>This time of year is sea turtle season in the southeast and the threatened turtles that come up on the beach to lay their eggs (and any little ones that hatch) are highly sensitive to light and often get turned around and disoriented by lights on the beach. For that reason, South Carolina (and presumably other states in the area) has instituted a no lights on the beach policy. Luckily there’s enough light pollution that you can at least navigate without a problem, but not being able to use a flashlight to help with focusing, adjusting camera settings, etc., is a bit of an annoyance.
When I was in Costa Rica seeing endangered sea turtles doing their thing, the local guides used red bulbs because they were not disorienting to the sea turtles. Noise from the tourist group was killing me I gotta say but hey I was along for the ride in this case. Can say I learned the red light thing.
So I looked up real quick and found some info and links from a South Carolina conservation group. They state the ordinance reads that "disruptive lights" are forbidden. Then they had a link to a site of 'certified' bulbs for use around wildlife. Red is one of the main colors featured:
Thus, using a red light may be okay under the spirit and way the ordinance(s) are written, but calling ahead might be a good idea too.
I think they are pretty strict about it. It seems like there should be no light at all.
Edit: Maybe this would work though? Either way, I agree with your advice to call ahead.
Both are beautiful in any case.
Slightly bigger from his (right click disabled...) site: http://www.zgrethphoto.com/Mega-Prints/i-5HKSttR/0/XL/zgreth...
I guess with lots of messing about the less detailed region around the lander could be superimposed over the more detailed star field, but it would be even more synthetic.
I gave it a fuller read and saw why this turned out to be the case (Lighten on 29 out of 30 layers in Photoshop to achieve the star trail effect). Since he has 30 frames to work with, he has enough data to create the same ultra-long-exposure effect without it looking overexposed. Probably just more Photoshop fiddling, really.
An easy example is your area of attention. Look at a distant deer in a meadow, you see a deer. Take a photo, and you get a meadow with a speck that might be a deer.
I want to see what the photographer saw, or saw in their mind's eye, not the grid-array of photons that struck their retina.
Edit: also, astrophotography starts to veer into camera-as-instrument, where you are capturing data invisible to the human eye. You process that data like any other science experiment, and prepare it for visual inspection...
I except news photography, since they tend to expose and shoot for what the eye sees, with minimal amounts of staging or post processing.
("Pink stars are falling" is a reference to Under the Dome)
Sony Alpha a7R II Mirrorless Digital Camera - 3k
Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE Lens - 5k
Anyone who says you need skills in photography is dead wrong, it's all about the gear.