Hi,

I want to take Pictures of the Perseids this weekend and would appreciate
advice on how to best photograph it. How bright are shooting stars compared to the fixed stars?
Nearly all pictures I've been looking at showed the background stars being brighter
than the streaks of the meteor shower.

The initial plan was to shoot a timelapse with 30sec exposures over a period of 1 to 2
hours to get star trails and the shower when I combine the pictures in post.

This brings me to my 2nd question, what's the best way to merge these photos (in PS)?

And the 3rd question: Who else is planning to shoot the Perseids? It would be cool if we
can share our results later and discuss.

Thanks!

I think a typical exposure is f2.8 at 30 seconds at ISO 1600. Use a wide angle lens, 16, 20, 24mm or so - wider is better I think. For exposures shorter than 30 seconds, you will not see star movement with short focal length lenses.

This image was shot at ISO 800, probably f5.6 for 58 seconds with a 21mm Zeiss Distagon on a 5DMkII.



This was captured with a 7D and an 18mm focal length at ISO 3200, 20 secs at f4 of the Southern Cross which gets lost in the background stars. There is one meteor track in this image as well



A quick google of Southern Cross yields numerous images of the constellation in its various guises - http://www.google.com/search?q=South...=1516&bih=1428


Here is a good link to start with for star trails. - http://www.naturescapes.net/112006/ej1106.htm

And a few more - http://www.naturescapes.net/102007/jh1007.htm and http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/ind...&print=1&page= -- http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/ind...0-alister-benn

I think the brightness of the Perseids can vary a great deal, from rather dim, to quite bright, depending on the size, proximity and trajectory of the specific meteorite and the surrounding ambient lighting.

I shot my last meteor shower about a stop brighter than what Pathfinder recommended above. It yielded brighter shots, but I'm not sure that's better.

As to whether the meteors are brighter or dimmer than the background stars, that's entirely up to the meteors. I've captured some that are brighter. But the majority are dimmer for sure.

There are all sorts of ways to stack. You can do it all in Photoshop with an action. I use a nifty little program called Image Stacker.

Here's a shot from the geminids in 2010 shot at Death Valley.

Typical EXIF for the following images:

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Lens: EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Image Date: 2010-12-14 01:59:40 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 16mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 30.000 s
ISO equiv: 3200

(crop)


Here's another one from another shoot in my backyard. The meteors were very faint. (full-frame)


Suddenly a big bright fireball raced through the sky, and I just caught the end of it. This is why you want to shoot as wide as possible.


I let it shoot all night on a timer, identified the shots with meteors, and then stacked 'em using ImageStacker.

If you look carefully above, you can see several meteors in that image, along with a few airplane trails.

Not sure if I'm gonna shoot the Perseids or not this year, but thanks for the heads-up.

-joel

Another tip is to be as far away from artificial light as you can.

My first image was shot near dawn out by Hondoo Arch in Utah, which is miles away from any artificial light. My second image was shot near Kruger National Park in South Africa.

Like kdog's comment about his images shot a stop brighter than mine, what is the correct exposure for absolute black and specular points of light?? The correct exposure is the one that gives you the image you desire. The longer the exposure the more fainter stars you will see in your image.

City lights will hide a lot of meteors due to the overwhelming brightness.

Everybody is spot on, but I like the way pathfinder put it, the best exposure is going to be based on your viewing conditions and what you want to capture. If you have a lot of sky light where you are, you aren't going to see the fainter meteors, but if you have dark skies you can vary your exposure to try to get them. Perseids have a median magnitude around 2 or 2.3. so they are about little less than ~16% as bright as Vega. I haven't seen any (camera) exposure guides based on star magnitude. Polaris is ~magnitude 2, so if you can find Polaris ahead of time, and figure out the exposure you need for it, that would be a good place to start, or maybe use the dimmest star in Orions belt which is about 2.2? (taking into account that the meteors won't stick around in the same spot)

I'd do a series of short exposures, so that if you got a wow! one you could isolate that shot. If you want a standalone program, you can look at startrails.de to stack the images.

Here's my contribution, total fluke.



Exposure Time 30
F Number f / 2
ISO Speed Ratings 200

>100 km from Portland, and gah, look how much light pollution over there.

Thanks for all the info.

I tried my best but light pollution was a bit of a real problem (I live near cologne).
The meteors were not bright enough against the background and the moon was rising
around 2 am next to Perseus.

This is a 20min stack of 30sec exposures (17mm, f4, ISO 4000) with darkened foreground in PP:



One of the frames:



I'm not too happy with the results, next time I'll find a better location and bring along
a faster wide angle lens and try shorter exposures to get brighter shooting stars in
the final image.

2nd image shows part of the milky way (24mm @ f/1.4 ISO 3200, 6s), to bad really that
the 24 L II has such pronounced coma in the corners (bad for star trails). I also wished
it was wider.



Up Next ... the Orionids in Oktober

Originally Posted by Manfr3d Thanks for all the info. I tried my best but light pollution was a bit of a real problem (I live near cologne). The meteors were not bright enough against the background and the moon was rising around 2 am next to Perseus. This is a 20min stack of 30sec exposures (17mm, f4, ISO 4000) with darkened foreground in PP: One of the frames: I'm not too happy with the results, next time I'll find a better location and bring along a faster wide angle lens and try shorter exposures to get brighter shooting stars in the final image. 2nd image shows part of the milky way (24mm @ f/1.4 ISO 3200, 6s), to bad really that the 24 L II has such pronounced coma in the corners (bad for star trails). I also wished it was wider. Up Next ... the Orionids in Oktober

I actually like the colors in the second image, it puts the meteors into a modern context.

But seriously, ISO 4000 near Köln? You're brave. 30 seconds is too long for me 100 km from vegas or LA even at low ISO's for dark skies. I'd have gone down to 5 second exposures at that point if I really wanted dark skies. I think it works as is though. It's a pretty image, I'd just crop off the top.

I didn't realize the 24mm would vignette so much. I bet that would be really reduced if you closed it down a stop. Did you have a filter on it?

Originally Posted by kolibri I actually like the colors in the second image, it puts the meteors into a modern context. But seriously, ISO 4000 near Köln? You're brave. 30 seconds is too long for me 100 km from vegas or LA even at low ISO's for dark skies. I'd have gone down to 5 second exposures at that point if I really wanted dark skies. I think it works as is though. It's a pretty image, I'd just crop off the top. I didn't realize the 24mm would vignette so much. I bet that would be really reduced if you closed it down a stop. Did you have a filter on it?

I was exposing to the right which kept noise very low. The problem was that I decided to go for 30s
exposures. 5 seconds on the other hand seems quite low to me. Wouldn't I get many cut off trails of
the shooting stars @*5s? I'm not sure what the best balance is here, opinions?

The 24 does not vignette "that" much. Since I pointed at the azimuth where the stars
are brightest the vignette appears stronger than it really is.