Saturday 28th of September - Treachery beach NSW approx 8-9pm

I think this is most likely - some kind of doubled up shake situation very cool effect! And good eyes!
What it’s is in the first place I don’t know but those are both the same thing definitely
Cheers! a reply to: operation mindcrime

Yeah, I'd go with what Operation said. I've had very similar shots while trying to take star pics. I even ended up getting a remote for the very reason. (Timers on the cam are not as much fun, as a good remote you can set to take multiple shots at set intervals, so you can make cool animations of the stars travelling across the sky.)

Someone said that if it was the case all the stars would show the same squiggle, yes. But only if they were bright enough during the initial shutter press which caught that small wobble in probably the first 1-2 seconds. Everyone should keep in mind this was a 30 second exposure, those stars were not that bright, except for the two you captured which showed the squiggle, which I think might more likely be planets rather than stars.
(Jupiter would have been low on the horizon that night, and Saturn would possibly be the "star" "star!" of the photo in question! )


The squiggle is probably there very faintly for a few of the brighter stars, but you'd need the original RAW photo from the camera (which you are hopefully saving in) which will give you more tools to adjust the levels and exposure, colour balance etc. after the pic has been taken and before compression is added when its saved. I'd bet if you fiddle with those settings you'd see the exact same pattern on a few of the brightest stars there.

And someone said stars dont leave lines... Look at these trails I took a picture of!



Edit:-
Phage was wrong about the bug, which is unusual for him, so hopefully he can redeem himself by proving me wrong here. Because it seems like Treachery Beach would have you looking out over the water to the SE, whereas if it was Jupiter and Saturn in the photo, you would have had to been looking away from the water to the west...
If it was looking out over the water, maybe its the star Canopus?... please tell me OP you were pointing the camera westward!???

I am sorry to say this and you should be a little more familiar taking night time photos...

Something bumped the camera and caused more of an exposure or double exposure if you like (since this is digital not exactly the case)

Anyway some nice other photos...

Yeah for sure it was our first time so we are stoked to get some more practise in and become familiar with errors and artifacts a reply to: abeverage

Oh really nice streaky star picture I love that! a reply to: Qumulys

a reply to: Qumulys

Phage was wrong about the bug

It was a guess. Your explanation makes sense.

This would be caused by the "relocation" of the camera after being bumped? The overall displacement seems close to the same as the endpoints of the squiggle, but what's up with the equal horizontal alignment and spacing of the four stars? Is this a southern hemisphere asterism?

We were facing south east a reply to: Qumulys

a reply to: Phage

Yeah... hmmm!? I'm not sure. And now wagtail has said they were facing SE, those are not Jupiter or Saturn. The only thing I would suggest is if we can get access to the RAW file and pull any exrta detail and see if those 4 horizontal hot spots are there (but much fainter). I'm not sure what camera they were using, but perhaps rather the keeping the CCD open for 30 seconds, it flicks them on and off and then adds the values at the end?

I'd only suggest this because I killed my camera (early digital SLR) after doing about 4 hours total shots of multiple minute exposures. Was horrified to see it had killed about 30 pixels, stuck hot... So perhaps it gives the CCD a quick refresh during the open stage?


Anyone bothered to hunt down a star map in stellarium or such and ID those two hottest objects? And that row of four? Cant say I've seen it here (with eyes only).

a reply to: Qumulys

Just as an aside... far off drone? and the secondary hot spot could be from an internal lens reflection? But a small bump seems most likely fit.

I don’t think I will have time today, but if you explain how I find and post the raw I will try and get it done a reply to: Qumulys