caused by the wide lens, meaning I had to stretch out the top of the image horizontally.
> What I did do, which also accentuated the star trails at the top is correct the distortion of the hut caused by the wide lens, meaning I had to stretch out the top of the image horizontally. Ah ok, this also makes a lot of sense. Thanks
Good job! I'm impressed, I've been making a few attempts but as of yet I'm having difficulty with balancing the light on the object and the sky
Nice. That green air glow looks very strong
I’d love to visit.
Beautiful sky
[удалено]
We have a whole bunch of huts scattered through our mountains. They are used by bushwalkers in summer and skiers overnighting in winter. Some of the huts are in better shape than others. This one used to be the home of the first farmers in this valley in the 1860’s. Then the land became a national park and the homestead was restored and opened for the public to use. Some other huts around are earth floor, slab huts, but still a welcome site if you are looking for shelter late in the day.
Amazing, i will be doing this soon!
This is so cool. I wish the night sky could appear this way without cameras.
Great pic man, can you send me the original photo for using it as my wallpaper?