.jpg)
I walked the beach at night and tried a few shots along the way. It was very dark looking into Atlantic waters but there was a bit of light that allowed the surf and beach area to get some exposure. The white hazy line is the crashing surf during a 30 second exposure. A low tidal pool flowed back to the ocean and it picked up a few reflections of the stars.
Stars looking eastward over the Atlantic Ocean. Some light pollution allows some exposure of the beach and surf.
Io non sono convinto che la foto sia stata scattata così come è stato descritto.
Osservando i puntini bianchi, che dovrebbero essere delle stelle, si notano delle piccole scie luminose incoerenti con quanto si ottiene con lunghe esposizioni notturne.
Le scie, di solo poche stelle, appaiono a raggera (e troppo corte per 30′ di esposizione) invece di risultare, per tutte le stelle inquadrate, ad archi di cerchio concentrici.
C’è qualche incoerenza che non convince.
Hi Francesco, I translated your comment through Google Translate to understand:
I’m not convinced that the photo was taken as it was described.
Looking at the white dots, which should be the stars, you notice small light trails inconsistent with what you get with long exposures at night.
The wakes, of only a few stars, appear to sunburst (and too short for 30 ‘exposure) instead of be, for all the stars framed, to concentric circular arcs.
There is some inconsistency that is not convincing.
The cameras metadata shows 25sec.exposure @ F/ 2.8 ISO4000, 15mm focal length. Nikon D3 used. Keep in mind when a wide angle like 15mm is used the star trails are very short and almost undetectable unless zooming 100% or more in the original file.
I think what Francesco is seeing and mistaking for star trails is the distortion caused by the lens, i.e. stars in the corners are stretched outward while stars in the center don’t.