Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
My name is Alexander Forst, and I am a photographer from Berlin, living in Switzerland for 8 years now.
Some years ago, I decided to step up my night sky game and modify the sensor of my camera. The modification expands the light spectrum, which makes it possible to see the Ha emission nebulas in the night sky.
More info: lxphoton.com | alexander-forst.pixels.com | Instagram | Facebook | 500px.com
This post may include affiliate links.
#1
Final score:
106points
Alex Forst (Submission author) 2 years ago
Stacked/Tracked/Blended Sony A7iii Astromodified Sony A7Riii Unmodified Sony 35mm f1.4 Foreground: Iso 100 f3.2 30sec in moonshine Milkyway Iso 1600 f1.4 30sec Tracked
I love stories and I love telling them using my pictures. However, the reason why I started photography was that I just wanted to take some good selfies. I still take selfies but nobody will recognize me there. Photography has become a lot more for me than a means to an end. It is the expression of my art, my feelings, and my fantasy. Since I can remember I love the stars and it was only natural to start with star photography.
#2
Final score:
84points
#3
Final score:
71points
My inspiration comes mostly from movies and also computer games. I don't take inspiration from other photographs that often and I cannot really tell why, but I think maybe because it is easier to get a story and a feeling from a movie or a game than it is from stills.
#4
Final score:
66points
mulk 2 years ago (edited)
why this picture has the same sky as another one? literally the SAME: same star luminosity, same position... and same cloud! That's not fair when you only said "modify the sensor of my camera. The modification expands the light spectrum, which makes it possible to see the Ha emission nebulas in the night sky": that's not the truth, you photoshopped some picture. for example: DSC5810-HD..._880-1.jpg 
VERSUS DSC4571-Be..._880-1.jpg 
EDIT: before upvote or downvote, please, read my other comments below
#5
Final score:
62points
Star photography requires a lot of patience. You need to plan everything beforehand. Everything has to be perfect. The location, the weather, the motive and the direction of the sky. But it's not only that. My pictures become more and more complex, so sometimes, it takes hours, even days, to edit a single photograph to get it just right. But the end result is always worth it.
#6
Final score:
57points
Alex Forst (Submission author) 2 years ago (edited)
Stacked/Tracked/Composite A7iii Astromodified by Astrolab Service (Sky) A7riii Unmodified (Foreground) Sony 35mm gm Foreground: Iso 1600 f4 30sec, 15sec, 2sec Bracketing Sky: 8x Iso 1600 f1.8 30sec (same night different location)
#7
Final score:
52points
Alex Forst (Submission author) 2 years ago
Stacked/Tracked/Panon Exifs: A7iii Astromodified (milkyway) A7riii Unmodified (Foreground) foreground: 3x 8 Iso 1600, f4, 30sec, 35mm Sky: 3x8 iso 1600 f1.6, 30sec 35mm
If you'd like to see more photographs taken under the night sky you can find my older posts by clicking here, here, here and here.
#8
Final score:
47points
Alex Forst (Submission author) 2 years ago (edited)
Stacked/Tracked/blended A7riii (Foreground) A7iii (Astromodified for Milkyway) Sony 20mm f1.8 (foreground) Sony 35mm f1.4 (Milkyway) Foreground: 8x Iso 1600 30sec f2 (focusstacked) Milkyway 8x Iso 1600 f2
#9
Final score:
46points
#11
Final score:
44points
#12
Final score:
40points
Alex Forst (Submission author) 2 years ago (edited)
Exifs Stacked/Tracked/Blended/Pano The sky is Fully Tracked and stacked in 1 Row 4 Columns, 10 Stacks each Frame with an overlaping of around 60%. Shots were taken with an astromodified a7iii and the Sony 35 f1.4 GM lens and a ioptron sky tracker pro (iso 1600, f1.6, 30sec Tracked/Stacked) The moon is an hdr out of 3 shots
#14
Final score:
38points
Alex Forst (Submission author) 2 years ago (edited)
stacked tracked composite Sony Ariii Sigma 85mm f1.4 (foreground) Sony 20mm f1.4 (milkyway) Foreground: 1x iso 400 f4 1/100sec Milkyway: 8x iso 1600 f2 30sec
#15
Final score:
37points
#16
Final score:
37points
Alex Forst (Submission author) 2 years ago
Stacked/Tracked/Blended Sony a7iii Astromodifed Sony A7riii unmodified Laowa 15mm f2 Foreground: 8x Iso 1600 f2 30sec Milkyway: 8x Iso 1600 f2 30sec
Add New Image
What do you think ?
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
Eplaining of the Exifs: Stacked: Multiple shots overlayed for Noise Control and increasing details. Tracked: The Camera was standing on a device which rotates syncron with the stars. Blended: The shots where taken from the same Tripod location. Composite:: The shots where not taken from the same tripod location. Single: A single image. braketing: different exposure times for brighter lights
John Beck 2 years ago
As a professional Astronomer, allow me to take some burden of explanation off of Alex Frost. Stacking and Tracking refer to a 2 step process to produce images of very faint objects in the night sky. First is tracking- using a clock-drive motor on the telescope or camera mount to keep it aimed at the object while multiple images are taken. Second is stacking which combines those images, registering - or aligning - them to remove any errors in tracking and then combining them (perhaps averaging them) on a pixel by pixel basis. Obviously, images of anything on the Earth will be blurred and distorted by this process - so all that is removed. Later, an in focus image of the foreground landscape may be added - this results in a composite image. It isn't a photograph. Almost all Astronomy "pictures" for the public are composite images. Pro Astronomers, like me, lack artistic skills to do this. We thank & admire folks like Alex Frost for sharing the beauty of Astronomy!
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
thank you for your explanation. but one thing really borther me here. why is a blending/compsite image not a photograph? collages (which are composites and blendings are) are a part of phtography since photography exists. so why also the "downgrade" away from photograpy. yes it is not documentation from an exact moment. but that isnt deep sky as well and documentation is is also just a part of photography and not the definition. and specialy a blending is more a hdr as it is a collage. as long the technique is not developed that we can use cameras with noise free 40 stops dynamic at iso 6400 we need phtography techniques to make pictures like that possible. thanks from making me an artist, but i m also a protographer and this is photography. the human eye and the brain btw is doing the exact same thing like a blending for increasing the dynamic range to about 24 stops. bendings, tracking, stacking and so on are a technique of photography. nothing more and nothing less. SO please. when you say this is not a photograph, please note that this is your personal opinion and goes against the official definition of photography
Load More Replies...
Matthew Stark 2 years ago
Alex, you've created masterpieces! Thank you for sharing your art. I'll have to share this with my family whose all last names are Forst. Cousins so many times removed? Lol! Please share more of your beautiful pieces.
Ashley Shelton 2 years ago
I wish you lived close to me I would get u to do our photos every year you are magnificent. These are so beautiful and you did such an amazing job!
John Beck 2 years ago (edited)
Hey guys. Alex has shared some beautiful artistic photographs of the night sky and some of you try to reduce what he has done based on a vague understanding of how he did it. Some of you may have heard of Ansel Adams, a renown photographer who worked in Black & White (search for his name if you don't know him). He spent much more time in the darkroom than behind the camera for each of his iconic photographs. Anyone who said Adams' photographs were not real photos or were not legit because of his darkroom techniques would be laughed at and dismissed as ignorant. Alex is a digital photographer and his darkroom is a computer - his photos are legit. Please do not use your ignorance to denigrate his photographs.
Safy 2 years ago
You were pretty quick to jump on someone who was asking about the same night sky in multiple photos, but after looking at your other posts that seems to be the case in many of them. I love night photography, and seeing the stars and beautiful colors. However, it does feel a little misleading. I am not insinuating that you're not a photographer, or an artist. I don't have anything against photoshop either, but clarity is always good. :)
Ivan Petrov 2 years ago
Some of these photos look unreal (where did you find three hills, with a trees on the top of each 😄). The photos of the night sky are breathtaking - they always leave me stunned by the beauty of the stars and galaxies and nebulas.
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
it looks unreal but it isnt. here is an article about that place https://ahnennamenwappenundmehr.wordpress.com/2021/01/03/drumlins-und-co-lassen-fotografenherzen-hoher-schlagen/
Load More Replies... Csaba Horvath 2 years ago
Great, even if many is directly photoshopped. Except this is not stated in the disclaimer, this is amazing digital artwork :)
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
Astro photos are ALWAYS "digital artwork" and photoshop. it is dark in the night. There are many things todo to make all of this visible. i m shooting with an astromidfied camera on a star tracker. all image are red shifted and the foreground is motionblured. I m so tired of that discussion. this is for sure my last post here
Load More Replies...
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
Eplaining of the Exifs: Stacked: Multiple shots overlayed for Noise Control and increasing details. Tracked: The Camera was standing on a device which rotates syncron with the stars. Blended: The shots where taken from the same Tripod location. Composite:: The shots where not taken from the same tripod location. Single: A single image. braketing: different exposure times for brighter lights
John Beck 2 years ago
As a professional Astronomer, allow me to take some burden of explanation off of Alex Frost. Stacking and Tracking refer to a 2 step process to produce images of very faint objects in the night sky. First is tracking- using a clock-drive motor on the telescope or camera mount to keep it aimed at the object while multiple images are taken. Second is stacking which combines those images, registering - or aligning - them to remove any errors in tracking and then combining them (perhaps averaging them) on a pixel by pixel basis. Obviously, images of anything on the Earth will be blurred and distorted by this process - so all that is removed. Later, an in focus image of the foreground landscape may be added - this results in a composite image. It isn't a photograph. Almost all Astronomy "pictures" for the public are composite images. Pro Astronomers, like me, lack artistic skills to do this. We thank & admire folks like Alex Frost for sharing the beauty of Astronomy!
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
thank you for your explanation. but one thing really borther me here. why is a blending/compsite image not a photograph? collages (which are composites and blendings are) are a part of phtography since photography exists. so why also the "downgrade" away from photograpy. yes it is not documentation from an exact moment. but that isnt deep sky as well and documentation is is also just a part of photography and not the definition. and specialy a blending is more a hdr as it is a collage. as long the technique is not developed that we can use cameras with noise free 40 stops dynamic at iso 6400 we need phtography techniques to make pictures like that possible. thanks from making me an artist, but i m also a protographer and this is photography. the human eye and the brain btw is doing the exact same thing like a blending for increasing the dynamic range to about 24 stops. bendings, tracking, stacking and so on are a technique of photography. nothing more and nothing less. SO please. when you say this is not a photograph, please note that this is your personal opinion and goes against the official definition of photography
Load More Replies... Matthew Stark 2 years ago
Alex, you've created masterpieces! Thank you for sharing your art. I'll have to share this with my family whose all last names are Forst. Cousins so many times removed? Lol! Please share more of your beautiful pieces.
Ashley Shelton 2 years ago
I wish you lived close to me I would get u to do our photos every year you are magnificent. These are so beautiful and you did such an amazing job!
John Beck 2 years ago (edited)
Hey guys. Alex has shared some beautiful artistic photographs of the night sky and some of you try to reduce what he has done based on a vague understanding of how he did it. Some of you may have heard of Ansel Adams, a renown photographer who worked in Black & White (search for his name if you don't know him). He spent much more time in the darkroom than behind the camera for each of his iconic photographs. Anyone who said Adams' photographs were not real photos or were not legit because of his darkroom techniques would be laughed at and dismissed as ignorant. Alex is a digital photographer and his darkroom is a computer - his photos are legit. Please do not use your ignorance to denigrate his photographs.
Safy 2 years ago
You were pretty quick to jump on someone who was asking about the same night sky in multiple photos, but after looking at your other posts that seems to be the case in many of them. I love night photography, and seeing the stars and beautiful colors. However, it does feel a little misleading. I am not insinuating that you're not a photographer, or an artist. I don't have anything against photoshop either, but clarity is always good. :)
Ivan Petrov 2 years ago
Some of these photos look unreal (where did you find three hills, with a trees on the top of each 😄). The photos of the night sky are breathtaking - they always leave me stunned by the beauty of the stars and galaxies and nebulas.
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
it looks unreal but it isnt. here is an article about that place https://ahnennamenwappenundmehr.wordpress.com/2021/01/03/drumlins-und-co-lassen-fotografenherzen-hoher-schlagen/
Load More Replies... Csaba Horvath 2 years ago
Great, even if many is directly photoshopped. Except this is not stated in the disclaimer, this is amazing digital artwork :)
Alex Forst (Post author) 2 years ago (edited)
Astro photos are ALWAYS "digital artwork" and photoshop. it is dark in the night. There are many things todo to make all of this visible. i m shooting with an astromidfied camera on a star tracker. all image are red shifted and the foreground is motionblured. I m so tired of that discussion. this is for sure my last post here
Load More Replies... You May Like 86 Photography Hacks To Take Your Photos To The Next Level Most Famous Female Photographers Of The World 64 Of The Most Famous Photographers In History
Aivaras Kaziukonis
Justina Čiapaitė
Viltė Domkutė
Related on Bored Panda
