Some Landscape Questions

[FlyPenFly]

First, was this photo done mostly from PP? Or was it from fast lens + high ISO?

http://500px.com/photo/2241155?from=popular

I'm just trying to see how possible it is to get landscape shots at night without star trails along with the foreground having land. I know you can get tracking equatorial motors but I think that precludes being able to include the land.


Second, has anyone been using a circular polarizer with a 21mm lens? I know standard thinking is that it will mess up your skies with bands since the polarization isn't equal on a wide angle lens. Just curious how bad the effect will be.


Third, I currently have a Lee Foundation kit that I plan to use with my ZF.2 21mm F2.8 and C/Y 35-70mm. I currently have a Singh Ray 3 stop soft grad ND and a .9 Lee ND. I've been pondering whether I should add a Lee 3 stop hard grad ND or a Sing Ray 3 stop reverse grad ND. This is for shooting in Iceland and Switzerland.


Fourth, which has better IQ with a lens like the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 ZF.2, assume shutter speed has to remain the same:

F16 + 3 stop filter

or

F8 + 3 stop + 1 stop filter

Assume the filters are either B+W or Lee or Singh Ray.

[Nacnud]

To get stars as points of light, use the 500 rule.
There is a very good explanation in this free downloadable PDF
http://availablelightimages.com/blog/night-photography/

That's a very good photo

[theguywitha645d]

Wide-angle lens, high ISO, fast optics, and post processing.

[Lonnie Utah]

Looking at the Exif data, and a few other things in the image, I'm betting it's a composite. 

Exposure Time 30
ISO Speed Ratings 3200
Focal Length 50

Note there is no aperture value. 

So applying the rule of 500 the longest exposure we should  be able to make and not get any star movement is 10.  We're 3 times over that and there doesn't appear to be much movement in the stars. 

Also, look a the star reflections in the lake.  There are WAY fewer stars showing up in the lake as there are in the sky.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of image stacking applied to the sky. 

Now, I'm not impugning the image or the techniques, but there are hints as to how this was done and when you figure them out, the results seem much more obtainable.

[NikoJorj]

http://500px.com/photo/2241155?from=popular

Exif says 30s, 3200ISO, no aperture recorded indicating a manual lens, thus focal length probably different from 50mm as recorded - 500 rule hints at a (ultra) wide angle.

Second, has anyone been using a circular polarizer with a 21mm lens? I know standard thinking is that it will mess up your skies with bands since the polarization isn't equal on a wide angle lens. Just curious how bad the effect will be.

21mm on a 24x36 sensor means 90° viewing angle : pointing it perpendicular to the sun, you will get some inverse vignetting (and parallel to the sun axis, not much effect at all).

Third, I currently have a Lee Foundation kit that I plan to use with my ZF.2 21mm F2.8 and C/Y 35-70mm. I currently have a Singh Ray 3 stop soft grad ND and a .9 Lee ND. I've been pondering whether I should add a Lee 3 stop hard grad ND or a Sing Ray 3 stop reverse grad ND. This is for shooting in Iceland and Switzerland.

Just for a side note about a matter of taste, in mountain areas you may obtain better results simply exposing for the skies and lightening the foreground at PP - sometimes much more preferable to having the top of the mountain obscured by the GND. In doubt, shoot both (with and without GND).
Does less apply to much of Iceland, of course.

[NikoJorj]

Also, look a the star reflections in the lake.  There are WAY fewer stars showing up in the lake as there are in the sky. 

That's very normal and being 1-2 stops darker is just what to expect from a reflection at water (otherwise, fishes and scuba divers wouldn't have any light to see underwater), but the (over-) use of GND may have given the habit of the contrary...