Thanks for that. I'm glad we got this resolves. Great video, by the way.

@@DarkArtsAstrophotography It's the least I could do Joe ... many thanks.

@@nightscapeimages.richard I saw an old building under a nearly full moon early one morning. It turned out well, lighting and composition wise, but when I got home and put it on my computer I could see the noise. So I went back at the same time the next morning and set it to ISO 100 and the sky looked A LOT better. No noise discernible to the eye. In each case I had to use a tripod so using the higher ISO simply doesn't make sense. Why use ISO 3200 in your case? It's better to not have the noise in the first place so one doesn't have to reduce it via software later. Most of the post-production stuff people do could be avoided if they put a little more thought into things when out shooting photos. One thing that strikes me is that I see people doing stuff on the computer, many times spending significant amounts of time, that could be done by spending just a few seconds considering things when taking the photo itself.

@@Anon54387 Thanks a lot for watching and for leaving a comment. Your shooting scenario is very different to this example as you had a "nearly full moon". I challenge you to go out and try that when there is no moon in the sky and see how many stars you can capture at iso100. That is a very much considered comment coming from many years of nightscape experience.

@@nightscapeimages.richard I'll give that a shot on the 26th as there will be no moon. I take it I won't be able to see many stars without upping the ISO. At least if I understood your comment correctly. Still, I do see people spending significant amounts of time doing stuff on the computer that could be avoided if different choices were made when taking the photo. I'd rather, if at all possible, to minimize time on the computer and spend more taking photos. Thanks for the reply. I wasn't expecting one, to be honest, with the volume on this channel. You must enjoy interacting with people. It seems you reply quite a lot. Edit: I just watched your video on focusing to infinity with that small cubby house. Not to beat a dead horse, but couldn't a person reduce the ISO to 100 and just use a bulb for a longer exposure so as to avoid the noise? Perhaps I'm not seeing the problem.

Very kind of you to say Ray, really appreciate you watching.

Taught me more in 28 minutes that Google Pixel doing in one click.

airscrew1 yet you still took the time to read then reply.🤷‍♂️

Well said!! I just found his channel a month or two ago!!

Me too, ffs. I just wish I saw that channel sooner!

Thanks a lot for watching

Faxx bro

Thanks so much for watching Rashid.

Thanks so much Carl, really appreciate you taking the time to comment.

Thanks a lot Josh, yes I am very passionate about helping. Sometimes it's hard to get info because photographers often like to keep their info close to themselves.

@@nightscapeimages.richard Yah its really spooky!

Seen

Really pleased you like it David, thanks heaps for watching.

David Madden It is a shame he keeps stressing ‘just a crop sensor’, I almost feel bad for choosing one.

I really appreciate you watching Gabriel

Thanks a lot John. Good suggestion.

Really appreciate you watching.

Thanks so much for watching

Really appreciate that Duy

Thanks a lot for the comment Luke. Really appreciate it. It's a wonderful program isn't it.

Really appreciate you watching Ryan, thanks

Very kind of you to say Ekin, thank you

Thanks a lot Richard, really appreciate your comments.

I really appreciate you watching Kristoffer.

Thanks so much for your support.

Thanks for your lovely comments Aluico, really appreciated

I'm so glad you like it. Thanks for the comment.

Thank you so much for watching Sigurd and leaving a comment

I just subscribed to your channel. You've only 9,998 subscibers to go.

@@kenwalton6711 thank you mate ..only a few left ..I appricate it.I subscribed to you too

I spend a lot of time with new photographers with standard camera equipment so I get asked about it quite a lot. Thanks for watching.

@@nightscapeimages.richard thank you mate ! You are amazing

Thanks very much for watching. ..really appreciated.

Thanks very much Phil.

You are very kind Toby, thanks so much for your generous comments.

Thanks Marc. I knew when I produced it that I'd get some people saying it was too long but it's almost impossible to do a post processing video without it stretching out.

@@nightscapeimages.richard It was nowhere near too long. I could have watched all night. Very good video!

Thank you

Hi Jillian, of coarse I remember you. I hope you're doing well. Thanks so much for watching.

Really appreciate you watching and for the comment Simon

Thank you very much for your kind words.

Really appreciate you watching Martyn

Really appreciate you watching Rahul, thank you.

Really appreciate you watching Chris

Thanks very much for the comment

Really appreciate you watching Pratik

Thanks Merv really appreciate that.

Really appreciate you watching and leaving a comment my friend.

Thanks so much for watching Jelourd, glad you like it.

Thank you so much for watching

Many thanks indeed

Many thanks indeed, really appreciate you watching.

Very kind of you to say .. thanks for watching

Thanks very much for watching and commenting.

Good... Yes... But hella looooooooonggggg and kinda boring

Appreciate you watching anyway ... it has to be long to explain the process ... and boring ... well that's up the individual.

@@oxoConstantinEoxo All learning is. You have to tediously study theory before you go into the field and start learning on your mistakes haha

Thanks heaps mate, appreciate the comments

appreciate the comment

Thanks a lot for watching. I feel quite privileged ..!!!

Really pleased you like it

Really appreciate you watching Martin, thanks so much.

I'm really pleased you like it Jasper, thanks so much.

Thanks so much Seb

Thanks so much for watching Greg, really appreciate your insights.

Thanks so much for watching, really appreciate your comments.

I'm glad you got something out of it Troy, thanks for watching

I'm so pleased you like the videos Jono, thanks heaps for watching.

Really appreciate you watching Lightjay Panda

Really appreciate you watching Peter

No worries Colin, appreciate the comment

Thanks so much for watching James

Thanks heaps for watching MrMatte0000, really appreciate it.

Thanks heaps for watching.

Thanks very much for watching Kathy, and also for your very kind words.

Thanks so much for watching, really appreciated.

Thanks so much for watching Steve. You are correct, there is a lot of work required to get these final results.

Yes I certainly did. It takes a lot of work to shoot these videos and I appreciate you watching.

Night videos next

Look at channels like Pierre T. Lambert, McKinnon and others. So many funny moments like these where they depict getting into a car etc, but you just see from the camera placement that they'll have to double back to get it :D

I'm really pleased you like the video Smiley, thanks for the comment.

Thanks so much Stephen. There is a bit of stuff in there but I'm glad you liked it.

Thanks very much for watching Allan. Yes you certainly can take great images with the 200D, especially with the skytracker. Give it a go ..!!!

Thanks Tammy. This tractor is on private property near Newbridge in Central Victoria

Thanks so much for watching Shyam

Thanks heaps Maxi, really appreciate you watching and taking the time to comment.

Thanks so much for watching Dean. Yes all the sky images are exactly the same. The Sequator software aligns the stars so they don't trail.

Thank you so much Sherry for watching, really appreciated.

I'm p[leased you like it Alan

Thanks for watching Anand. The 10 shots were all exactly the same exposure settings. You could do 5 but the resultant noise reduction would not be as great. The Nikon D90 was a really good camera and I had one for years but the high iso noise will be a problem .. that's why we need to do the noise reduction technique. You can use any light source to light paint.

Yes it's certainly worth a go.

@@nightscapeimages.richard I tried it last weekend. Really nice tool, stacked 27x14s images which turned out pretty nicely. The remove light pollution option is pretty impressive imho.

Thanks heaps Ford, really appreciate your comments

Thanks so much for watching Jim, really appreciate it.

Great idea Marcus. Thanks for your insights.

Thanks for your correction Martim D. Happy for you to add to the discussion. Thanks for watching.

In fact, you could say that a bigger sensor in the same light conditions gathers more light (as quantity of light, not intensity). The higher quantity of light is then distributed on a larger area, so that the intensity of light does not change. It’s like if you have two water reservoirs: one having an area 10 times (for instance) bigger than the other. If you get 1 hour of a 1 mm/h rainfall on both reservoirs, the bigger one will collect 10 times the amount of water collected by the smaller one, but the water level (provided that the areas are constant) will increase of 1 mm on both reservoirs. . Said that, I’d like to add that I really enjoyed the video tutorial and will try out this technique. Thank you 😊

Correction to the correction. "...With allows a better depth of field..." This should read, "allows a shallower, depth of field" but actually, the sensor size and pixel pitch has nothing to do with depth of field. Remember that 'better' is a subjective term. And the whole point of this video is you don't need fancy gear to make great images. Just the skills and determination.

ISO sensitivity is based on area, so of course a large ISO on a full frame sensor has less noise, because in actuality, the ISO has to be (in effect) larger on a smaller sensor because there's less area. The ISO number isn't absolute.

@@Noksus actually , it's not only about the sensor size, but also about the density of the pixels stacked into it. here can fit the "less is more" sentence :)

Thank you so much for watching. I have many more videos like this one on the channel.

I agree Graham they are wonderful

Yes absolutely it can be done with that camera and lens.

That app is called Photopills

I really appreciate you watching Jeff

Many thanks Allen, appreciate your support

Hi Merlin 15 sec shutter speed at iso 3200 for the sky. Also 15 sec at a lower iso for the foreground. When light painting the foreground I didnt necessarily light the subject for the full 15 seconds. It depends how bright the light source is etc.

@@nightscapeimages.richard fantastic I had no idea what light painting was, absolutely brilliant. My phone has light painting mode just thought it was filter haha

Thanks so much for watching. I've not used RawTherapee.

Very kind of you to say Johan, really appreciate you watching.

Thanks so much for watching

Really appreciate you watching.

Your Sony A7 will be awesome Hells Bells

Thanks heaps as always Carl.

Thank you so much Niels for watching, really appreciated.

Thank you so much Tanya, really appreciate you watching. The orange gel is a 1/2 cto and the part number here in Australia is 205. Let me know how you go.

Hey Tanya, send me an email if you'd like. rgtatti@hotmail.com

The app is called Photopills

Thanks so much for watching and leaving a comment.

Really appreciate that

The cheapest wide angle lens to use with the Z6 (with the FTZ adaptor) is the Samyang 14mm f2.8. This is not the best lens by a long way though.

@@nightscapeimages.richard for the first time taking night and sky photo i ordered it. thanks

The app is called Photopills

Thank you so much for watching and leaving a comment.

Thanks very much Charles, your comments are greatly appreciated

@@nightscapeimages.richard Not at all. Thank You for providing superb video's and for sharing your knowledge with us. I am really happy to have happened upon Your channel here. I've subscribed and really hope to receive updates as an when You share New Films. Biggest Thanks.