Podcast interview - Behind The Shot & Article

[KenElevenShadows]

 

Podcast:

Please join me on the latest episode of the Behind the Shot podcast (@BehindtheShotTV), as I sit down with @SteveBrazill to take a look at how I created the image that graces the cover of my new book "Abandoned Southern California: The Slowing of Time". There is a video podcast, but you can also download an audio podcast as well. https://behindtheshot.tv/2020/02/13/capturing-the-slowing-of-time/

 

I have a short article about my book in Los Angeles Magazine:

https://www.lamag.com/article/abandoned-southern-california/

 

Book signing/author event in Los Angeles, CA:

And hopefully I will see you March 22nd at 5 pm Valley Relics Museum for a brief slide show and presentation. Get there early to check out the museum.

Address: 7900 Balboa Blvd. C3 & C4 Entrance on, Stagg St, Van Nuys, CA 91406

 

Interview coming up:

I am going to be interviewed by a journalist from Business Insider in a couple of days. Hopefully that goes well.

 

My photography website:

www.kenleephotography.com

 

[Lou Gehrig Charles]

Cool stuff there! He asked some good questions too...

 

That stacking program sounds interesting. I've seen people use those for star trails, but how does it manage to do twelve photos and still have the stars as points? If I understand it, the program removes the random noise (because the noise varies from photo to photo) but since the stars are moving, wouldn't it remove them too? Or maybe its because they're not "random".

[KenElevenShadows]

Starry Landscape Stacker (or Sequator or Photoshop) shifts the sky, aligning the stars, and since it's being done as a median, this greatly reduces the amount of random noise and random color variations.

 

And yes, Steve did ask some great questions. He's a very good interviewer, I think, and very personable. His enthusiasm and sense of curiosity really help the show as well. I listen to that show every week.

 

Thanks for listening!!

[Doerfler]

Just watched the podcast, Ken. First time I've ever watched a podcast on photography. Now I have to be careful.

 

Also just purchased your book. We had briefly talked about that at the MPN NAMM dinner, but as usual I got sidetracked.

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

Just watched the podcast, Ken. First time I've ever watched a podcast on photography. Now I have to be careful.

 

Also just purchased your book. We had briefly talked about that at the MPN NAMM dinner, but as usual I got sidetracked.

 

 

Thank you very much for purchasing the book. I hope you enjoy it!

 

And yeah, haha, photography shows can be addictive. I am addicted to Behind The Shot and Photo Geek Weekly/

[Lou Gehrig Charles]

I came back to ask a question, but upon re-watching the video, I think I found the answer. You light-painted all twelve frames?

 

The reason I ask: I recently downloaded Sequator, and it indeed seems to work very easily and quite well. So last night I went out to shoot the comet, and I shot ten frames. On one frame only, I light-painted the foreground, and I chose that one as the Base image (because I assumed that would be the one the program takes the foreground from). Unfortunately, upon stacking the images the program removes my added light because it thinks it is noise! The finished result looks just like the ones with no light-painting at all. I've been fooling with this thing all afternoon!

 

It never occured to me to run back and forth ten times to light-paint every frame, but I suppose that is what I should have done.

[KenElevenShadows]

Yeah, for this one, I light painted all the frames. It was easy to do. I just wanted to be on the safe side because of what you describe. What I often do is I do a low-ISO image and then blend that in with the image of the sky that I've stacked. But with this one, for whatever reason, I simply decided i wasn't going to do that.

 

You could stack all the frames and then blend the light painted part back in. It would be super easy since the stacked part would be the exact same exposure and would look virtually identical.