Originally posted by CrowleyThe cave and the rocky background would have to have been taken seperately to the milky way image. It would have been impossible from inside the cave.
A single exposure image that shows the Milky Way in amazing detail.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080929.html
To get a long exposure shot to give that level of detail, you will need the camera mounted on an axis that rotates in sync with the rotation of the earth at an angle based on the photographer's latitute. This will mean that the cave could not be in a fixed position over that period of time.
I would say it is a composite of two images (maybe even 3, where inside the cave is one shot, the rocky background another).
What also gives it away is the definition of the edges of the "images". They aren't even blended very well.
Originally posted by lauseyAgree.
The cave and the rocky background would have to have been taken seperately to the milky way image. It would have been impossible from inside the cave.
To get a long exposure shot to give that level of detail, you will need the camera mounted on an axis that rotates in sync with the rotation of the earth at an angle based on the photographer's latitute. Thi ...[text shortened]... it away is the definition of the edges of the "images". They aren't even blended very well.
Looks like a first year's first attempt at photoshop.
Originally posted by lauseyI also agree.
The cave and the rocky background would have to have been taken seperately to the milky way image. It would have been impossible from inside the cave.
To get a long exposure shot to give that level of detail, you will need the camera mounted on an axis that rotates in sync with the rotation of the earth at an angle based on the photographer's latitute. Thi ...[text shortened]... it away is the definition of the edges of the "images". They aren't even blended very well.
Here's an example image of what a long exposure starscape looks like as taken from a static camera...
http://www.redbubble.com/people/killywx/art/174468-13-in-a-spin-nth-qld
This image uses the fact that all stars rotate around the South Star (in the Southern Hemisphere) to get the concentric circles.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakOh Yeah? So why isn't the rock spinning too smart-pants?!
I also agree.
Here's an example image of what a long exposure starscape looks like as taken from a static camera...
http://www.redbubble.com/people/killywx/art/174468-13-in-a-spin-nth-qld
This image uses the fact that all stars rotate around the South Star (in the Southern Hemisphere) to get the concentric circles.
D
P-
Originally posted by RagnorakExcept that there is no South Star, in the sense that there is a North Star.
I also agree.
Here's an example image of what a long exposure starscape looks like as taken from a static camera...
http://www.redbubble.com/people/killywx/art/174468-13-in-a-spin-nth-qld
This image uses the fact that all stars rotate around the South Star (in the Southern Hemisphere) to get the concentric circles.
D
Originally posted by SuzianneTBH, I only knew that worked with the North Star. I had it written before I noticed it was taken in QLD, and just subbed South for North, presuming there was.
Except that there is no South Star, in the sense that there is a North Star.
Wonder what star they rotate around in the Southern Hemisphere. The North Star?
D
Originally posted by lauseyI'm not really familiar with astrophotography. How long an exposure would have been required to get that shot of the stars? Would it make a difference if you used high speed film? How long can you leave the shutter open on a fixed tripod before the stars start to look like streaks instead of points?
The cave and the rocky background would have to have been taken seperately to the milky way image. It would have been impossible from inside the cave.
To get a long exposure shot to give that level of detail, you will need the camera mounted on an axis that rotates in sync with the rotation of the earth at an angle based on the photographer's latitute. Thi ...[text shortened]... it away is the definition of the edges of the "images". They aren't even blended very well.
2 edits
Originally posted by NatsiaThat all depends on the camera. Suppose the camera was hooked up to an 18" Dobsinian. I think you would gather enough light in a one second exposure to do exactly what the image suggests. Didn't you guys read the caption? It said the cave was lit up briefly by a flashlight during a longer exposure. By long in this case, it would have to be maybe less than a minute because the stars are sharp. You can see the reflection of the galaxy in the entrance to the cave even. I say it's real.
Agree.
Looks like a first year's first attempt at photoshop.
BTW, what's up with the astropic site, looks like the last show was 5 years ago.