Stars over Acadia
Par andrewking
- Écran large 16:10
- 2880x1800
- 2304x1440
- 2048x1280
- 1920x1200
- 1680x1050
- 1440x900
- 1280x800
- 1152x720
- Écran large 16:9
- 2560x1440
- 1920x1080 - 1080p HDTV
- 1600x900
- 1366x768
- 1280x720 - 720p HDTV
- Deux moniteurs
- 3840x1200
- 3840x1080
- 3200x1200
- 3360x1050
- 2560x1024
- 2880x900
- Trois moniteurs
- 4096x1024
- 3840x1024
- 3840x960
- 3840x720
- 3072x768
- Plein écran 4:3
- 1600x1200
- 1400x1050
- 1280x960
- 1024x768
- Plein écran 5:4
- 1280x1024
- Netbook
- 1024x600
- 800x480
- iPhone
- 640x960
- 320x480
- iPad
- 2048x2048
- 1024x1024
- Android
- 1920x1408
- 1080x960
- 960x854
- 960x800
- 600x1024
- 640x480
- BlackBerry
- 360x480
- 320x240
- Windows Phone
- 480x800
- Autre
- 960x544
- 320x400
Aucun résultat
These are the stars over Acadia National Park in Maine. This photo was taken on March 6, 2012. I took 30 second exposures at f/4 and ISO 200 for about 3 hours, then I merged them together using a program called Startrails.
Ce fond d’écran est décrit en Anglais : les artistes écrivent dans leur propre langue, et nous ne traduisons pas leurs mots.
À propos de la photo
Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.
Réglages de la photo : f/4, 30 secondes, ISO 200.
Fonds d’écran similaires
Commentaires (10)
-
computerprep
maybe this is just me... but I can't seem to find a really large AND complete image of this photograph. The really widescreen, double/triple screen versions are wonderful, but they lack the composition of the lower part of the image. the only images that include the small bit of landscape at the bottom are the lower resolution images when compared to the width of the triple-screen versions. I'm looking for something around 3840x1200, but anything that large loses the bottom portion of the image. any offers?
-
@andrewdouch Wow, that's really cool! I thought the two very bright stars might be planets, but I had no idea which planets they were.
-
andrewdouch
Great photo! If anyone is interested in what all the objects are, I have taken a screenshot of andrewking's photo, labelled it with the brightest objects and uploaded it here: http://cl.ly/0K0C3B2s2n19121m2l1Y The two brightest (the ones reflected in the water) are Venus and Jupiter but you can make out the Pleiades, Orion's belt... even the orion nebula.
-
Tim H.
Regarding the difference in curvature, I think that it is due to the rotation of the Earth in combination with the perspective of the observer (that is, which direction the observer is facing - even if they're looking straight up as well as their physical location on the surface). I also think the paths match (or show) the shape of Earth too (that is, in addition to the observer's general latitudinal location and the direction they are facing). Try to envision what this photo would look like if it were taken right at the North Pole or at the South Pole (that is, perfectly centered on top of either of them). Then envision what this photo would look like perfectly on top of the Equator. Try to base your imaginings on this photo. I think a photo taken right at one of our Poles looking straight up would result in only circular and/or spiraling star paths. If looking straight out at one of the horizons like this from one of our Poles, then it should result in a nice U-shape of curved paths. So of course, a photo at the Equator facing East or West should result in mostly straight paths going overhead with only a slight curvature in both the Northern and Southern skies (left and right in the photo), with the curvature increasing evermore toward the Northern and Southern horizons - but while still appearing to be just a slight curvature. If what I'm saying is correct, then that would mean this photo is of the Northwestern sky. I am basing this on the location of Maine in addition to how the paths of the stars are much more curved in the upper-right part of this photo (which, by the way, is a very nice piece of work with a beautiful composition). If another photo were taken of from this exact location, but facing in the opposite direction (which should be the Southeastern sky in this instance), then the curved paths would be (or should be) in the upper-left corner of the photo instead. In other words, I think that a long-exposure night sky composition depends entirely on which direction the camera is facing (including if it is pointed straight up at a perfect 90° angle from the surface). I bet that with enough experience, one might even be able to begin doing things such as intentionally causing some of the star paths to point directly at an object, feature, or point of interest on the horizon. :)
-
Thanks for the nice comments, everyone. This link will show you exactly where I took it. http://binged.it/ye99cX
-
hakt0r
@SpinUp, nice catch on the geometry question. I'd like to know that too. Perhaps someone on these forums can answer that. I feel that it could be due to the curvature vs. point of reference for the image and geometry of the lens in play here. Oh! BTW, @andrewKing Great job and good pic. I am still working towards my first pic, but great shot!
-
BlueCalcite
Where was this taken? My wife and I visit Acadia nearly every year, but I can't quite determine which pond this is.
-
Love Acadia and I think I know where this was taken! Lovely capture.
-
SpinUp, what I believe you're seeing is the photo being cropped in a bit. I honestly can't remember what I did to this photo because I edited it when I should have been sleeping. P.S. I've been admiring the working on InterfaceLIFT for years. What an honor it is to have my first submission selected by the community!
-
SpinUp
Beautiful! This photo is a rare combination of a great picture that also makes a good desktop background. It's interesting that the objects on the left don't have the same curvature in their path as those on the right -- would that be a geometric distortion from the lens?