>>3045893>>3045638>exposure stackingnewfag here, I looked it up, why would someone do that? it looks like smudging everything in the landscape for the sake of adding a bit of exposure to starlight. I don't even understand how anyone can naturally stack stars since the earth always moves, wouldn't the alignment force the ground to look like it's moving under your feet?
When I edited that photo I had to drop the exposure down to about -1 (screenshot related) because it was too bright. This is a different photo, but same location with the same settings, I edited the other one on a different computer. I play around with the sliders until I get something that is aesthetically pleasing to me, I have to crank the whites up to absurd levels because my state has heavy light pollution wherever I go, it makes the sky look unnaturally blue. If I face east like in the first shot I get NYC's light pollution in the distance, face west like this shot I get Philadelphia.
I would appreciate any feedback, I want to improve this, I expect to do a lot of photoshoots in significantly darker areas in a few months, I'm just doing practice runs for now. I'm a complete noob with Photoshop, I'm too dependent on Lightroom. I understand when I do astrophotography including portraits I'm probably going to have to resort to exposure stacking anyways since I can't expect anyone to look natural for 15 seconds.
