Reflecting Pool

[maddogmurph]

Ok so I do love my new Zeiss 15mm. You can see the crops. I think my next step is to learn to take 5+ exposures for the milky way to give it more detail. That being said, this is a two exposure blend, one for the foreground and one for the sky. What I've noticed is that color seems to render differently in the 15mm. Also although sharpness has increased (I believe) I notice a lot more star movement. Even at 20 seconds I seem to notice it, and pushing the camera to 6400 ISO seems to increase my exposure to red color noise at the fringes of the frame. Such a pain in the ass to correct, and never looks quite right. Also I'm almost certain on my 24mm F1.4 native Nikon lens, this reflection (off the perfectly still pool) would have been sharp. Here it's blurry, and I really don't understand why. Although I can't say I dislike the effect... I'd prefer it to be sharp. I can always blur it on my own thank you!

[sdwilsonsct]

Also I'm almost certain on my 24mm F1.4 native Nikon lens, this reflection (off the perfectly still pool) would have been sharp. Here it's blurry, and I really don't understand why.

Perhaps there was some movement on the water?
I might crop out the water in #1, so that the rock pattern echoes the milky way.

[maddogmurph]

I think that shot is worth a little Photoshop magic, if you'd care to see what can be done ?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There's nothing photoshop can do for the reflection being blurry. Short of flipping the milky way and blending it back into the water I'm not sure what you'd be suggesting.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Good job here. In #1, I would prefer to see more of the sky. In #2, I think the water is just reflecting the brighter stars, which are already streaking, given the 15mm lens versus length of exposure.

[KMRennie]

Just a thought about the blurred reflection of the stars.
I assume since the rocks are fairly sharp, they may be pin sharp but it is hard to say in the small image posted, that for your foreground image you focused at a much shorter distance. If so then the reflection of the stars in the water would be out of focus. An object reflected needs to be focused at its original distance, infinity in this case, not on the surface of the water. My physics is correct but you may have used the reflection from the original sky shot and I would be talking rubbish, not for the first time. I hope that this helps.
Ken

[maddogmurph]

Just a thought about the blurred reflection of the stars.
I assume since the rocks are fairly sharp, they may be pin sharp but it is hard to say in the small image posted, that for your foreground image you focused at a much shorter distance. If so then the reflection of the stars in the water would be out of focus. An object reflected needs to be focused at its original distance, infinity in this case, not on the surface of the water. My physics is correct but you may have used the reflection from the original sky shot and I would be talking rubbish, not for the first time. I hope that this helps.
Ken

Nah, they are both at infinity. One was just a longer exposure with star trails, the foreground isn't super sharp as I didn't focus stack this, although sharp enough for my taste. I'm finding that my 24mm at infinity reflects sharp, and the 15mm hasn't been reflecting sharp. I have no explanation, and I'll have to continue experimenting before I can conclude anything. But I'll double check that... I have lots of other examples of it not reflecting at infinity though.

[Sean H]

I think that it is a perfect as it is. It reminds me of a stairway to the stars. It is very sci-fi and mysterious and would make a great cover for a sci-fi novel.