Milky Way and meteor reflected in an alpine lake, Yosemite NP, California. The meteor’s reflection is squiggly because the water was slightly rippled. I blended 20 exposures (each 16mm, 30 seconds at f/4, ISO 6400) with Starry Landscape Stacker to reduce noise. That kind of blending wipes out short-lived light sources, like car headlights or jet trails, which is usually a great thing. But in this case it also wiped out the meteor and its reflection, so I took that one meteor frame into Photoshop, and blended it with the TIFF output from Starry Landscape Stacker to create the final image.
On Thursday evening Claudia and I decided to head up to Yosemite to watch the Perseid meteor shower. Although you can see more Perseid meteors during the early-morning hours, we knew from previous experience that those early-morning meteors rain down from directly overhead, so although numerous, their paths are short. But during the evening you’re much more likely to see an “earth-grazer” – a meteor that glances across the atmosphere at an angle, making a long, bright streak through the sky. So although evening meteors are less abundant, the ones you do see are often more spectacular.
We made our way to a high-country lake. I set up my camera, then we laid out our stadium chairs to watch the show. Only it wasn’t much of a show at first. For a long time we saw no meteors whatsoever, earth-grazers or otherwise. Finally we saw some small ones. And then, eventually, I saw a big, bright, beautiful earth-grazer streak across half the sky. But Claudia missed it. Eventually we saw a few more earth-grazers, though none as bright as that first one.
Meanwhile, my camera was taking a continuous series of 30-second exposures. I was hoping to catch a meteor in one of them, but I had pointed the camera toward the horizon to include the Milky Way and its reflection, and the earth-grazers were directly overhead. Periodically I would stop my sequence of exposures to adjust my composition as the Milky Way moved, and check to see if I had caught a meteor in one of the frames. I could see the tail-end of a meteor at the top of one image, but that was it.
Eventually we decided to pack up and make the long, two-hour drive home. Only later, when looking through the images on a large screen, did I find that I had captured a big, bright meteor, and its reflection, in a perfect position just right of the Milky Way, in my second-to-last frame. Neither Claudia nor I had seen this meteor, probably because we had already started packing up and weren’t looking at the sky. Sometimes you need a little luck.
And although we didn’t see many meteors, we saw a few bright ones, and got to lay out along the shore of a mountain lake on a serenely-beautiful evening. Not a bad night’s work.
— Michael Frye
Related Posts: Moonlight, Stars, and Meteors; A Night in the Alabama Hills
Michael Frye is a professional photographer specializing in landscapes and nature. He is the author or principal photographer of The Photographer’s Guide to Yosemite, Yosemite Meditations, Yosemite Meditations for Women, Yosemite Meditations for Adventurers, and Digital Landscape Photography: In the Footsteps of Ansel Adams and the Great Masters. He has also written three eBooks: Light & Land: Landscapes in the Digital Darkroom, Exposure for Outdoor Photography, and Landscapes in Lightroom: The Essential Step-by-Step Guide. Michael has written numerous magazine articles on the art and technique of photography, and his images have been published in over thirty countries around the world. Michael has lived either in or near Yosemite National Park since 1983, currently residing just outside the park in Mariposa, California.
Sounds like a lovely evening! I’m imagining sitting there, enjoying the beautiful sky, a wonderful mood, and a great show laid out before you. I like how you used the one image of the meteor after the stacked collection for the Milky Way. Very nice how that came together.
It was a lovely evening Alan. Glad you like the result!
Hi Michael:
I have a controversial question for you. You blended 20 frames from the article and you also added back the meteor’s reflection. Today, with new software many are shocked and have said it is unethical to promote, post or sell the image with such manipulations without a disclaimer. While I disagree, as photography is an art, I don’t believe it requires any disclaimer. If you like it, say so and even buy it. Isn’t that what art is all about? Any thoughts you would like to share? BTW, Ansel Adams took five years to get his image, “Moonlight Hernandez”, processed the way he wanted. In his effort he removed some clouds. By today’s proposed standard, he would have to provide a disclaimer. This does not seem right. Again, your thoughts?
Well this is a complex topic, and one that needs more space than I can give it here. I’ll just add a couple of things that I hope will help clarify the discussion.
First, to set the record straight, Ansel Adams did not remove any clouds in his famous Moonrise, Hernandez photograph. He did, over time, darken the sky more and more in order to increase the drama of the photograph. In doing so, some of the fainter clouds might have disappeared, or at least become less prominent.
As to your main point, I think it’s helpful to make a distinction between a blend and a composite. Royce Bair is the first person I heard make this distinction, and I think it’s a useful one.
A blend is where you blend multiple frames together to overcome limitations of the medium, but where the integrity of the scene is maintained – that is, nothing is added that wasn’t there in real life, and the photograph represents a real moment that actually occurred, that would be recognized by someone who was standing next to the photographer at the time. Examples of blends include exposure blending to achieve greater dynamic range, focus-stacking to gain greater depth of field, and star-stacking to reduce noise. Although these techniques involve blending multiple images, the final image represents an actual moment that really occurred.
A composite is where you take images from different scenes, or the same scene at significantly different times, and merge them together to create a fictional scene – something that never actually occurred in real life. For example, taking a photo of a landscape without a moon, and adding a moon from a photograph made at a different time and place (or even at the same time with the camera pointed in a different direction). Or replacing a “bland” sky in a landscape with a more interesting sky from a different time or place.
So this photograph of the Milky Way with a meteor is a blend, not a composite. The Milky Way and meteor were really in those positions, at the same time. I didn’t take the meteor (or its reflection) from another part of the sky and move it into this image. I didn’t change focal lengths, or move the camera. The final image shows a real moment that actually occurred – not a fictional scene.
In my view, if someone creates a fictional composite, they should disclose that. To not do so, and try to pass the photo off as representing a real moment that actually occurred – when it didn’t – is deceptive.
Of course there are a lot of gray areas here. Ansel Adams’ photograph (in its later interpretations) might fall into those gray areas. It’s not a composite, but it was manipulated to a significant extent.
To be clear, I think anyone should be able to do anything they want with their photographs, but I do feel deceived when someone tries to pass off a fictional image as something real.
Thank you for sharing the beautiful image and your story. Catching a meteor’s reflection in a high-country lake is special indeed!
You’re welcome Gina, and thank you!
Absolutely gorgeous. I already vote for this as one of the year’s best.
Thanks very much Donita!
Fabulous capture, Michael! As to the topic of manipulating photos, I believe that what you did here is absolutely legit. If anyone is going to argue that this isn’t a “real” image, then we probably need to eliminate stacking and many other post processing tools. Thanks for sharing not just the photo, but the story behind it. Always love hearing about your and Claudia’s adventures.
Thanks Mark! As I said in my previous post, I think the rules for the Natural Landscape Photography Awards do a good job of spelling out what might and might not be considered “natural” in landscape photography. Whether you agree with their take or not, it seems like a good starting place for discussions about this topic.
Wonderful picture Michael. I have always enjoyed your pictures and your description/story that accompanies it. Also, thanks for explaining the distinction between a “blend” and a “composite”. As much as photography being an art, science and a craft, I think it is imperative not to cross the ethical lines when making a composite by declaring it as one opposed to passing it off as a real composition when in reality it is “composited” with different pictures. By the way I have your book “Photographers Guide to Yosemite” and have enjoyed reading it much. Thanks again!
Thanks Prabnakar! I’m glad you like the photo, and thanks for chiming in about composites.