How I Got the Shot: Time-Lapse at the Owens Valley Radio Observatory

One of my favorite experiences last year was the Eastern Sierra workshop we ran in California with Rocky Mountain School of Photography. What made this one so extraordinary is that it offered a variety of subjects and ways to interpret the night. Most of us were excited about the surreal “rockscapes” of the Alabama Hills or the ghost town train depot at Laws. But for me? I couldn’t wait to photograph the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) in Bishop.

The Location

View fullsize

The Owens Valley Radio Observatory. Nikon Z 6 with a Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 lens. 15 seconds, f/5.6, ISO 1600.

I’ve been to a few observatories, but to get a close-up look at these huge telescopes was a night photographer’s dream come true.

We had only one night scheduled at OVRO, and I had so many ideas I wanted to explore. Let’s just say I was stressfully excited! Two images I wanted to create were a time-lapse and a 2-hour-plus star trail shot of the telescopes. Unfortunately, as soon as I arrived I noticed that the cloud cover would prevent any long star trails from happening.

However, clouds can work very nicely in a time-lapse, as they are another moving element to capture as part of the scene. After all, time-lapses are all about movement.

Then I saw that the largest of the telescopes—a 40-meter beauty—was actively scanning the skies. Perfect. More movement!

The Shoot

I set up my Nikon Z 6 with a Z 24-70mm f/4 lens a couple of hundred yards away, so that I could include the sky patterns as well as the moving telescope.

However, in my excitement, I made a couple of critical errors with this first attempt. First, I defaulted to my typical vertical camera orientation, which worked for the single frame, but for time-lapse (or any video) you really want horizontal (unless you’re going to view it only on a phone).

Second, I was in a very “single frame” mindset instead of thinking about the many frames it takes to create a time-lapse. My exposures were 2 minutes, f/5.6, ISO 100. The 2 minutes was the issue. With time-lapses, you need a lot of single frames to make the “movie,” which means you generally want shorter (and therefore more) exposures. I didn’t do the time-lapse math prior to setting up my shot.

When creating a time-lapse, you need to work backward a bit. Before shooing, think about how long you want the video to be. For instance, if I wanted to make a 15-second time-lapse using a “normal” video playback of 30 frames per second, then I would have needed 450 frames. With 2-minute exposures, that would take 15 hours of shooting! Shorter exposures (say, from 10 to 30 seconds) are generally better, especially if you will be at a location for only a few hours.

Instead, I ended up with 91 vertical 2-minute images. I assembled them quickly in Photoshop and used a rate of 12.5 frames per second, which gave me a decent 7-second time-lapse that you can see in Figure 1.

Figure 1. My first attempt.

I do like that the longer exposures worked well with the lesser frame rate to slow things down a bit—that really lets you see the motion of the telescope, clouds and car trails.

The Reshoot

As luck would have it, we had another opportunity to photograph at OVRO on this trip. Reshoots are amazing! Given this second chance, I wanted to learn from my mistakes and do a better job.

First, I had to figure out the best horizontal composition. The skies were clear and full of stars. Without the clouds moving through the scene, I composed for a closer look at the main actor, the 40-meter telescope.

Next, I needed to figure out a shorter exposure. The moon was out, so a shutter speed of 8 seconds was definitely attainable. It would take about 800 shots in 2 hours to capture the assets needed to create a 30-second time-lapse. If you need help figuring out the math for a time-lapse, our savvy friends at PhotoPills have a pill for that (Figure 2).

View fullsize

Figure 2. PhotoPills has a calculator for seeing how many frames are needed to create time-lapses of different lengths.

My final exposure was 8 seconds, f/5.6, ISO 1600. I set my Z 6 to Bulb mode, and I set up my Vello Shutterboss II with a 1-second interval between shots. I let it rip for a little over 2 hours, which gave me 835 exposures to work with.

The Post-Production

My video editing skills are definitely basic—I’m really a still photographer, not a videographer. Fortunately in 2017 Adobe added a time-lapse feature to Photoshop, which is software that I’m very comfortable using.

Here’s what I did:

1. I exported my selects from Lightroom as JPGs, making sure my filenames were sequentially numbered—i.e., OVRO_1, OVRO_2, OVRO_3, etc. (There should be no breaks in the numbering.) Under Image Sizing, you want to check the Resize to Fit box and enter either 1920 pixels wide for an HD video or 3,840 pixels wide for 4K. I chose the latter.

2. In the Photoshop menu, I chose File > Open, which opens the dialog we use to get things started (Figure 3). I navigated to the folder of time-lapse JPGs and selected the first one. I checked the Image Sequence box, then pressed Open.

View fullsize

Figure 3.

3. For a frame rate, 30 is considered best practice for digital video. However, you can choose a lower or higher frame rate to slow things down or speed things up. It’s easy to experiment and cook to taste. I chose 24 for this time-lapse.

4. The files were quickly put together as one video layer in Photoshop. I clicked on Window > Timeline to open the timeline bar in Photoshop (Figure 4).

View fullsize

Figure 4.

5. I pressed the space bar on my keyboard to watch the time-lapse play slowly. Typically only one play is required to buffer the video.

6. You can do basic editing like adding music, cross-fades, etc., but I didn’t add any visual bells and whistles, preferring to keep this time-lapse simple.

7. Exporting requires a few key steps. I selected File > Export > Render Video. The Render Video window (Figure 5) is pretty self-explanatory. Name your file, then choose where to save it. You can select a settings preset to suit your needs. The presets are helpful for automatically resizing your video to fit the various formats of YouTube, Vimeo, and Android and Apple Devices. I used Adobe Media Encoder.

View fullsize

Figure 5.

That’s it. A quick and easy way for me to assemble a time-lapse.

As you can see with this second one, the improved frame rate created smoother and more realistic movements within the video.

Figure 6. The final time-lapse.

Wrapping Up

A dark-sky time-lapse is an amazing way to seize the night. I was thrilled with the experience and felt that the OVRO was a perfect subject to really show the passing of time and the search for life beyond the stars!

Like I mentioned before, I’m not a seasoned video guy, so I used Photoshop to tackle this, as it’s software that I’m already comfortable with. But there are other options out there. One in particular I’m excited to delve into is LR/Timelapse, partly because it eliminates some of the steps above by allowing you to go from Lightroom directly into the rendering software. Stayed tuned to our blog for more on that later this year.

Gabriel Biderman is a partner and workshop leader with National Parks at Night. He is a Brooklyn-based fine art and travel photographer, and author of Night Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots (Peachpit, 2014). During the daytime hours you'll often find Gabe at one of many photo events around the world working for B&H Photo’s road marketing team. See his portfolio and workshop lineup at www.ruinism.com.

---

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS FROM NATIONAL PARKS AT NIGHT

Five Ways That Lightroom’s New Update Eases the Processing of Night Photos

As has been true since the beginning of photography, field work is equally important as what comes after: post-production. Consequently, we always monitor the advancement of both in-field and on-desk tools, and this week there was some good news in the latter category.

On Tuesday, Adobe released an update to Lightroom that contained several interesting changes, including five that will make life easier for night photographers. So below we explore each new feature and setting, looking specifically at how it applies to working with night images.

(Note that these points pertain to Lightroom Classic, which is the version we use—and recommend using—for serious photo editing.)

1. Large-File Support

If you’re into blending exposures, stitching complex panoramas or stacking images—whether for stars, lighthouse beams, light painting or whatever else—then you’ve probably had to deal with the 2 GB size limitation for a PSD, Photoshop’s default file format (Figure 1).

View fullsize

Figure 1. Until now, Photoshop files over 2 GB posed a problem for Lightroom users.

If your image exceeded that limit, you were faced with five primary options, all of which had downsides:

1. Downsize the resolution (which meant throwing away pixels).

2. Flatten the layers (thereby limiting the ability to edit the image in the future).

3. Save as a TIFF (which has a 4 GB limit).

4. Save as a large-format PSB file (which Lightroom couldn’t see, edit or catalog).

5. Convert the layers to a Smart Object and save them as a new linked file, then save the whole thing as a TIFF (which is an inelegant, unintuitive process).

Now, with this update, these options are obsolete and the downsides are no longer obstacles. Lightroom now recognizes PSBs, allowing you to import, catalog and edit these files of theoretically unlimited size. (“Theoretically” because there are limitations, but ones that most photographers will never encounter—i.e., 65,000 pixels wide or tall, or 512 total megapixels.)

2. Simpler Visual Matching

Last winter Tim Cooper wrote a blog post titled “How to Make Your Lightroom Rendering Look Like Your Camera Preview.” One of the key points was ensuring that the profile you use in Lightroom’s Develop module matches the profile you use in your camera (i.e., the “Picture Controls” setting for Nikon, “Picture Styles” for Canon, “Picture Profile” for Sony, “Film Simulation” for Fuji, etc.)

For example, I always set my Nikon D5 (or any other Nikon camera I might be using) to “Standard,” so I want to use “Camera Standard” as my Lightroom profile. That used to be a manual step (or semi-manual, depending on how presets were used), but now Lightroom can do it for me by default.

To automate that process, select Edit > Preferences on a PC or Lightroom Classic > Preferences on a Mac, then select the Presets tab, and you’ll find the option at the top under Raw Defaults. Click on the Master drop down to reveal its options (Figure 2):

1. “Adobe Default,” which is the behavior you’re accustomed to—Lightroom just applying its own Adobe Color profile to the RAW conversion

2. “Camera Settings,” which uses the same profile/style you indicated in-camera

3. “Preset,” which uses any Adobe- or user-created Develop preset, which you select in the fly-out menu

View fullsize

Figure 2. Lightroom’s new Raw Defaults let you specify which demosaicing profile is automatically applied when importing images.

For the purpose mentioned above, you want the second option, “Camera Settings” (and be sure to check “Use defaults specific to camera model” for the most precise results). You don’t even need to tell Lightroom which profile to use—it reads the camera setting from the metadata and chooses the appropriate profile for you.

Consistent Black and White Workflow

This feature also comes into play when shooting in black and white with a digital camera, which is an effective strategy for dealing with night scenes that contain too many variations of color temperatures to reign them all in to one exposure (e.g, LED and sodium vapor lights in the same scene)—or for if you just like to work in monochrome.

When using a digital camera to shoot black and white images, we always recommend changing your camera’s picture style to a monochrome setting. This provides an LCD preview in black and white, which helps you visualize how the final image will look more effectively than if you were looking at a color preview.

The problem with this strategy was that Lightroom would still import the RAW file as a color image. You would then need to remember which files you intended to be black-and-white photographs and then change the settings accordingly.

However, now with this new Raw Defaults management, if you set the preference to “Camera Settings,” then images you shoot with an in-camera monochrome picture style will appear as monochrome in Lightroom (Figure 3).

View fullsize

Figure 3. By setting the new Raw Defaults option to “Camera Settings,” images shot in-camera as black and white will now automatically have the corresponding monochrome profile applied on import.

3. Overriding Manufacturer Adjustments

This isn’t new functionality so much as a new interface. It’s also really the second part of the previous feature, but we have a completely separate use for it, so it gets its own heading.

In that same Presets tab in Preferences, below the Master setting, you’ll find the option to apply a specific profile based on which camera you’re importing image files from. Most photographers who use this feature do so because they have specific adjustments they like to make to files from specific types of cameras—for instance, always applying a little extra Vibrance to images from an old backup digital body.

But there’s another, similar use: Overriding the built-in processing adjustments that some manufacturers apply to files from some cameras.

For example: We love the Nikon Z 6, but one challenge is that the files come packaged with baked-in noise reduction settings for Lightroom that we find to be way too aggressive. (Figure 4. You can read more about this in our blog post “The Z 6 is the Best Camera for Night Photography.”)

View fullsize

Figure 4. The aggressive default noise reduction settings packaged in the metadata of Nikon Z 6 files..

The good news is that Lightroom now allows you to more easily take control of this on import, by indicating a specific profile or preset from the same Preferences tab (Figure 5). Simply select the camera model, then select from the same options listed above. Now that profile/preset will be applied to any imported files originating from that type of camera. (You can also apply this setting to specific cameras by serial number, if you need to. For the record, most photographers don’t need to.)

View fullsize

Figure 5. By applying a custom preset in this new interface, we can fix perceived problems with baked-in adjustments from camera manufacturers.

So, using this feature, we can tell Lightroom not to use Nikon’s baked-in noise reduction settings for Z 6 files, but rather to apply a custom preset with the noise reduction approach we deem more appropriate. Gabe likes his Z 6 noise reduction set between 10 and 30 for luminance and color noise, so he could perhaps create a preset for 10 each, apply that to all Z 6 images on import, then tweak each of those settings manually in the Detail panel of the Develop module.

4. Camera Support

Nearly every Lightroom update includes support for new cameras and lenses, and this month’s is no different. One notable addition has us pretty excited.

View fullsize

Figure 6. The Nikon D780.

A few weeks ago we got our hands on a brand new Nikon D780 so we could test it for night photography. (Thank you to B&H Photo! See our review in the coming weeks.) Lance was working with the camera before and during our workshop in Death Valley National Park, but he couldn’t open the files in Lightroom. That was a big obstacle to testing, not to mention that it was an unfortunate fact for any early adopter of the camera.

Now? No problem. The new version of Lightroom (as well as Camera Raw) will open D780 files. (For the record, other companies make cameras too, and Lightroom does support them. Also new to Lightroom are the Canon EOS-1Dx Mark III and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III, among others.)

5. Auto Sync is Less Dangerous

The Auto Sync feature is very powerful, as it was the easiest way to sync adjustments to multiple photos—such as when applying Dehaze to a few dozen starry-sky images before stacking them. But Auto Sync is also dangerous, because it’s easy to create havoc with. Why? Because it was easy to leave on by accident, leaving you unaware that you could be applying a series of changes to dozens, hundreds or thousands of images—or even, as I did once, to the whole catalog. The danger of this was so palpable that I’ve always hesitated to teach the feature on workshops.

Now Adobe has mitigated the risk with three simple tweaks to Lightroom’s interface:

1. When you activateAuto Sync, the button now changes appearance to a bright light gray that’s easy to see at the bottom of the Develop module.

2. When you hover the pointer over the Auto Sync button, a tool tip warns what will happen if you click it.

3. When you make an auto-synced adjustment, Lightroom now advises that you did so with a message such as “Contrast updated for 190,817 images.” (That’s not a joke. See Figure 7.)

View fullsize

Figure 7. Auto Sync can be dangerous, but powerful. New features mitigate the former.

The software also gives you the ability to disable these new warnings in Preferences. Don’t disable them. Ever.

Wrapping Up

There you have it—five ways to work easier when post-processing night photos, courtesy of Adobe.

Which of these features are you most happy to see implemented? And what features and improvements do you hope to see next? Tell us what you think in the comments section below or on our Facebook page.

Note: Do you want to learn more about post-processing? Sign up for the waitlist for our Post-Processing Intensive workshop in San Francisco, or check out our tutoring services!

Chris Nicholson is a partner and workshop leader with National Parks at Night, and author of Photographing National Parks (Sidelight Books, 2015). Learn more about national parks as photography destinations, subscribe to Chris' free e-newsletter, and more at www.PhotographingNationalParks.com.

---

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS FROM NATIONAL PARKS AT NIGHT

Bombs, Bobbies and an ISO of 2: The Challenges of Early Night Photography

A couple of years ago when Matt referred to this being “The Golden Age of Night Photography,” I wholeheartedly agreed. The amazing technology at our fingertips has made this niche more accessible and popular than ever. But if this is the golden age, then surely what came before was the silver age of night photography.

Before silicon chips, it was tiny silver halide crystals that formed our images when photons of light penetrated our lens apertures to land on film or plate. Photographers who have never experienced shooting film at night have no idea just how easy they have it today.

In this week’s blog post, I reminisce about the trials and tribulations of film-based night photography. I want to share with you some of the struggles and challenges, misadventures and woes of the early night photographer. I believe that we can learn a lot by looking at the images of those who have come before us, and perhaps gain an appreciation of just how good we’ve got it.

Even Daylight Was Hard

Whenever I give a talk on the history of night photography, I always start with the first photograph. In 1826 or ’27, Nicéphore Niépce made an 8-hour exposure on a small copper plate, which resulted in a barely recognizable scene at his farm in France (Figure 1). The materials he had to work with were of such limited sensitivity that recording the image took all day—in bright sunlight.

View fullsize

Figure 1. Joseph Nicéphore Niepce, “View From The Window at Le Gras,” c. 1826-27. After ten years of work that began in 1816, Niepce exposed this image on a pewter plate coated with bitumen of Judea with a camera obscura, an optical device used by artists as a drawing aid. After an exposure of at least 8 hours, Niepce washed the plate with a mixture of white petroleum and oil of lavender, and the result was the first permanent photograph. The image is on permanent display at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin.

Sadly, Niépce succumbed to the mercury vapors used to develop his plates before he could be credited with inventing photography. That credit would go to his business partner Louis Daguerre, who survived the toxic fumes and had his name immortalized with the first commercially available photographic process.

Daguerreotypes required exposures of a minute or more in sunlight, which would have required exposures longer than the night itself, making night photography impossible (except perhaps in 24-hour darkness at the poles).

Later, Boston-based photographer and inventor John Adams Whipple spent the years 1849 through 1851 trying to photograph the moon through a telescope on a daguerreotype plate. Working at the Harvard observatory, he eventually managed to pull it off (Figure 2).

View fullsize

Figure 2. John Adams Whipple worked for 3 years to make this Daguerréotype of the moon through a telescope at the Harvard University Observatory in 1851. The telescope utilized a tracking device to compensate for the earth’s rotation during the long exposure.

The wet plate collodion process began to replace Daguerréotypes around 1851. These plates had to be coated, exposed and developed before the sticky emulsion dried on the glass or tin plate, which took about 10 minutes. That wasn’t nearly long enough for night exposures back then due to the limited sensitivities of the materials at hand.

The French photographer Nadar found a way to make low-light exposures on wet plates by using burning strips of magnesium wire as a light source to illuminate the scene. In the early 1860s he made a series of photographs under the streets of Paris in the catacombs discovered during the construction of the metro tunnels and sewers (Figure 3). The acrid smoke of the burning magnesium made breathing nearly impossible, but he was able to record images without any ambient light.

View fullsize

Figure 3. Nadar pioneered the use of artificial lighting in photography, and was the first person to photograph below ground, in the Catacombs of Paris in 1862.

Coming Into the Dark

Night photography didn’t become truly viable until the invention of the dry plate process in the late 1870s. There are a few anonymous examples of early astro-photographs, but night photography didn’t take off in earnest until the end of the 19th century.

Victorian photographer Paul Martin was one of the first photographers to have a serious go at night photography. During the course of documenting London street scenes in the late 1890s (Figure 4), he began staying out later and later in the evening, and he discovered that it was actually possible to photograph in the dark.

In addition to the technical challenges he faced, Martin was routinely ridiculed by people telling him that it was impossible to take pictures when there was “no light.” Even the police repeatedly questioned his sanity for attempting such a foolish activity, and they ruined many of his exposures when they approached with their lanterns. Martin soon learned that he could save his hard-won exposures by covering the lens as a policeman approached and then uncovering the lens to finish the exposure once the bobby was satisfied that he was a harmless kook.

View fullsize

Figure 4. Paul Martin, “A Wet Night on the Embankment,” 1895-96. Martin received the Royal Photographic Society's Gold Medal for his series of pioneering night photographs titled “London by Gaslight.”

Martin’s work in London caught the attention of the American photographer Alfred Stieglitz in New York. Stieglitz also became fascinated with trying to record night city scenes, so much so that he defied his family’s orders not to go out and photograph in a snowstorm while he had pneumonia (Figure 5).

Stieglitz wrote in his autobiography:

“One night, it snowed very hard. I gazed through a window, wanting to go forth and photograph. I lay in bed trying to figure out how to leave the house without being detected by either my wife or brother.

“I put on three layers of underwear, two pairs of trousers, two vests, a winter coat, and Tyrolean cape. I tied on my hat, realizing the wind was blowing a gale, and armed with tripod and camera—the latter a primitive box, with 4x5 inch plates—I stole out of the house. … The trees on the park side of the avenue were coated with ice. Where the light struck them, they looked like specters.

“The gale blew from the northwest. Pointing the camera south, sheltering it from the wind, I focused. There was a tree—ice covered, glistening—and the snow covered sidewalk. Nothing comparable had been photographed before, under such conditions.

“My mustache was frozen stiff. My hands were bitter cold in spite of the heavy gloves. The frosty air stung my nose, chin, and ears. … It must have been two o’clock in the morning. … After nearly an hour’s struggle against the wind, I reached home and tiptoed into the house, reaching the third floor without anyone hearing me.

“The next day I went to the camera club to develop the plate. The exposure was perfect.”

View fullsize

Figure 5. Alfred Stieglitz, “An Icy Night,” 1898. Steiglitz made this image on a frigid night during a snowstorm in January 1898 after a bout with pneumonia. Steiglitz was particularly proud of this image, and it cemented his interest in night photography. His influence on art and photography in America was enormous, and he is also largely responsible for night photography taking hold in New York at the turn of the 20th century.

Working With Light-Insensitive Materials

Working with materials that were not very light-sensitive, and with the lower light levels of turn-of-the-century street lights, early night photographers had to do everything they could to gather light for their exposures. Wet pavement reflected much more light than dry, and fog helped to illuminate a scene. Night photography was largely done in inclement weather as much out of necessity as it was for the enhanced mood and atmosphere.

In addition to being less sensitive than today’s digital sensors—can you imagine shooting at ISO 2?—plates and film suffered from reciprocity failure. The longer these materials were exposed, the less sensitive they became. This set up an interesting paradox: The longer the exposure, the longer the exposure––which in turn meant a longer exposure was required.

View fullsize

Figure 6. Edward Steichen, Balzac, “Towards the Light, Midnight,” 1908.

Steiglitz’s great friend and colleague Edward Steichen is credited with making some of the earliest photographs by moonlight at the studio of the French sculptor Auguste Rodin in 1908 (Figure 6). He photographed a series of images of Rodin’s sculpture of Balzac over three nights, experimenting with different techniques in hopes of getting a good exposure.

The resulting images are now considered some of his most important works, but at the time he was accused (mainly by the French) of being a fraud. Their rationale? He must have been faking the images because, as everyone knew, making photographs by moonlight was impossible. Little did they know that only a century later people would be making hand-held exposures of the Milky Way with telephones.

The Ultimate Challenge

Perhaps no one better exemplifies the challenges faced by early night photographers than Margaret Bourke White. One of the few western journalists behind the Iron Curtain during World War II, she was sent to Russia by her editor at Life magazine in 1941, and was the only foreign journalist in Moscow when the German bombers arrived.

Bourke White initially photographed the bombing of Moscow from the roof of the American embassy (Figure 7), because the Russian blackout wardens at her hotel forced everyone underground during the raids. Later she set up multiple cameras on the balcony of her hotel room (which faced the Kremlin and Red Square) when the raids began, then rushed to the underground shelters. After the all-clear was given, she returned to close the shutters and to develop the film in her bathroom. In her autobiography she wrote: “To me, the severity of a raid was determined by whether it was a two camera, a three camera, or a four camera night.”

View fullsize

Figure 7. Margaret Bourke White, “Central Moscow With Antiaircraft Gunners,” 1941. Bourke White was one of the only foreign journalists in Moscow when war broke out between Germany and Russia in 1941.

We Really Have it Pretty Good

Any contemporary night photographer worth their salt has a tale or two of harrowing experiences of being rousted by security or nearly stepping on a rattlesnake, but when it comes to the technical difficulties of making images at night, there’s not much that can compare to what those early pioneers had to contend with.

Posting to Instagram from a lonely peak in a national park doesn’t make for much of a story compared to coating your own glass plates in a portable darkroom and then exposing and developing them on the spot with highly toxic fumes while worrying about being blown to bits by Russian bombers.

Think of these pioneers and remember their images and what they went through to make them the next time you’re out feeling cold or tired during a night photography outing. Keep calm, and carry on.

Lance Keimig is our resident photo historian and cantankerous luddite who still has a darkroom and freezer full of film. He writes the occasional blog series “Muses From The Past” about early night photographers for National Parks at Night. The darkroom is in boxes in his garage, but he still has it. Someday …

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS FROM NATIONAL PARKS AT NIGHT

Five Questions: Flashlight Filters, Night Photography with Film, Adobe Bridge and More

We like getting questions. Sometimes they challenge us, sometimes they fascinate us, and sometimes they allow us to fill in the gaps of the things we teach on workshops and in our blog.

This installment of our “Five Questions” series features inquiries about making custom filters for color-correcting flashlights, Pentax’s built-in equatorial tracking, film photography at night, Viltrox lenses and using Adobe Bridge with Lightroom.

If you have any questions you would like to throw our way, please contact us anytime. Questions could be about gear, national parks or other photo locations, post-processing techniques, field etiquette, or anything else related to night photography. #SeizeTheNight!

---

1. Making Custom Color-Correction Filters

View fullsize

Coast Portland LF100 flashlight filters.

Q: Thanks for your recent post on color temperature. Can you describe how you physically make a filter for the flashlight? Tons of gaffer tape? — Will

A: You could use gaffer tape, or you could just wrap the gel around the end of the flashlight and hold it there with your hand or a rubber band. But there’s a more elegant way. In Part I of that series, Tim told how he attaches the gel to the flashlight. Personally, I like to use double-sided tape to adhere the gel to the clear filter, which gives me a nice, clean piece of gear to work with.

However, the first time I did this, I used standard-size clear tape. It didn’t fit across the whole filter, so I needed to use three pieces side-by-side, which created shadow lines in my flashlight beam. Not a huge problem, but it wasn’t polished enough for me. Moreover, one of the reasons I love using a Coast HP7R to light paint is because the illumination is even across the whole beam. So, shadows from my filter wouldn’t do.

Because of that, I instead started using clear mounting sheets. They come in 8.5x11 sheets, from which I can cut a piece that covers the whole filter. I cut a square piece large enough to cover the clear plastic disc, then use sharp scissors to trim the edges to align with the circle. Then I peel off the backing, adhere a square of filter gel, and finish by trimming that as well. If I need two gels, I repeat the process on the other side of the disc.

Then I can pop my custom filter in the holder, and light paint with precise color with no fuss. — Chris

2. Equatorial Tracking with Pentax

Q: I rarely see anything about the use of equatorial mounts in general, or more specifically what Pentax claims to have with their K1 being able to simulate an equatorial mount for up to 3 minutes. I purchased the K1 thinking that this was the way to go, but as I am just starting in astro-landscape photography, I would be interested in your thoughts on these approaches to letting the shutter stay open a little while longer. — Ray B.

View fullsize

Pentax K1.

A: None of us have shot with a Pentax K1, but I have a couple of friends who have, and the AstroTracer feature does indeed perform as advertised. Since you already have the camera, I definitely recommend that you give it a go. Just bear in mind that you will still have to do a separate shot for the landscape or foreground, as it will be blurred in the tracer image. (The AstroTracer tracks the sky, so the camera will not be synchronous with the earth!)

For general astro-landscape photography, typical exposures are 20 seconds, f/2.8, ISO 6400. With the AstroTracer, you should be able to get 2 or 3 minutes at f/2.8 to f/3.5 and ISO 1600, depending on your lens.

We would love to see your results. Please send us a couple of images, or better yet, share on our Facebook page. — Lance

3. Film Photography at Night

Q: Greetings from Portugal! I make landscape photos with long exposures, including night photography. I shoot in black and white with digital, but also with film (Tri-X), and recently I got some Acros. What are your views about these two options? — Verissimo

View fullsize

Figure 1. Click to englarge.

A: Thank you for reaching out, all the way from Portugal! I’ve used film for night photography for over 20 years—less and less over the last 2 or 3, but lately I’ve been resurging. (Keep your eye out for a post about that soon!)

Figure 1 is an excerpt from my book Night Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots, with a chart that compares the film reciprocity of Tri-X and Acros.

As you can see, Tri-X is not a good film for night photography, unless you want to be pushed to very long exposures very quickly. A 15-minute exposure for digital would need to be doubled for Acros (30 minutes), but quadrupled for Tri-X. That’s 1 hour, and anything over 15 minutes is not recommended for Tri-X. This means that with Tri-X at night, you can shoot only under full moon or in brightly lit urban conditions.

Last summer there was some very good news for film night photographers, as Fujifilm brought back Acros after a yearlong hiatus. One of our most beloved black-and-white films, Acros has very low reciprocity failure and can be used successfully under a variety of low-light conditions.

Another thing to consider is that when shooting film at night you are technically overexposing the lights to get a better burn into the silver. To compensate, I advise that you reduce your development times by 10 percent or so to get the best results. Use my chart and -10 percent as a starting point to cook up solutions that best fit your style and the chemicals you use. — Gabe

4. Viltrox 20mm

Q: In your recent blog post “How to Plan, Shoot and Edit a Milky Way Arch Panorama,” I have to say I am a bit confused by this statement: “Lately I’ve fallen in love with the Viltrox 20mm f/1.8, because it comes in a Nikon Z-mount and is crazy-easy to focus manually.” I am unable to find this lens in a non-Z-mount. Maybe you can point me in the right direction? Also, do you know how the Viltrox compares to the Nikon F-mount 20mm f/1.8G combined with the FTZ Adapter? — Eunice

View fullsize

The Viltrox 20mm f/1.8 Z-mount lens.

A: Viltrox is a relative newcomer to the lens market. They presently make the 20mm f/1.8 lens only in a Sony E-mount and a Nikon Z-mount. The latter is not yet available through U.S. retailers, but you can order one directly through Viltrox on Amazon. The Viltrox website is not so up-to-date, but here is some information about the two focal lengths they make (20mm and 85mm). For most of what they manufacture that is available in the U.S., check out B&H Photo.

As for your other question, I have not compared those two lenses directly, so I cannot comment about the optics. But I can comment on the physical attributes.

The Nikon 20mm f/1.8G is substantially lighter, but then you do need to factor in the FTZ Adapter, which adds a little weight. The 20mm is very sharp, though it does suffer from more coma than the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, which is why the latter is legendary among night photographers.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Viltrox: heavier, manual focus only, has coma until stopped down to at least f/2.8, all metal lens barrel, comes with adapter to use screw-on filters 

• Nikon: lighter, requires adapter, auto and manual focus, also has coma until stopped down to at least f/2.8, plastic lens housing, can use screw-on filters natively

— Matt

5. Bridge to Lightroom?

View fullsize

Adobe Bridge—meant for using with Photoshop, not generally with Lightroom.

Q: At a recent workshop you said not to use Adobe Bridge to edit photos before importing them into Lightroom, but rather use just Lightroom. If you import from Bridge, that changes the equation somewhat? Most folks in my camera club swear by Bridge. — Brien R.

A: If someone is not using Lightroom, then by all means they should be using Bridge. But there just isn’t any good reason I can think of to use Bridge before Lightroom. Everything that Bridge does is something that’s built into Lightroom, so using Bridge beforehand is just adding extra steps to accomplish the same tasks.

I’m not claiming that there’s not some truly efficacious reason out there to use Bridge first, but it would be a major exception to the rule, something that would fit a very specific, out-of-the-ordinary need. As an indication of how unusual that need would be, know that between Lance, Tim and I, we don’t know any professional photographer who uses Bridge before Lightroom. — Chris

Chris Nicholson is a partner and workshop leader with National Parks at Night, and author of Photographing National Parks (Sidelight Books, 2015). Learn more about national parks as photography destinations, subscribe to Chris' free e-newsletter, and more at www.PhotographingNationalParks.com.

---

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS FROM NATIONAL PARKS AT NIGHT

When the Pen is Mightier: Using a Graphic Tablet For Spot-Editing

As I was working on an image the other day, I realized how much I depend on my Wacom tablet for post-processing. I also realized that I don’t often get the chance to mention this incredible tool when teaching workshops.

So I figured it was high time I share the joys of editing with this indispensable tool. Below I’ll talk a little about the advantages of a tablet when editing, and then show a video detailing how I configure mine to function best for the kind of photo work I do.

Graphic Tablets

A graphic tablet is an input device that replaces a mouse and consists of the tablet itself as well as a pen. They are also referred to as drawing tablets or pen tablets. Wacom is the brand that I use and is generally considered to be the gold standard of this niche.

View fullsize

A typical graphic tablet with its pen.

At the most basic level, the pen and tablet are used as a substitute for the relatively unwieldy mouse or track pad. Instead of working with an unergonomic mouse, you can use the more natural and ergonomic pen and tablet to click your clicks, dab at spots and draw your masks.

These devices are very popular with graphic designers who need to “draw” and “paint” on the computer. Imagine how difficult/impossible it would be to draw a realistic scene with a clumsy mouse. Now put a pencil in your hands. Feel the control? Ah, much easier.

When to Use a Graphic Tablet

For most of our processes in night photography (or photography in general), we don’t need the extreme level of control some of these tablets offer. But the natural feel of the pen does reduce hand strain and does make many of our tasks much easier. When I was recently working on a Death Valley image that needed a lot of spot removal, I was reminded of the convenience of my Wacom.

I’d been shooting on one of those nights when long-exposure noise was creeping into images. (The temperature had been fairly cool when I made the shot, so I didn’t turn on long exposure noise reduction for the series of 3-minute exposures. The night was, however, very dry. This is a phenomenon that I first heard about from Lance Keimig: In dry, desert-like environments, long exposure noise becomes visible at shorter exposures than usual at the same ambient temperature.)

In this example, the long exposure noise hadn’t completely ruined the image, but I definitely had to do a lot of spot removal to salvage the shot. Using the Wacom tablet and pen made my job much easier. Instead of fussing around from hot pixel to hot pixel with a mouse, trying to microadjust the position of the pointer, trying and missing and undoing and redoing ad nauseam, I was able to just pinpoint each spot with my tablet pen.

View fullsize

The image in question, before eediting the long exposure noise. Click to enlarge to see how many pixels need to be spotted out.

View fullsize

Final image with long exposure noise removed. Death Valley National Park. Nikon D4s with a Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens at 14mm. Ten exposures at 3 minutes, f/4, ISO 320.

That’s one prime example of when a tablet makes my life easier. For basic image editing (moving the sliders about), I generally don’t use one, as I am fairly comfortable with the mouse and trackpad for those tasks. But the moment I need to perform serious spot removal, I plug in the Wacom and revel in its ease of use. I also use the tablet extensively when I’m working on creating masks for local adjustments in both Lightroom and Photoshop. Basically I use it anytime I imagine that a pen would be a more efficient tool than a brick … I mean, a mouse.

That being said, I know plenty of photographers who use the pen and tablet the whole time they are editing. They just find it all-around more comfortable.

Setting Yourself up for Success

Many models and varieties of tablets are available at different price points. Wacom’s most popular are the Intuos and the Intuos Pro lines. I prefer the Intuos Pro (Medium) for the extra size of the tablet for resting my wrist. It also has better pressure sensitivity for when that may be needed.

View fullsize

Wacom Intuos Pro.

A lot of folks find their first few attempts at working with the tablet to be somewhat frustrating. I know I did. The reason is that it is truly designed for extreme control. This means the pen has pressure sensitivity to regulate how hard you need to press to paint, draw or click. Also, a tablet has a fairly large active area (the surface that’s sensitive to the touch of the pen). In some cases this means you have to move your whole arm to get your cursor/pointer/tool from one corner of the display to another. That can seem like a lot of wasted movement for folks accustomed to nudging their mouse an inch to reach the far end of the screen.

Those aspects of pen and tablet are great for exerting precision strokes, but (I believe) are unnecessary for the average photographer. The folks at Wacom would cringe if they heard how I basically “dumb down” the whole setup for my editing. But, hey, it works for me!

In the following video, I’ll show how I set up my Wacom Intuos Pro. I won’t cover all of the myriad options the tablet offers, but rather just the ones that pertain to my way of working.

Wrapping Up

Using a tablet is a great way to gain comfort, precision and efficiency while editing images, in addition to making certain tasks (such as spot removal and local adjustments) much, much easier. I couldn’t live without mine.

Tim Cooper is a partner and workshop leader with National Parks at Night. Learn more techniques from his book The Magic of Light Painting, available from Peachpit.

---

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS FROM NATIONAL PARKS AT NIGHT