Is this fake or does the night sky actually look like this away

>>939599
That looks like some long exposure so it won't be quite as bright. But you can actually see the Milky Way if you get away from the city. I never believed it until I broke down at 3am in the middle of absolute nowhere.

It's not fake but the photographer used photoshop to enhance the colors a bit, this is probably a 30 secs exposure or so. But yeah, drive 1h away from major light sources and it will look like that on a moonless night, totaly worth it !

>>939599
Every night (4 me), except when it's cloudy.

I am not suprised when city slickers are amazed and overwhelmed the first time.

Be advised that is a long exposure pic.

>>939599
It's not fake but your eye will never pick up as much light and color as a camera with a long exposure will.

Milky way still looks cool AF though you should go to a dark area and check it out, but expect it to be more or less monochromatic, though stars definitely vary in color. And of course you won't get nearly as much detail in the millions or billions of stars, probably be more hazy looking.

>>939599
It is overexposed a little bit, but yes it does look like that in very clear areas, if you have good eyesight.

>tfw it doesn't look nearly as good where I live due to new pollution over the past 30 years.

>>939602
Most likely just long exposure, not photoshop.

>>939601
>>939602
>exposure
what does this mean?

>>939617
>exposure - the amount of time your shutter is open

Protip, don't open your shutter in a school zone.

>>939622
>the amount of time your shutter is open
sorry anon but I still can't understand what this means, pls explain.

>>939624
When you take a pic (normally with a film camera) a longer exposure means the shutter stays open longer. On a bright day, you use a short exposure because the light hits the film real quick and makes the pic. If it is too long, it will end up like all white. At night, you need to take long exposures. A 10sec+ exposure will make the few sources of light on a pitch black night turn out fairly bright.

File: like-1.png (6KB, 284x234px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 284x234px

>>939626
thanks

In addition to being a long exposure, it's also a stack of several single frames. Makes the dimmer stars appear brighter and also reduces noise in the final image.

>>939624
Let me guess, you are the anon that wanted to run a hot plate from a solar panel?

File: IMG_2130.jpg (442KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1920x1280px

>>939626
>>939624
And if you take long exposure pics, you need to keep the camera extra still or it will be blurry. If there are moving objects in the pic, you get streaks like pic related. That's also why you see those streaks in the OP pic. They look like satellites moving across the sky throughout the 15sec or whatever exposure.

In a couple years when you are in high school, they might offer a photo class where you can learn all about it!

>>939624
the person that took the pic in the OP allowed the camera to sit for a ling time and suck up as much light as it could and so the picture captured more image than your eye might see standing in the same spot in the same night the pic was taken

however if you have really good eyesight and you're far away from any light pollution and the skies are clear and if you're at the right elevation you might also be able to see in realtime what the photo in OPs pic looks like

>>939631
No, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just not into photography, I think I never held a dslr on my hand tbqh.

>>939632
>In a couple years when you are in high school, they might offer a photo class where you can learn all about it!
kek

>>939632
photography classes in highschool suck. they are just a bunch or normie girls taking pictures of each other

>>939631
>run a hot plate from a solar panel

kek, goodbye solar panel

>>939599
Yea. My parents like a half hour away from a city of a few hundred thousand, i moves into the city for school and was totally amazed when i went back and took the time to look up. You forget pretty fast how great the sky is without all that light pollution

>>939599
It doesn't look like this but this is a real picture. I've been able to see the milky way before but it has to be really clear and you need to be in the middle of nowhere with your eyes fully adjusted.

>>939602
This is way more than 30 seconds. 2 meteors, and you can see 3 planets paths across the sky.

>>939723
>planetary motion in one night

Thank you, Mr. Spock. You are dismissed.

File: IMG_0966.jpg (379KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 800x800px

>>939636
Idk, I enjoyed it. I was a senior and had given up on school at that point so me and a bunch of random sophomore and junior kids would go in the darkroom and do bumps of snuff while the normies were all confused.

I do a bit of casual astrophotography, a photo like >>939599 is already a clear night where you'll see this by eye. Like others have said, he's over exposed and I'd say pushed the whites a bit too far too.

File: DSCF8047.jpg (537KB, 3264x4896px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 3264x4896px

>>939723

Without knowing the focal length in OPs image but any more than 30 seconds GENERALLY means trails for all the stars due to planetary motion, hence it's very unlikely OP image is more than 30 sec.

Typically you either take a max shutter speed exposure for your lens and conditions (ie, f/1.8, 30s, iso400) OR you take multiple exposures and stack them in post.

Here is a pic from last night. It is a 30 second exposure, but shooting SOUTH towards a major city - hence the light pollution.

>>939599
Yes, although usually after the sun has set pretty far. I saw this for the first time last August when I went to visit my uncle's cabin in Arizona. It's kind of surreal.