It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Starman' captured in the sky by Malaysian David Bowie fan (but thankfully, the spiders from Mars

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:15 PM
Talk about faces in the clouds here's a pretty clear picture of a face in the stars. Amazing the amount of stars and planets out there in the universe. Thought this was a unique picture and wanted to share.

Could the face 'waiting in the sky' over Nepal be David Bowie's 'Starman'? The 16-year-old photographer - and Bowie fan - who captured the shot thinks so. The shot shows the Milky Way - our own galaxy - soaring above the Himalayas. But if you squint, it could be a strange, alien face in the stars... perhaps waiting to 'blow our minds'.

Read more: 'Starman' captured in the sky by Malaysian David Bowie fan

edit on 7-3-2012 by 1loserel2 because: typo

edit on 7-3-2012 by 1loserel2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by 1loserel2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by 1loserel2 because: fix link

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 8/3/2012 by ArMaP because: Title, image, and article link corrected.

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by 1loserel2
Could the face 'waiting in the sky' over Nepal ...

Not convinced.

Any astro photo like this is
1. Viewable from ANY spot on the planet, not just one country
2. Viewable from any point in history, not just today.

Also, since it is clearly a shot of the denser regions of the milky way, there should be HUNDREDS of similar pictures on the net already, having been taken over the years.
However, it doesnt immediatly stand out to me as being familiar, so I suspect its photoshopped somehow. Perhaps a bit of dodge or burn to "bring out" some peculiarities.

Also, such an image is a long exposure. You have two choices.
1. Track the stars, in which case the foreground landscape is blurred
2. Dont track the stars, in which case the foreground landscape is clear, but the stars leave tracks.
Given that BOTH foreground and stars are sharp,

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by alfa1

I agree mostly, but would disagree about the photoshop thing, to a degree.

An exposure of stars (in a perfectly dark night, low terrestrial light noise scenario) taken at around 25-30 seconds does produce a really good sharp stable image. You will still keep your foreground sharp as well as the stars. His camera is multitudes better than my (350D) camera, also, using quality lenses also helps.

Saying that, It is possible though this image has been HDR enhanced with photoshop, perhaps combining 2 shots with exposure set for both ground then stars, then combined. But its also possible its a just as is shot.

On topic, what a load a faffle-cakes! You could find the Queen mum is you looked long enough with a bad enough case of Pareidolia.

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:51 PM
Cool pic

I live in Malaysia and spent 3 years in Penang, beautiful place, its called the pearl of the Orient and also the food capital of south east Asia.
Would love to know exactly where he took the shot from

Ill give ya a flag coz your thread title had the word Malaysia in it

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by alfa1

Are you sure 45 min track on this pic stars sharp buildings the same.

It may have been a fluke due to exposure time iso setting of camera had a look at a few images very quickly none like that but they all look slightly different.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:17 AM



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by wmd_2008

45 Mins??? What you would have after that amount of time is star trails.

This exposure I took was around 30 minutes (from memory here I can't find my original shot with the exif data still intact).

Just imagine how far the world turns in 45 minutes!
This is unless the camera was set up on a star tracking rig, but if that were the case the foreground would be a big streaky mess. So it has to have been photoshop if a star tracker was used for 45 mins.

(edit: found my original file, it was 2007 seconds, which is around 34 minutes, I was close!)
edit on 8-3-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by Qumulys

You don't need really long exposures just turn up the ISO!!!!

Have a look at this flickr account Canon 5D camera wide angle lens high iso similar results to pic shown in OP.

Lots of 25 sec iso 1600-3200 shots with a 24 mm lens.

Did you even look at the pic in my last post

Can you see the buildings do they look sharp enough are they a big streaky mess

edit on 8-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by wmd_2008

I think there's some confusion between us! Lets sort it out

I was responding to primarily to alfa, who thought you cant get sharp pics of stars AND ground in a single shot without photoshopping.

I disagreed with him about that. Generally somewhere from 10-30 seconds of exposure time is a good setting that does give sharp stars and a sharp ground.

Then you posted a pic which yes, I did go and look at, because you said it was "45 min". That image you posted could not have been a 45 minute exposure, maybe 45 seconds, but it would have slightly evident smearing after that time. UNLESS you meant it was a 45 minute on a star tracking base. However, since the camera would be moving the buildings would be blurred.

Hope that solves some confusion between us

(oh, yes, turning up exposure can and does help to a degree, although the extra light sensitivity comes at the price of noise. The newer breeds of DSLR's go to INSANE numbers of ISO now, I'd love one!! My old one has 1600 as its highest setting, but the picture becomes to grainy its unusable.)

I added that picture of mine to show you what a 30 minute exposure of stars looks like, it makes star trails.

Hope that helps!?

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:56 PM
Well, I've been out but now I'm home and had some time to look more closely at this "photo".
Its photoshop.

As seen below, various parts of the starfields have been duplicated and mirrored to create a "face".
In the section show, I've cut out a square from the top, rotated, and placed it down to the left, next to another section of the original in a green box, for comparison.

The part in the green box, and the square next to it are basically the same.
Cut, rotate 180 degrees, and paste in with some transparency.

Another small section shown below.
Part of the upper section has been placed (and rotated 180 degrees) next to an area in the orange box from the lower part of the image, so that you can see its really the same set of stars.
Again, its clearly just a photoshop hack job.

It only a takes moments to see this, but I didnt have moments to spare when I posted earlier.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:02 PM
I'm going with the others who say Photoshop.

Could be wrong but that is what I think.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by alfa1

Well spotted mate! Star for efforts!

In this case I will now agree with you on it being photoshop edited, however I will still say images like this can be made in a 1 shot take as I previously stated creating beautiful photos, so long as the camera is set up right. But yes, in this particular case its been photoshopped so I tip my hat to you sir

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by Qumulys

Yes I know what you mean.

If you do a search here you will find some 128,000 indoor sports shots NO flash, would like to see some astro shots at that iso rating!!

new topics

top topics


log in