Meteor Photography

[mikepalo]

<p>OK soooo here is the deal. Ive been working on some meteor photography the last few months as the different showers have come through and I have been having a few problems.<br /><br /> Im shooting: <br /> Nikon D200 - w/ either -<br /> Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 - fisheye<br /> Nikkor 35mm f/1.8<br>

I also have access to <br>

Nikkor micro-60mm f/2.8<br /> Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (I personally dont like this lens at all)<br /> Nikkor 70-300mm<br /><br /> I shot in aug then in nov then on sun night... The first two times I went out I shot with the 10-17mm exclusively, but this time I had the 35mm with me, so I tried that as well.. I liked the color of the sky much better in the f/1.8 pictures but the lens was WAY too tight I could barely get orion in frame never the less more of the sky. <br>

<br /> And using the 10-17 I had plenty of the sky in frame and often meteors would streak across the frame but I found they almost never showed up in the picture, I tried all different settings and exposure lengths. I tried everything from ISO 100-1250, with shutter speeds from 30" - 5min, and apertures from f/1.8-8. None of them seemed to show the meteors. I also tried closing the shutter immediately after a meteor streaked across the frame.<br>

<br /> Also with both the Nikkor and the Tokina I was having a bit of a problem getting the lens to focus to infinity. I started focusing them manually and was still haveing a problem getting pin-point focus especially on the 35mm f/1.8. The manual focus issue COULD just be from bad eyes but i felt that the focus ring wasn't adjusting as it should of been.<br>

<br /> Can anyone with some good experience shooting meteors tell me what they use for setting, and maybe show me a few results from those settings? I appreciate any help in this matter.<br>

<br /> -Michael Palozzola</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I made a page of <a href="http://www.saugus.net/Photos/meteor_photography_tips_night.shtml">meteor photography tips</a> .</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>J. Harrington. Good tips, but I would add to it...if living in Pennsylvania, the sky will always be cloudy and or extremely hazy! And, I do mean always! At least where I live.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>I tried most of the stuff said on that site and none of it seemed to work</p>

[leo s.]

<p>Where to start...<br>

-<br>

Firstly, the kind of shot you are trying to get should determine the lens you use. You'll catch more meteors in the field of view of a wide angle lens than a normal angle, but the streaks left by meteors will usually be much shorter, and not too impressive. Faster lenses will also help you catch more.<br>

-<br>

Keep in mind that where you point your camera is also important. Meteors that appear close to the radiant are always short, whilst meteors that appear far from the radiant can be much longer. There is a direct relationship between the two. So wider angle lenses are best used pointing far from the radiant, and vice versa.<br>

-<br>

Whichever lens you choose, the exposure/settings should be determined by the following IMHO:<br>

1. Use the widest lens aperture you are happy with. You may want to stop down a little if you don't like distorted stars.<br>

-<br>

2. Depending on your camera, pick a high ISO like 800 or 1600. The D200 should be fine at 1600 I think.<br>

-<br>

3. Take a few test shots before you start, at different exposure times (10, 15, and 20 seconds - short exposures are better since they avoid many problems like amp-glow and star-trailing), and examine your results. You want the background sky to be slightly light, but not so much that you will lose contrast between the background and any meteors you catch. The background can be brought down to much more natural looking levels in post processing.<br>

-<br>

4. If your background is still too washed out, and your exposure is shorter than you'd like, drop down the ISO a notch and try again till you get the right exposure.<br>

-<br>

To focus, I'd suggest connecting the camera to a laptop and checking your focus at 100% zoom.<br>

-<br>

By far the best way to catch meteors is to use multiple cameras, although you may still get lucky and catch something with only one, but it can be frustrating as you found out!<br>

-<br>

You can find some meteor photos that I took here:<br>

http://www.btinternet.com/~l.stachowicz/pics/astro.htm</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>The photo linked to below demonstrates what Leo means by:<br>

<em>"Meteors that appear close to the radiant are always short, whilst meteors that appear far from the radiant can be much longer."</em></p>

<p><a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091218.html">http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091218.html</a></p>

<p>Mike, in my opinion, the most important factors to capturing a meteor with a camera are:</p>

<ul>

<li>shoot when there is a meteor shower and after midnight </li>

<li>shoot with a wide, fast lens, 1 stop short of wide open</li>

<li>shoot in a VERY dark area (far away from city lights) on a moonless night</li>

<li>shoot lots of photos, 30 sec or more</li>

<li>use a moderately fast ISO ~400 or more</li>

<li>have patience!</li>

</ul>

[mikepalo]

<ul>

<li>shoot when there is a meteor shower and after midnight -DIDIT </li>

<li>shoot with a wide, fast lens, 1 stop short of wide open -DIDIT</li>

<li>shoot in a VERY dark area (far away from city lights) on a moonless night -DIDIT</li>

<li>shoot lots of photos, 30 sec or more -DIDIT</li>

<li>use a moderately fast ISO ~400 or more -DIDIT</li>

<li>have patience! -KINDA DO</li>

</ul>

<p>My issue I was having was Meteors were streaking by IN FRAME but not showing up on camera. I know where i was aiming. I had marker stars I was using and watching between them ... I was getting meteors ... But none were showing up.....</p>

<p>Are there any Ultra Wide Lenses out there like 10-20mm that are very fast f/1.2-2.8 from any off brands like Sigma or something?</p>

<p> </p>

[leo s.]

<p>"I was getting meteors ... But none were showing up....."<br>

-<br>

That's where the patience and persistence comes in. You need a bit of luck too. Most meteors are not that bright, and it takes a very bright one to make a strong image on film.<br>

-<br>

Whilst J. Harrington's advice is good, the best way of increasing your chances is having multiple cameras running. Small focal lengths help, since they can be faster, eg. 50mm 1.8<br>

-<br>

This is how the pros do it:<br>

http://www.robertreeves.com/cluster.htm<br>

http://web.archive.org/web/20020407120025/http://delpsurf.www.cistron.nl/haas_array.html<br>

-<br>

"Are there any Ultra Wide Lenses out there like 10-20mm that are very fast f/1.2-2.8 from any off brands like Sigma or something?"<br>

-<br>

There's the Sigma 30mm 1.8, but that's about as wide and fast as you'll get on a budget.</p>

<p> </p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>The <em>only </em> decent <a href="http://www.saugus.net/Photos/images/milky_way_meteor.jpg">meter photo</a> I captured was made using a Sigma 20MM 1.8, shot at F2. I sold that lens as I was not happy with its sharpness. Star flare was also an issue with the Sigma for me, as is evident in the photo.</p>

<p>Tokina makes a 2.8 ultra-wide I believe. (don't let lens purchases lock you into cropped sensor bodies)</p>

<p>I've spend <em>no more</em> than a couple of hours attempting meteor photography and on no more than 2 or 3 nights. Luck plays a big factor in it.</p>

<p>Don't even bother with the lenses slower than 2.8, IMO.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>Good point. I forgot about the 20mm 1.8!<br>

-<br>

I've been using a Nikkor 28/2.0 AIS, and it's not too bad close to wide open on a crop sensor. I prefer the Canon Ls though (one of the main reasons I made the switch to Canon some years back), despite their high price tags.<br>

-<br>

Michael - One thing you may find helps, if you find a darker-sky site (I don't know how good the sky quality is where you have been shooting previously) , where you can use 1600 ISO, the meteors will be much more obvious in terms of brightness. Ultimately though, a bit of luck goes a long way, and you make your own luck by being out there during meteor shower peaks, and having more cameras.</p>

[mikepalo]

<blockquote>

<p>Most meteors are not that bright, and it takes a very bright one to make a strong image on film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By this rational.. which does seem to make sense... the longer the exposure the stronger of a meteor I will need for it to show up... So the solution to that seems to be so shoot using a 10-30sec exposure with the settings set so in that time frame i get good star light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is how the pros do it:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robertreeves.com/cluster.htm" target="_blank">http://www.robertreeves.com/cluster.htm</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is insane. I wish I could set something up like this, but alas Im just a college student on a student budget... soooo I must work with what I have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's the Sigma 30mm 1.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already have the Nikon 35mm 1.8 ... doesn't seem worth the $$ to go buy a new lens for 5mm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(don't let lens purchases lock you into cropped sensor bodies)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My only body i have right now IS a crop body, and for what else I shoot (mainly wildlife) there is very little if ANY reason to go into FX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>where you can use 1600 ISO,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The prob with 1600 ISO on the D200 is it is grainy and I dont like the image quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>find a darker-sky site</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am shooting at one of the darkest spots I can find accessible by road(aka without hiking Hours into the everglades). I may have found another site driving around in the everglades during this last shower which I will try in the near future, but im not sure of it yet.<br>

_____________________________________<br>

Also last meteor shower I got what I thought was a BRIGHT meteor which I later realized was just a plane across my frame. ... So now im not sure about a previous shoot...<br>

<a href="../photo/9633838">http://www.photo.net/photo/9633838</a> (plz view it larger)<br>

Does this speak plane? or Meteor?</p>

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Looks like aircraft to me, based on uniform brightness across entire arc. In your high res version you can likely see strobes on aircraft. Lots of moonlight that night and terrestrial light on horizon.</p>

<p>The humid air in FL may be a fogging factor.</p>

<p>Watch out for the alligators!</p>

<p> </p>

[leo s.]

<p>"By this rational.. which does seem to make sense... the longer the exposure the stronger of a meteor I will need for it to show up... So the solution to that seems to be so shoot using a 10-30sec exposure with the settings set so in that time frame i get good star light."<br /> -<br /> Yes, and yes again basically. Exposure time is the only way to tweak the background, whilst not affecting the meteor itself. It should also help bring out the stars a bit if you can keep it down, whilst increasing aperture and ISO as much as you can. The combined settings you choose are a delicate balancing act, based on how dark your observing site is, and how big your memory card is, once you have all the other things in place (fast lens and high ISO).<br /> -<br /> I'm lucky in that most of my bodies perform quite well at ISO 1600, but I made the mistake of using ISO 800 during the Geminids this year and compensating by increasing exposure time, and the meteors I caught looked MUCH less impressive compared to the meteors of showers like the Leonids which should have been harder to catch because of their speed. Compare the previous showers where I mostly used ISO1600 with this year's Geminids (all ISO 800) on my web page.<br /> -<br /> Another thing to note is that not all sensors are made equal when it comes to gathering photons, and their true sensitivity (not related to ISO), but in general Canon's sensors are more sensitive than Nikons. Every bit of sensitivity counts when it comes to meteors, so if you are serious, you might consider selling up and switching brands. <br /> -<br /> Two of the most important statistics (full well capacity, and read noise) can be found for many cameras here:<br /> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#data<br /> -<br /> IMHO, the Canon 20D offers the best compromise between cost/performance right now.<br /> -<br /> "I already have the Nikon 35mm 1.8 ... doesn't seem worth the $$ to go buy a new lens for 5mm"<br /> -<br /> I'd agree with that.<br /> -<br /> "That is insane."<br /> -<br /> Did you see the second link? :)<br /> -<br /> Just looking at the example photograph you posted (nice shot in it's own right BTW, and hard to tell, but the uniformity of the trail suggests a satellite, or perhaps a plane as you say. Meteor trails in photos almost always have tapered ends and variations of brightness along them.), I think you are doing the right thing, with good enough equipment, but you just need a bit of luck. Keep doing what you are doing, and sooner or later your camera will be pointing in the right place at the right time to get a keeper.<br /> -<br /> Be prepared for more disappointments, like cut off meteors and big ones just off the frame along the way though. Catching meteors is easy, but catching a good shot of one requires some patience, and/or a good helping of luck. Good technique/planning and equipment will just increase the odds that you catch one sooner.</p>

[mikepalo]

<blockquote>

<p>Meteor trails in photos almost always have tapered ends and variations of brightness along them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well ok here is the tidbit on that specific meteor picture. The image is a compilation of 2 images the background from one the meteor (in the same location) from an earlier shot which blew out the background. in the earlier shot the camera was zoomed in slightly so actually the top tail of the meteor was cut off which would be why the meteor was not tapered in the rear... Also wouldn't a plane show a variation in light even more tehn a meteor, because you have the blinking lights under a plane, this trail is very solid until the end of, which is where i figured the meteor fissled out and broke apart.....?</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Here's is a link to my shot of the <a href="../photo/8869338&size=lg">International Space Station</a> .<br /> There was a report that it would be passing over my area so I was ready.</p>

<p>To me, your shot looks like an aircraft or satellite as Leo mentioned.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My only body i have right now IS a crop body, and for what else I shoot (mainly wildlife) there is very little if ANY reason to go into FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some good reasons for FF are more fast, wide lens choices,more light gathering power and less noise.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>If you acquire many lenses that will only work on a cropped sensor body, you'll be less inclined to upgrade to FF when your situation allows.</p>

<p>The Tokina lens I mentioned is for crop sensor only. I recommend only fast primes for meteor photography. No zooms!</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p><a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091219.html">Meteor photo</a></p>

[leo s.]

<p>"Also wouldn't a plane show a variation in light even more tehn a meteor, because you have the blinking lights under a plane, this trail is very solid until the end of, which is where i figured the meteor fissled out and broke apart.....?"<br>

-<br>

Not all planes in flight use strobes. When they do, they are clearly visible, like this photo for example: http://www.btinternet.com/%7El.stachowicz/pics/gem09/YX9J0366.jpg<br>

-<br>

I would expect a meteor trail to be tapered at the end as well as the start, at least a little, but the biggest give away has to be the overall uniformity of the trail. When a meteoroid enters our atmosphere, it passes through progressively thicker layers of atmosphere, and this causes the brightness to increase progressively. It's hard to see exactly what is going on that the lower end of the trail, but it does look to me as if the trail was stopped abruptly by the end of the exposure, which suggest a satellite or plane.<br>

-<br>

"Some good reasons for FF are more fast, wide lens choices,more light gathering power and less noise."<br>

-<br>

I agree with J. Harrington again here. FF sensors are much better for this type of photography, and you'd be wise not to limit yourself early on. A 5D for example, has more than 2x the full well capacity and almost half the read-out noise of the D200. Sorry for "pushing" the Canons, but they do have a distinct advantage over the Nikon sensors. Next best of course, would be the FF Nikon sensors.</p>

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Being a Canon shooter, if I had to choose <strong><em>only one lens for astro photography</em> </strong> , it would be the expensive <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html/BI/119">Canon 24MM 1.4 L</a></p>

<p>I don't own one.<br>

Mike, some of my comments are intended to help others who might read this thread.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>"<a rel="nofollow" href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091219.html" target="_blank">Meteor photo</a> "<br>

-<br>

I'll see your photo and raise you one :)<br>

-<br>

http://astropics.com/geminid-meteor-fireball-9095.html<br>

-<br>

I think it goes to show, that fast lenses and top of the line cameras are not always necessary!</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r34/F1Addict/Miscellaneous%20Crap/Milkyway.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Bottom left, meteor. Not during a specific shower, just happened to occur during the minute and a half exposure. The red streak is a plane. Canon 5D, 17-40mm (@17mm) 95 second exposure at f/4, ISO 400.</p>

<p>Michael, you can practice by shooting Iridium flares. They occur just about every night and are easily seen with the naked eye if you know where to look. Fortunately, heavens-above dot com will tell you exactly when (to the second), where (within an arc-second), and how bright (from 0 to -8 magnitude). This will give you an indication of how an object of a given magnitude will record on your sensor.</p>

<p><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r34/F1Addict/Flare_neg1_small.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Flare at center bottom, almost parallel with electric line. Magnitude -2. Some are longer, some shorter in duration and thus appear shorter or longer in the photograph.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>Nice shots Jeff.<br /> -<br /> I would have to say, although iridium flares are fun to shoot, they won't give a good impression of the way a meteor of the same brightness would record on a sensor (or film) since they are much slower than meteors (the vast majority anyway), and will therefore capture much more easily than a meteor would (just like planes and regular satellites). I suppose you could work out the angular velocities involved and get a fair estimate of how bright a meteor belonging to a particular shower would appear though.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Thanks Leo! I hadn't considered the velocity and duration. Probably not a good indicator of what a meteor might look like after all.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>You're welcome Jeff. Perhaps not a good indicator, but your post brought up a good point about one of the reasons why meteors are deceptively hard to photograph.<br>

-<br>

There is some great info on the subject in general in the Society For Popular Astronomy's web page on advanced meteor photography here: http://www.popastro.com/sections/meteor/2009/meteorphotv1.htm<br>

-<br>

I think it's also worth mentioning the SPA has an active forum where people can find some discussion on the subject: http://www.popastro.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=939ffe2d31649731107d5c652e944e35</p>

[peter_k4]

<p>I would not stop down your lens at all like some advise above. Shoot wide open, and at the highest ISO you can that gives acceptable noise to you.</p>

<p>Meteors are FAST. The photo attached is of a fireball during the 2007 Perseids. I was looking up and saw it, then my heart sank when I realized my camera was pointing in the wrong direction. Luckily I was using the widest focal length from my kit lens and just caught it in the corner of the frame. This was taken at ISO 1600 and f3.5.</p>

<p>This was a very rare catch, and to get it at f3.5 and ISO 1600 is just pure luck. I will be lucky if I ever see another meteor this bright again in my life.</p>

<p>This second image is a much more realistic brightness for a meteor during the peak of a meteor shower. It was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 for a 7 second exposure.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>