APOD: Milky Way Over Piton de l'Eau (2012 Jun 25)

[APOD Robot]

Milky Way Over Piton de l'Eau

Explanation: Sometimes, if you wait long enough for a clear and moonless night, the stars will come out with a vengeance. One such occasion occurred earlier this month at the Piton de l'Eau on Reunion Island. In the foreground, surrounded by bushes and trees, lies a water filled volcanic crater serenely reflecting starlight. A careful inspection near the image center will locate Piton des Neiges, the highest peak on the island, situated several kilometers away. In the background, high above the lake, shines the light of hundreds of stars, most of which are within 100 light years, right in our stellar neighborhood. Far in the distance, arching majestically overhead, is the central band of our home Milky Way Galaxy, shining by the light of millions of stars each located typically thousands of light years away. The astrophotographer reports waiting for nearly two years for the sky and clouds to be just right to get the above shot.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[Mactavish]

The astrophotographer reports waiting for nearly two years for the sky and clouds to be just right to get the above shot.

Well worth waiting for, and very well done! Beautiful!

[Case]

Far is the distance, ...

Typo -- should be: “Far in the distance, ...”

Fixed now.

[ritwik]

scenery lives up to the name of island

[Guest]

Why does the central band of the Milky Way typically appear arching? I would think that from Earth it would appear as a flat line since we are looking at the disc straight on.

[orin stepanek]

Love today's Milky Way Picture! I also liked the picture of the patient dog waiting for someone!

290246_083dd1c185c588824d700a38cbdd0601_large.jpg (27.75 KiB) Viewed 7414 times

[Beyond]

Oh, i missed the 'waiting' link. Well, it was about 2:00am when i looked.

[neufer]

The astrophotographer reports waiting for nearly two years for the sky and clouds to be just right to get the above shot.

How long did he have to wait for the stars reflected in the lake
to be brighter than the stars in the sky? (Or are those fireflies?)

[geckzilla]

The astrophotographer reports waiting for nearly two years for the sky and clouds to be just right to get the above shot.

How long did he have to wait for the stars reflected in the lake
to be brighter than the stars in the sky? (Or are those fireflies?)

Most likely they were brightened a sharpening filter.

[Tszabeau]

This is a very wonderful photograph. Absolutely lovely. One reason I find it so appealing is that it mimics a human eye (closed). The arc of the Milky Way traces the upper arc of the eye, the green vegetation traces the lower arc of the eye and the shorline of the lake traces the line between the closed lids. There's even a notch for the tear duct.

[briandonohue]

Stars don't do vengeance; that is, so far as we know, an exclusively human phenomenon.

[biddie67]

Beautiful photograph ~~ kudos to the photographer for his persistance! And does the dog belong to the photographer? It looks like he's as patient as his possible owner.

[lup974]

The astrophotographer reports waiting for nearly two years for the sky and clouds to be just right to get the above shot.

How long did he have to wait for the stars reflected in the lake
to be brighter than the stars in the sky? (Or are those fireflies?)

This consideration is right. So, I checked one of the original raw files (there are 12 to compose this panorama). I had a doubt about the quality of my post processing. But I confirm, on the originals, the stars are brightest in the water than in the sky. God knows why...

Luc Perrot

[geckzilla]

The astrophotographer reports waiting for nearly two years for the sky and clouds to be just right to get the above shot.

How long did he have to wait for the stars reflected in the lake
to be brighter than the stars in the sky? (Or are those fireflies?)

This consideration is right. So, I checked one of the original raw files (there are 12 to compose this panorama). I had a doubt about the quality of my post processing. But I confirm, on the originals, the stars are brightest in the water than in the sky. God knows why...

Luc Perrot

Could it be that over the time of the exposure the movement of the water made the brightest stars appear elongated and seem brighter?

[neufer]

Stars don't do vengeance; that is, so far as we know, an exclusively human phenomenon.

<<The word Influenza comes from the Italian language meaning "influence" and refers to the cause of the disease; initially, this ascribed illness to unfavorable astrological influences. Archaic terms for influenza include epidemic catarrh, grippe (from the French, first used by Molyneaux in 1694), and sweating sickness. The 1918 flu pandemic (the "Spanish flu") was an unusually severe and deadly pandemic that spread across the world. Most victims were healthy young adults, in contrast to most influenza outbreaks, which predominantly affect juvenile, elderly, or weakened patients. The pandemic lasted from January 1918 to December 1920, spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. Between 50 and 130 million died.>>

[Chris Peterson]

This consideration is right. So, I checked one of the original raw files (there are 12 to compose this panorama). I had a doubt about the quality of my post processing. But I confirm, on the originals, the stars are brightest in the water than in the sky. God knows why...

I can think of a couple of possibilities. In a long exposure, bright stars tend to saturate, so their apparent brightness in the image is less than their actual brightness. But the reflected stars have their light spread around on more pixels (because the water isn't perfectly still), so the total intensity can be higher, even if no individual pixel actually is brighter.

The other possibility is hardware dependent. Some cameras, like Canons, produce raw images that are nearly good enough for photometric purposes. Others, like Nikons, are notorious for the amount of internal processing that occurs, making them poor for many astronomical imaging applications.

[luigi]

This consideration is right. So, I checked one of the original raw files (there are 12 to compose this panorama). I had a doubt about the quality of my post processing. But I confirm, on the originals, the stars are brightest in the water than in the sky. God knows why...

I can think of a couple of possibilities. In a long exposure, bright stars tend to saturate, so their apparent brightness in the image is less than their actual brightness. But the reflected stars have their light spread around on more pixels (because the water isn't perfectly still), so the total intensity can be higher, even if no individual pixel actually is brighter.

The other possibility is hardware dependent. Some cameras, like Canons, produce raw images that are nearly good enough for photometric purposes. Others, like Nikons, are notorious for the amount of internal processing that occurs, making them poor for many astronomical imaging applications.

Chris I think your first option is correct. When using a fog filter to make the stars diffuse I got the star colors and they seem much brighter. I think the water acts like a natural diffuser.

[luigi]

And BTW Luc: Awesome photo and congrats! It's a beautiful nightscape. Sometimes beautiful is not enough as an adjective.

[Lordcat Darkstar]

It could be that he exposed the landscape longer to bring out the colors. A good 30 plus seconds could have been necessary to bring out the greens, and in that amount of time the stars would have made short trails making them appear brighter.

[ThePiper]

Why is the Pipe nebula BELOW the center of the Milkyway? Normally (in my brain) it shoud be on top!

[eltodesukane]

Why is the Pipe nebula BELOW the center of the Milkyway? Normally (in my brain) it shoud be on top!

Image was taken from the Piton de l'Eau on Reunion Island, which is in the southern hemisphere.

[Moonlady]

Far is the distance, ...

Typo -- should be: “Far in the distance, ...”

Fixed now.

I think "Far is the distance" is so poetic, that it fits with this stunning picture

[Ann]

I admire the lovely composition and the wonderful tranquility and also majesty of the scene. And because I am a color nerd, I also admire the lovely colors of the Milky Way. Note the yellow color of the Large Sagittarius Star Cloud, the bright yellow patch at between ten and eleven o'clock. Note the blue color of the Small Sagittarius Star Cloud at about eleven o'clock. Note the pink color of the Lagoon Nebula to the left of the Small Sagittarius Star Cloud and M16 and M17 to the right of it.

Indeed, that's a lovely image!

Ann

[Anthony Barreiro]

Why does the central band of the Milky Way typically appear arching? I would think that from Earth it would appear as a flat line since we are looking at the disc straight on.

You may have noticed that the Sun, Moon, and planets follow an arching path through Earth's sky. This happens because the plane of the Earth's rotation (the equator) is inclined about 23 degrees relative to the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun (the ecliptic).

The Milky Way follows a more pronounced arch through the sky because the plane of the Milky Way (the galactic equator) is inclined about 60 degrees relative to the Earth's equator. If you observe the Milky Way at midnight over the course of a year (one orbit of the Earth around the Sun), you will see that it appears low all around the horizon during spring (March and April in the northern hemisphere, September and October in the southern hemisphere) and highest overhead during summer and winter. At midnight during northern winter / southern summer we are looking out away from the galactic center, into the thinner part of the disk of the Milky Way. At midnight during northern summer / southern winter we are looking in toward the galactic center. Because the center of the Milky Way is south of the equator in Sagittarius, southern hemisphere observers are blessed to see all the rich star fields in and around Sagittarius crossing high overhead, whereas in the northern hemisphere the galactic center is low in the sky during the best observing months.

Because of light pollution many people live our whole lives without ever seeing the milky way with our own eyes, or it's a rare treat when we're on vacation. That's sad.

[Dan Schroeder]

Fantastic photo. One quibble with the caption. Most of the naked-eye stars in the night sky are more than 100 light-years away (but less than 1000).