photographylife

AI-Free Since 2008

REVIEWS LEARN ABOUT US FORUM SEARCH

HOME → PHOTOGRAPHY TUTORIALS LEARN

• Beginner Photography
Best Camera Settings for Astrophotography • Landscape Photography
• Wildlife Photography
BY SPENCER COX | 18 COMMENTS
LAST UPDATED ON AUGUST 2, 2023 • Portraiture
• Post-Processing
• Advanced Tutorials

Photography Life

UNFILTERED

Join Our
Member Page Today

Anyone who has ever tried to take pictures of the night sky knows that it can be a REVIEWS
challenge. If your camera settings aren’t optimal, you may end up with a dark • Camera Reviews
photo, motion blur, or unsharp corners. Things get even more difficult if you want • Lens Reviews

a sharp foreground, or if you try to capture deep-sky pictures of distant • Other Gear Reviews
• Best Cameras and Lenses
interstellar objects. Hopefully, this article will give you a good idea of how to set
your camera properly for astrophotography. PHOTOGRAPHY TUTORIALS

Before getting too deep into specific recommendations, keep in mind that the
techniques in this article are ideal for capturing sharp stars from a landscape
photography perspective (where stars aren’t the only thing in your photo). If
PHOTOGRAPHY LANDSCAPE
you’re interested in astrophotography with a telescope, or something like star BASICS PHOTOGRAPHY
trails in a landscape photo, you may want to seek more specialized information
than the camera settings below.

WILDLIFE MACRO
PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHY

COMPOSITION & BLACK & WHITE

CREATIVITY PHOTOGRAPHY

NIGHT SKY PORTRAIT

PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHY

STREET PHOTOGRAPHY
PHOTOGRAPHY VIDEOS

UNIQUE GIFT IDEAS

NIKON Z 6 + 20mm f/1.8 @ 20mm, ISO 1600, 20 seconds, f/2.0

Table of Contents
1. Focal Length
2. Aperture
3. Shutter Speed
4. ISO
5. Other Settings
6. Conclusion
SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL
Focal Length If you like our content, you can subscribe to our
newsletter to receive weekly email updates using
You can shoot nighttime photos at any focal length, but it depends upon the type the link below:
of image you want to take.
Subscribe to our newsletter
If your goal is a classic landscape with the Milky Way overhead, and you want
everything to be as sharp as possible, the best plan is to use your widest
possible lens. Ultra-wide lenses offer a few major advantages for photographing
the night sky. First, since they’re so wide, you’ll be able to include more of the
Milky Way in your images. Second, because wide lenses have more depth of
field, you’ll have an easier time getting the foreground to appear sharp. And third,
wide lenses let you use longer exposures before you see any blur from star
movement, letting you capture more total light.

Personally, my favorite focal length for this type of photography is anything

20mm and wider, but longer lenses can work, too. And if you don’t mind blurry
stars – or you’re intentionally trying to capture that effect – you may prefer a
longer focal length instead. For example, I took the image below at 86mm (and
used a particularly long exposure) to get motion in the stars:

NIKON D800E + 70-200mm f/4 @ 86mm, ISO 100, 136 seconds, f/5.6

And if you are doing deep-sky astrophotography instead, trying to capture

distant objects in the sky, a long lens is obviously the way to go.

Takeaway:

Use a wide angle lens in order to capture as much of the sky as possible,
increase your depth of field, and use longer shutter speeds.
If you’re trying to capture motion blur in the stars, or you have an equatorial
mount (to compensate for Earth’s rotation), use whatever focal length works
best for your composition.

Aperture
Normally, aperture is one of the settings you have to worry about the most in
photography, at least when it comes to landscapes. With astrophotography,
though, it’s a bit easier, since you will almost always want the widest aperture on
your lens (or close to it).

The stars are simply so dim that you need to do everything possible in order to
capture them as bright as possible. Ideally, your aperture would be f/2.8 or wider,
although lenses with a maximum aperture of f/4 can work in a pinch.

Unfortunately, using your lens’s widest aperture comes with a couple issues.
Most of all is that your image quality won’t be quite as good, especially in the
corners of the photo. And, if you’re including a foreground in your image, the
thinner depth of field is not ideal.

So, if your lens’s maximum aperture is something like f/1.4 or f/1.8, you may want
to test and see how well it performs at those apertures. Pay close attention to
vignetting (dark corners) and coma (smeared stars in the corners). If either of
these issues is especially bad, you may want to use an aperture that is about 1/3
stop or 2/3 stop smaller. But if your lens’s maximum aperture is something like
f/2.8 or f/4 instead, it usually is not a good idea to stop down any further – 1/3
stop at most – because you’re already pretty short on light.

You’re balancing two goals here: capturing sharper corners versus gathering
more light. There is no right answer, and it depends quite a bit upon your lens
and personal preferences. If you’re unsure, you might want to take pictures at a
few different aperture settings in the field.

Personally, since my main wide-angle lens has a maximum aperture of f/2.8,

that’s my typical aperture for astrophotography. But when I shoot Milky Way
pictures with my Nikon 20mm f/1.8 lens instead, I’ll use anything from f/1.8 to
f/2.2, depending upon the tradeoff I’m willing to make on a given day.

NIKON D800E + 20mm f/1.8 @ 20mm, ISO 3200, 20 seconds, f/2.2

Lastly, if you are doing deep-sky astrophotography, you have more leeway.
However, wider apertures are still preferable, since they can cut down your
exposure times dramatically. Depending upon the sharpness of your lens and the
dimness of your subject, use an aperture around f/2.8 to f/5.6. This one depends
very strongly upon your subject, though.

Takeaway:

Shoot at the widest aperture setting possible, especially if your lens’s

maximum aperture is in the range of f/2.8 to f/4.
If your lens’s maximum aperture is in the range of f/1.4 to f/2, that advice still
holds – but make sure you are comfortable with the amount of coma and
vignetting in your images. To get slightly sharper corners at the expense of
capturing maximum light, use an aperture that is 1/3 to 2/3 stop smaller.

Shutter Speed
The next of the “big three” settings is shutter speed, which is crucial for
determining the brightness of your nighttime photo and the amount of motion
blur in the stars.

Stars move faster across the sky than you’d think. Although it would be nice to
use multi-minute exposures of the Milky Way to capture as much light as
possible, you are realistically confined to much shorter shutter speeds if you
want sharp stars (and if you’re not using an equatorial mount).

So, how long of a shutter speed can you use before capturing motion blur? It
depends upon a number of factors.

First, as mentioned earlier, is your focal length. Wider lenses allow you to use
longer shutter speeds before you start to see movement in the stars. A second
factor is the direction you’re facing, since stars rotate more slowly around
Celestial North and Celestial South (essentially the North Star if you’re in the
Northern Hemisphere).

Another factor affecting your shutter speed is your personal willingness to allow
motion blur in your photos. I know some photographers who can’t stand any
movement at all. Their shutter speeds at night may be no more than five or ten
seconds. Other photographers don’t mind star movement as much, and they’re
more willing to push the shutter speed in the 20-30 second range for the same
shot.

However, there is a point of diminishing returns. Once the star has moved
completely away from its original position, a longer shutter speed won’t make it
any brighter (aside from the illusion of brightness due to its larger, blurred size).
Since many astrophotographers want to capture as many dim stars as possible,
it’s important to know that an ultra-long shutter speed is not really the answer
(again, assuming you’re not using an equatorial mount). Instead, it might just
brighten background light pollution, harming the visibility of the stars.

Ultimately, your shutter speed will be in the range of 10-25 seconds for most
nighttime work, with potentially longer or shorter shutter speeds depending upon
your situation. Personally, with my 14-24mm f/2.8, I tend to use a shutter speed
of 20 or 25 seconds, but it does depend upon the image.

NIKON D800E + 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 14mm, ISO 3200, 25 seconds, f/2.8

Perhaps the best solution is just to do trial and error in the field. Just take a
couple test photos to make sure you’re comfortable with the level of blur in the
stars, then move to the creative side of things instead. Although there are some
calculations to help you find the optimal shutter speed – some of which are quite
accurate, taking the direction you’re photographing into account – it’s often
faster just to guess and check. (Though this can get complicated if you’re
changing directions frequently or creating a panorama across a wide swath of
sky.)

Takeaway:

Depending upon factors like focal length and composition, you’ll usually be in
the range from 10 to 25 seconds if you want all the stars to be sharp.
You can use in-depth calculators to find the optimal shutter speed, but it’s
often quicker just to guess and check.

ISO
It’s often complex to pick the perfect ISO for image quality in photography, and
that’s true with the Milky Way as well. There are two schools of thought here:

1. Shoot at the ISO that gives you a photo of the right brightness – usually in
the range of 1600 to 6400, since it is so dark at night
2. Shoot at the ISO that prevents as many stars as possible from “blowing out”
– usually in the range of 100 to 400

It’s usually best to do exactly what you would expect and shoot at a high ISO for
nighttime photography. However, although it sounds crazy, there are some cases
in which you may want to shoot Milky Way photos at base ISO (resulting in a very
dark photo) and brightening it in post-production instead.

The following explanation is more technical than many photographers need to

worry about. However, I’m including it here because some readers may be
interested in knowing how to capture stars with as much color detail as possible.

Specifically, some cameras are close to ISO invariant at low ISOs. This means you
see no difference between brightening the photo in-camera with a higher ISO
versus brightening in post-processing software like Lightroom or Photoshop. The
idea is that higher ISOs in-camera will blow out some detail in the stars, so you
might as well shoot at a lower ISO and brighten it later if you have the option.
Again, if your camera is ISO invariant, there’s no image quality penalty when you
do so. (It’s worth pointing out that most cameras are not ISO invariant to such an
extreme degree, but some are close.)

NIKON D800E + 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 14mm, ISO 200, 25 seconds, f/2.8

Personally, my Nikon D800e is close to ISO invariant, so this is something I

occasionally do. However, it’s not totally invariant at lower ISOs, so I typically
don’t bother with this technique. I just shoot at higher ISO values instead, like ISO
1600 (the highest “real” ISO on my camera, as I explained in the ISO invariance
article).

That is probably the route you should go as well – just using a high ISO and not
worrying about it further – unless you know the nitty-gritty details of your camera
sensor and want to gain that extra ounce of detail in your stars.

Takeaway:

Most photographers should just shoot at whatever ISO value results in bright
nighttime photos, typically in the range of ISO 1600 to 6400.
However, if you know that your camera sensor is ISO invariant through part of
its range, it can be preferable to shoot at the lowest ISO that is invariant (the
highest “real” ISO) on your camera instead, then brighten the photo in post-
production.

Other Settings
Although those are the most important camera settings to keep in mind for
astrophotography, they aren’t the only ones that matter. The most major is to
shoot RAW rather than JPEG, of course. If you aren’t already doing that –
especially for difficult nighttime work – read our RAW vs JPEG article.

It’s worth mentioning that many camera settings don’t affect RAW photos in the
same way as JPEGs – they aren’t baked into the file, so your choice won’t impact
your ultimate image quality. This is true of things like high ISO noise reduction,
white balance, and Picture Control/Style. So, assuming you are shooting RAW,
you have far fewer details to worry about in the field.

NIKON D800E + 20mm f/1.8 @ 20mm, ISO 1600, 15 seconds, f/1.8

However, some behind-the-scenes settings do still affect RAW images, including

one which is practically made for astrophotography: long exposure noise
reduction. This option takes two photos in sequence – the first of the scene in
front of you, and the second a “dark frame” with nothing in it. This dark frame
may appear empty, but it has noise and hot pixels which are similar to those in
the first photo. Your camera subtracts the dark frame from the first image,
resulting in a cleaner image.

Long exposure noise reduction does impact RAW images, which makes it an
important setting to keep in mind. However, because it takes two images in
sequence, it also doubles the amount of time spent capturing each image. This
might not sound too bad, but it can add up over time to be quite annoying.
Instead, some photographers capture dark frames themselves and subtract it in
their post-processing software later. Others just leave it turned off. But no matter
what you choose, it helps to know that long exposure noise reduction is an
option.

And that wraps up the most important camera settings. So long as you’ve
focused properly and you’re shooting RAW, all you really need to worry about are
aperture, shutter speed, and ISO – not too different from everyday
photography. Now, you just need a good composition.

Takeaway:

Shoot RAW, not JPEG, for maximum image quality.

Use long exposure noise reduction if you’re willing to wait twice as long per
photo in order to reduce noise and hot pixels.

Conclusion
Nighttime photography is a complicated task, and this article only scratches the
surface of what you can do. (That should be obvious given the existence of the
Hubble Telescope!)

However, my hope is that the recommended settings above give you a good idea
of where to start for your own astrophotography. These considerations will
change depending upon the shot you want, of course – such as a wide-angle
landscape versus a deep-sky image – but everything in the end is about
capturing light.

NIKON Z6 + 20mm f/1.8 @ 20mm, 20 seconds, f/2.0, ISO 3200

If you have any questions or tips to help fellow photographers capture high-
quality star and Milky Way pictures, please feel free to leave a comment below.

RELATED ARTICLES

Recommended Camera Menu High-Quality Recommended Camera

Settings for Landscape Astrophotography With Basic Settings for Portrait
Photography Camera Equipment Photography

Best Camera Settings for What is ISO? The Complete Which Camera Settings Affect
Macro Photography Guide for Beginners RAW Photos?

DISCLOSURES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SUPPORT OPTIONS

FILED UNDER: PHOTOGRAPHY TUTORIALS

TAGGED WITH: ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY, CAMERA SETTINGS, LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY, MILKY WAY,
NIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY

About Spencer Cox

I'm Spencer Cox, a landscape photographer based in Colorado. I
started writing for Photography Life a decade ago, and now I run
the website in collaboration with Nasim. I've used nearly every digital camera
system under the sun, but for my personal work, I love the slow-paced
nature of large format film. You can see more at my personal website and my
not-exactly-active Instagram page.

Join the discussion

Post Comment
Name*

Email*

18 COMMENTS Newest

Richard Handler
August 19, 2018 3:19 pm

Spencer, thank you for again clearly and simply detailing your advice on astrophotography,
advice I’ve put to good use.

You will recognize where this was taken, and if you’ve yet to visit Iceberg Lagoon at
Jokulsarlon in winter this should be on your list. Open link:
photos.app.goo.gl/dSiZxLXrXVQvs7NS8 (Nex-7 w/ Samyang 12mm f2 @f2, 30″, ISO 800).
This aurora was bare visible to naked eye but well detected by camera.

My thought:

“Photons from stars have traveled hundreds of thousands of lightyears but photons from
aurora were spawned only nanoseconds before capture in camera, mind boggling difference
in age. Photons of hugely different ages simultaneously struck sensor triggering release of
electrons which were amplified then conducted to memory card. I have selectively amplified
and de-amplified groups of pixels to create image viewed.”

1 Reply

Jarrod Castaing
August 15, 2018 6:25 am

Great tips! Very useful information for astro and landscape photography at night.

1 Reply

Richard Bratt
August 13, 2018 8:16 pm

I do quite a bit of serious astrophotography with high end (for an amateur) equatorial
mounts, scopes and purpose built cooled astro cameras. My best mount can easily run 30
minute unguided subs at 1000mm with round stars and can probably do an hour. However
for the past year circumstances have kept me and my serious astro gear over a thousand
miles apart. To satisfy my passion, I bought a small portable star tracker. I wanted to add a
few comments to Spenser’s excellent article about using a tracker as an alternative to using
the best fast glass.

I have spent a pretty penny over the years on fast glass from Nikon, Zeiss, Voigtländer,
Sigma, etc. I am always a sucker for the next lens that might be useful for AP. Last week I
bought the Sigma 14mm f1.8, shot it once and packed it up and returned it for poor coma
performance. But I have several keeper astro lenses and it is nice to shot at fast apertures.
But, almost always there is a penalty to be paid in vignetting or coma performance so often
you end up stopping down your expensive, heavy, fast glass to get a better balance of
performance and time.

I recently decided to buy a portable tracker to get my AP fix while away from my primary
astro gear. These little guys sit between your tripod and camera and track in Right Ascension
only, no Declination motor. I selected an iOptron StarGuiderPro based on a not too extensive
search as it seemed well reviewed, was not very expensive and is very portable. On my first
day out I got round stars on 8 minutes base ISO exposures at 105mm. I had not expected
that!!!! A few days ago I was shooting the Samyang 135f2 wide open (highly recommended
for AP) at 90 seconds with near perfect stars. So, here is a pitch for an alternative way to
allocate your dollars if you are seeking pictures of the stars.

Buy something like the the SkyGuiderPro and use a high quality lens at a smaller aperture for
better coma and vignetting performance. My 8 minute tested used a Sony 24-105mm f/4 at
f/4. The oft quote rule of 500 (not a very good rule since it ignores where you are pointing!)
says divide your focal length into 500 to get the maximum number of seconds you can
expose before you get annoying trailing (subjective). So, a typical situation might be
something like 20mm lens at f2.8, 25 seconds, ISO 1600. If you pop your camera on a
tracker, you could shot ISO 200 for 3m20 or increase your aperture to f4 and shot iso320 for
4m10. The reality is you could easily shot at base ISO with longer subs. The result is much
lower noise (which you drive even lower by stacking multiple subs) and if you use a higher
aperture lower vignetting, probably better coma performance.

So, if you can spend the same or less on a descent tracker + slower but good lens v.s. a very
fast lens, what is the down side. 1) fast glass certainly has other uses like nice bokeh or
shooting auroras, 2) you have to polar align your tracker every time you set it up — if polaris
is not hidden by a cloud this is straightforward, but it takes a bit of practice to do it quickly,
3) it is harder to focus with slower glass You can alway use a Bahtinov mask, but I never do. I
find that even at f4, focusing, at least on the Sonys I am now using, it pretty easy. But I used
to use Nikon and don’t recall any big problems focusing with LiveView, 4) you will almost
certainly spend more time on each image. Rather than taking a few 30 second shots you are
more likely to take dozens of multi minute shots, 5) you must take separate exposures for