What is Digg?243 Comments
- BlackJackJester, on 10/12/2008, -2/+199Fake. Upon closer inspection, there seems to be a Tuscan Raider in the picture:
http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=raidercop ... - reqork, on 10/12/2008, -3/+162driving AND hiking in the middle of nowhere, in the dark and going in to some creepy, desolate cave to get an awesome photo...ya, I'd say this guy is pretty badass.
- hamobu, on 10/12/2008, -3/+95Thanks for the awesome new background
- commentposted, on 10/12/2008, -1/+84Wallpaper size plz??
- santaliqueur, on 10/12/2008, -1/+84I had no idea so many people on Digg were experts on the economy AND Photoshop!
- dignation, on 10/12/2008, -1/+72Is there somewhere we can get a higher resolution version?
- BasicShape, on 10/12/2008, -2/+71This the info straight from the photographer, Wally Pacholka, as posted on Society for Popular Astronomy message board.
"Hi Gang,
I am the one that took this photo of this amazing place
Got a lot of comments on this so here is the real deal - short story & long story. Wally
Astroman,
I have no problem at all giving details about the False-Kiva Indian
Cave photograph. Since I have been hit with 100's of inquires about
this amazing photograph in the last few days I will attach a long
answer that will I hope answer most questions. The short answer is
that this real genuine photograph of a wide Indian Cave that required
panoramic stitching of 4 separate side by side single frame
photographs each showing the sky/landscape in one single 25 second
exposure at high iso setting without a tracking tripod giving pin
point stars and a sharp foreground with the small mm lens that I used.
I sent a correction to the APOD folk that this is not a long exposure
and that it is a pano stitching of 4 side by side single frame shots
each with sky/landscape frozen in the 25 sec exposure. I did not get
a chance to proof the APOD caption so some things are there that they
may have assumed but are not what actually happened - but thru no
fault of there own, but I simply failed to mention when I submitted
the image. They have published 28 other images of mine and all of
those were single image, so it is natural for them to asume this was a
single image. It is important to note that this is not a composite
image but a stitching of 4 separate side by side sky/landscape single
frame shots. Todays cameras do not need tracking systems to get pin
point stars if the exposure is short and the iso high so now
photographers can have the best of both worlds - sharp sky and sharp
landscape, but I also have 40 years experience doing this sort of
thing. It is easier now. But not if you consider that I made 4 1200
mile round trips to this location with bad photographic results and
only got my keeper shot after much planning (waiting for cresent moon
to light the hills) and was successful only on this 5th trip. See
brightnightgallery.com for more of my pics. That's the short answer.
That's long was is:
Sorry, I must of answered these questions a 100 times so am sending a
blanket explanation to help folk understand that the photo is indeed
real in every detail:
1. Answers to question #1 about how False Kiva photograph was taken:
I am simply an amateur astronomer that loves the night sky and has a
passion for recording the night sky as it really is from interesting
settings like national parks and landmarks that folk are familiar with.
I have been doing this now for 44 years and in that time not only have
I learnt a few things but I have seen tremendous advances in
technology that enable folk to take photographs of the stars as pin
points in seconds rather than minutes like in the old days. My night
sky/landscape photographs which are my trademark have traditionally
always been single frame shots of both the night sky and landmarks in
one single exposure. In the olden days like for comet hale-bopp, the
longer time exposures with tracked camera to follow the stars would
always leave a tell tail sign on the landscape rocks as they would
blur if lit or they would cast a shadow against the background stars
if you lit them momentarily like with a flash. Now a days, all is
different. Anybody with a decent digital camera like canon 20D and
24mm lens with high iso like 1600 at f/1.6 can record deep detail in
the Milky Way in just 20 seconds and 10 times more stars than the eye
can see. So now it is an easy matter to capture stars frozen as points
of light and the foreground in sharp focus with no movement even when
focused on infinite with the right lens. Folk that are saying there
must be star trails or ground movement in a shot like the False Kiva
shot are very accurate in their assessment for equipment and
technology that is several years old, but they are sadly lacking in
what can be done today with some of the more basic DSLR cameras
cameras that are available at the local costco store.
How False Kiva was taken:
Been to False Kiva Indian Cave near Moab, Utah (1600 mile round trip
from my home in Long Beach, CA) 4 previous times, all
photographic failures, hiked the 2 mile trail with last part down a
very steep canyon wall trail, hiked out in dark and got lost each and
every time. It's dark out there.
Canon 5D, iso 1600 Raw, f/2.5, 25 second exposure with camera on a
stationary tripod (no tracking). The cave is huge, so the 24 mm lens
required me to take 4 separate (camera vertical) shots shooting one
shot at 25 seconds and then moving the camera horizontally for the
next shot and so on until I got the entire cave. Each shot was a
sky/landscape shot and I had a professional lab stitch the photos
together with a panoramic blending software to make it one continuous
horizontal shot as I am a photoshop moron.
The lighting was from 4 sources (which I learnt from my 4 previous
failed attempts - after all one can drive 1600 miles to take a single
shot only so many times). The stars/Milky Way of course provided their
own light for the sky, the trip was planned for a small crescent moon
to be setting in the west to light up the left and center canyon
walls, and a large flashlight was positioned out side the cave on the
left to bounce light off a flat rock to hit the right canyon wall with
some faint light. Inside the cave, I used a series of flashlights and
or strobes to bounce light off the far left/right walls to evenly
light the cave (there was no direct lighting).
There was absolutely no superimposing of any portion in this image or
any other image I have ever done. To me that's important as my whole
purpose is to show folk what the sky really is like from different
landmarks in this great country of ours. As for the questioning about
why no haze is seen next to the horizon in the sky yet is seem in the
far canyon hills then my guess would be that those saying such are
thinking of a day shot. This is a night shot - everything is dark. It
rained that day heavily so there was no haze. It is the crescent moon
that is lighting up the close canyon walls and they are sharp, but the
farther you go down you run into moon shadow that is not haze but
simply darkness where the camera can not record detail so it looks
like haze. The same for the far canyon walls look like they are
covered with haze, but it is just because they are so far, the slight
moonlight does not bounce back enough light from those far canyons
for the camera to see any detail (some folk are calling that haze), yet
the stars which have their own light of course show through the haze
which is not there (but only in folks minds) and hits the camera
sensors full on.
I have been around long enough to know that no matter what
explanation I give as to how real a photograph I took is, there are
always the arm chair folk that would rather criticised others than do
anything themselves. If you don't believe what I say (everything here
is testable) and then believe the great body of work I have done over
the years that is clearly recognized by experts in the field of
astronomy/photography. This is my 29th Astronomy Picture of Day. Those
folk are not
dummies. I might be able to fool the APOD folk one time, but 29
times????
How about TIME-LIFE photo editors. They picked my Hale-Bopp pic as Pic
of year in 1997 - out of millions submitted. They also picked my Mars
Closest encounter in 50,000 years as Pic of year in 2003 for both LIFE
magazine and a different image for TIME magazine, again out of
millions submitted. My night sky work sells in over 30 national parks,
where each park goes thru an interpretive review process to determine
that the photos are genuine - none have been turned down. NASA still
has my Hale-Bopp shot on their front Hale-Bopp web page, etc....
For those of you who can, just enjoy the photograph and for others
that can't do that then simply take one that we all can enjoy.
We live in a great country with so much to see and photograph.
There is much that is untouched waiting for us to capture.
May you enjoy the process.
All the best.
Wally Pacholka
An amateur astronomer - my greatest honor
See more of my Pics at brightnightgallery.com'
2. Answers as to why APOD's description differs a little from mine
(like long exposure vs short exposure)
When I submitted the photograph to APOD I did not mention anything
about exposure. When they run a photo they do not check with the
photographer if everything in their comments are correct or not.
Generally these guys are dead on accurate. These guys know me (as they
have published me 28x prior) and in every case prior I have always
submitted single image one frame sky/landscape shots so in this case
they assumed this is Wally so it has to be single exposure. Keep in
mind, I submitted a horizontal pano photograph so I could show the
whole cave, but that pano is made up of 4 side by side sky/landscape
shots where each frame is a shot of the sky and landmark(cave) all in
one single exposure. This is no composite of the sky being put it. It
is a horizontal pano stitch of the sky and cave at once. With modern
cameras with high iso and short exposures the sky and landmarks can be
shot in one single exposure. Here I simply stitched 4 such shots
together to give the viewer the complete panoramic view. Every rock
and star is real in the photo.
May each of you experience this wonderful place called False Kiva someday.
See more of my Pics at brightnightgallery.com
Wally Pacholka - HamSandwich, on 10/12/2008, -1/+44Damn, I don't know how I missed that before. Thanks for pointing it out with the gigantic red arrow!
- Lewie, on 10/12/2008, -0/+39It says 30 second exposure. As long as it's no longer than a few minutes, you won't get star trails. You can get hypersensitized film that reduces exposure time. A good DSLR would do the trick as well.
- doublefelix, on 10/12/2008, -0/+36He said: 'I had to drive 800 miles each way five times to get the shot right. And I had to hike two miles to the cave and back again at night, getting lost each time I came out.'
I'd say it was worth it. - Jushooter, on 10/12/2008, -1/+35I just did one...it's 1024 X 768. I enhanced the pic a little in PS.
Here: http://i36.tinypic.com/256vgw7.png - DrCalculus, on 10/12/2008, -3/+32absolutely incredible photo -- How did he get some a good exposure without star lines?
- Aroundtheworls, on 10/12/2008, -0/+25Thanks for the detailed analysis, but...
The guy who took it is an astronomer who specializes in taking pics of stars from caves and whatnot. NASA (who know a thing or two about stars) use his pics, he has won Time magazine's "picture of the year" award twice, and his pics appear in places like National Geographic.
On the other hand maybe he didn't feel like driving out to the cave and fired up a copy of Photoshop. - Mujokan, on 10/12/2008, -0/+24I don't know if it's shopped because I don't know anything about star photography. But if it is, he's the expert, because there are loads of photos on his site, and many were published by NASA.
http://www.brightnightgallery.com/ - mihind24, on 10/12/2008, -2/+26Not necessarily. I just did a shot of the Milky Way the other night at Zion. F2.8 at ISO 1600 for about 3 mins and it came out fairly well, but not as bright as this one. If I had used an F1.4 lens and cranked it up to ISO 3200, I could've had a similar image with a tad more than a 20 second exposure. There's several DSLRs that'll do ISO 6400 or higher, so 30 seconds for this exposure isn't out of the question.
Who cares if the cave isn't blurry or if this is a photoshop job? Nearly every great image you see out there in a gallery that was taken with digital media is a photoshop job. Any images that I consider keepers and have printed have had some sort of Photoshop done on them. Almost every image I use curves on to adjust color. It may look good out of the camera, but often times it can look even better with a little tweaking. Secondly, there's nothing wrong with the man taking one picture for the galaxy and another exposed for the foreground/cave/canyon. I have tons of shots where I'll do multiple exposures. I have one of a river where I used a several second exposure to streak the water nicely, but it was windy, so I took a second one without an ND filter and upped the ISO a bit so I could freeze the leaves, and then combined them in Photoshop with masks. Yeah, you could say I photoshopped it, but who cares? It's the end result that matters. Photography is an art. Do what you need to do to get your intended effect. - Mujokan, on 10/12/2008, -0/+24They're cool with it.
- BobbyMC, on 10/12/2008, -0/+23Cue guitar riff.
- BobbyMC, on 10/12/2008, -1/+22Digg submissions like this always leave me amazed at the number of people with incredibly specific knowledge about any random thing such as the mechanics of tracking stars with a camera.
- TheGooseyOne, on 10/12/2008, -0/+21Its weird to think that we're INSIDE of that and that there's more of it than just can be seen in that shot. Take a look at this shot:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70 ... - LRonaldHubbs, on 10/12/2008, -4/+25Taken in a desert, that explains no haze. Probably processed for HDR and noise reduction, giving blur at transitional points. And with a 30 second exposure, the sky would need to be corrected for the earth's rotation, or else everything would be a bunch of blurry arcs. So yeah, partially shopped, but only to enhance quality, not deceive.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2008, -1/+22Must have this in hi-res!
- Laminarcissus, on 10/12/2008, -0/+17I speak for astronomers, photographers, hikers, native Americans, cavers, caves, rocks, and the entire Milky Way when I say:
Oh shut up. - GregFD3S, on 10/12/2008, -0/+14***** wallpapered.
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2008, -0/+13Trailing depends on the field width of the image; the image from the cave mouth is a very wide shot, so for the stars to move here takes a little time. For narrower field shots like this one...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/2874177323/
...I would have had trailing if the exposure was longer than about four seconds. The only way out of that is either a tracking mount (expensive and/or annoying) or stacking multiple exposures to gain brightness.
The above shot was taken with a Canon EOS 40D, exposure 3.2 seconds with an ƒ/1.2, 85mm lens at ISO 1600. - eers2snow, on 10/12/2008, -8/+21Yup...Utah looks like the moon.
- doublefelix, on 10/12/2008, -0/+12More amazing is how those Death Valley rocks slide around all by themselves.
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2008, -0/+12Do me a favor. Stand inside your house. Now look around. Can you see your house? Wow!
- Borgcube, on 10/12/2008, -0/+12Ants aren't that much smaller than us in comparison with stars.
- Imnick, on 10/12/2008, -2/+14This photo... like Spore makes you realize just how small we are. I dont even wanna know how the ants feel!
- AmyVernon, on 10/12/2008, -9/+20I swear that looks like something out of Star Trek, but in a good way.
- Doodleshanks, on 10/12/2008, -1/+11Perhaps all those things are caused by JPEG compression? or...perhaps your lunacy?
- BorsKaegel, on 10/12/2008, -0/+10*Tusken
- jackharvest1, on 10/12/2008, -1/+10You spent 10 paragraphs explaining that? fail.
- shadowblade989, on 10/12/2008, -0/+9You must have a really crappy monitor.
- krisscofield, on 10/12/2008, -0/+9Well, I see two banthas down there but no-.....wait...
- D14852001neko, on 10/12/2008, -14/+23That looks photoshopped, look at the border between Earth and the Sky, notice the ambience fog is absent from the sky picture?
- Daniel591992, on 10/12/2008, -0/+9http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080929.html
It was one of the Apod's - shadowblade989, on 10/12/2008, -0/+8Just wondering where you got a high enough resolution image to do that.
- brollywood, on 10/12/2008, -0/+8you're implying saying something looks like its out of star trek is usually a bad thing? blasphemy!!
- Mawds, on 10/12/2008, -0/+7I see no Bantha, so I'm still not convinced.
- inactive, on 10/12/2008, -0/+7yo, get a life on ebay, they're cheap
- d2002, on 10/12/2008, -1/+8Links like these restores my faith in Digg.
- Tyorant, on 10/12/2008, -2/+9For ***** sake no one cares! Just enjoy the photo.
- Galaxylander, on 10/12/2008, -7/+14Definitely shopped, I can tell by the pixels.
- overshoot, on 10/12/2008, -0/+7You can. The photographer's website is here: http://www.brightnightgallery.com
I'm tempted myself actually.
Edit: Mujokan beat me to it in a post below... - Laminarcissus, on 10/12/2008, -0/+6Despite the tone of the other responses, it's a reasonable question.
We're actually located on an outer spiral of the galaxy, so we can look back through it and the mass of stars and galactic center appear as a white smear in the sky. What you're actually looking at is the galaxy edge-on..
But sorry, I have to fit in with the other posts, so: I can't believe you didn't know that you big dummy. I did, so I'm cooler and smarter and will be more successful in life. - hamobu, on 10/12/2008, -1/+7Yes in fact I do have a crappy monitor. I am using laptop from 90's running XUBUNTU
- Jarasmen, on 10/12/2008, -0/+6Spore makes you realize how small we are? o_O Dude, the game makes it appear as if stars were right next to each other and the planets were the size of a small asteroid...
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2008, -2/+8............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
..................................., - MtheoryX, on 10/12/2008, -0/+6@Xebozone:
It's not HDR.
The reason there is detail in the shadows inside the cave is due to the longer exposure time.
Also, RTFA. -
Show 51 - 100 of 247 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
