5 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

I assume you shoot in RAW, right? How do you develop the RAW file? Adobe Lighroom corrects for it based on the lens profile. I should say though that it does not completely correct but makes it less visible. When we further process, such as contrast enhancement and especially clarity, the residual vignetting becomes much more severe. If the vignette is introduced by say clarity adjustment, then try applying the clarity only locally using a brush. You can also attempt to correct for it with a radial filter but it can be tricky to do right without introducing other artifacts. The radial filter works better than vignetting adjustment in the main adjustment panel.

Another possibility is to crop it away but then one needs to compose with this in mind. Last but not least, vignette in a landscape shot is not necessarily viewed as undesirable if it is not overdone.

I thought that it could be excluded during photographing ))) So it is not possible, only in the editor)

2 minutes ago, Samrau said:

I thought that it could be excluded during photographing ))) So it is not possible, only in the editor)

Oh, I see. You can stop the lens more, which should help. But this comes at a big cost when we shoot auroras. Each lens has a "sweet spot" where it renders the best. Most lenses have the sweet spot around f7 of f8.

Do you use anything in front of the lens, such as a "dew shield"?

Edited September 6Sep 6 by JessicaF

13 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

Oh, I see. You can stop the lens more, which should help. But this comes at a big cost when we shoot auroras. Each lens has a "sweet spot" where it renders the best. Most lenses have the sweet spot around f7 of f8.

Do you use anything in front of the lens, such as a "dew shield"?

Yes, I noticed that. My new TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Diagonal Fisheye Lens prefers F8. But F5.8 is acceptable to me.

Anti-fog protection - of course! I have a fan and a USB heater

A fan is not as effective as a heater. With a heater, you don't have to worry about morning dew.

21 minutes ago, Samrau said:

Yes, I noticed that. My new TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Diagonal Fisheye Lens prefers F8. But F5.8 is acceptable to me.

Anti-fog protection - of course! I have a fan and a USB heater

A fan is not as effective as a heater. With a heater, you don't have to worry about morning dew.

Nice nice. I asked about the dew shield as it could also contribute to vignetting. This one is likely ok as it is short. Dew can be really bad in the fall.

I have a 11-24mm f4 for Canon. A heavy and expensive beast that I have never used for auroras. Should have taken that one with me on Oct 10 :)

@Samrau @hamateur 1953 I am moving the discussion on "pushing the boundaries" in imaging aurora here. I think it is an interesting topic that some people might be interested in.

@Samrau I downloaded your CR3 images and took a quick look. There is nothing there, I am sorry. You certainly have not overlooked anything.

Edited September 7Sep 7 by JessicaF

23 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

@Samrau @hamateur 1953 I am moving the discussion on "pushing the boundaries" in imaging aurora here. I think it is an interesting topic that some people might be interested in.

@Samrau I downloaded your CR3 images and took a quick look. There is nothing there, I am sorry. You certainly have not overlooked anything.

Yes, I tried to find something on my own) Apparently it was because the horizon was illuminated by moonlight.

10 minutes ago, Samrau said:

Yes, I tried to find something on my own) Apparently it was because the horizon was illuminated by moonlight.

Yeah. Haze/clouds/smoke lit by the Moon is an absolute killer. I have had too much of that this summer.

@JessicaF said in another thread:

Whether or not one can "dig out" more from an image depends primarily on whether it is RAW or JPEG. RAW files have the signal sampled at a higher bit depth, say 12 or 14 bits per RAW pixel or even higher. In contrast, a JPEG, while the format can allocate more bits to pixels, most compressors use just 8 bits (256 shades). This is the biggest difference between a JPEG and a RAW file. The dynamic depth. Do you shoot RAW, @hamateur 1953 ? I always offer people to have a look at their images just to see if something can be dug out.

I fully agree Jessica but I also think a better point, besides sampling depth, is that any image format that uses a lossy compression is unsuitable for astronomy type photography. Whether its deep sky pictures, astro landscapes or auroral photography we are usually dealing with low light levels. That have to be dug out.

Even if the compressor algorithm used 16 bits it is still throwing away data when it is using a lossy algorithm. And if I'm not mistaken the chrominance channels are downsampled as well in the JPEG compression steps.

The bottom line for anyone with a DSLR doing auroral photography is to shoot in raw mode. Those with phones have little choice in the matter⁽¹⁾.

1. Yes I know there are phone apps that produce what they call 'raw' images but given the sensor hardware processing pipeline in modern phones there is no way that is true raw sensor data. Its debatable how 'raw' Canon and Nikon DSLR raw files are and some manufacturers have had issues over the years with star eating algorithms that affected the raw files. The only camera(s) you can get true raw images out of are dedicated astronomy type cameras.

22 minutes ago, astroHoward said:

@JessicaF said in another thread:

I fully agree Jessica but I also think a better point, besides sampling depth, is that any image format that uses a lossy compression is unsuitable for astronomy type photography. Whether its deep sky pictures, astro landscapes or auroral photography we are usually dealing with low light levels. That have to be dug out.

Even if the compressor algorithm used 16 bits it is still throwing away data when it is using a lossy algorithm. And if I'm not mistaken the chrominance channels are downsampled as well in the JPEG compression steps.

The bottom line for anyone with a DSLR doing auroral photography is to shoot in raw mode. Those with phones have little choice in the matter⁽¹⁾.

1. Yes I know there are phone apps that produce what they call 'raw' images but given the sensor hardware processing pipeline in modern phones there is no way that is true raw sensor data. Its debatable how 'raw' Canon and Nikon DSLR raw files are and some manufacturers have had issues over the years with star eating algorithms that affected the raw files. The only camera(s) you can get true raw images out of are dedicated astronomy type cameras.

I agree that JPEGs should not be used for astrophoto. However, the lossy character of the compression is much less damaging to a typical aurora / landscape image than the low dynamic range. If the JPEG has a high quality, the aurora shot does not degrade as much as when underflow/overflow remove detail in shadows and highlights.

BTW, chrominance may or may not be down sampled, depending on the exact settings of the JPEG compressor (4:1:1 vs. 4:4:4). The primary loss occurs during quantization of the DCT (discrete cosine transform) coefficients that are used to represent the image on disjoint 8x8 pixel blocks. Quantization is controlled by quantization matrices - one for luminance and one for chrominance - which are determined by the JPEG quality factor (1-100, 100 being still lossy) or selected by the camera manufacturer (custom quant matrices). Chrominance channels typically have a harsher quantization matrix compared to luminance quantization, which will indeed distort the chrominance more than the luminosity.

I would say that CR2, CR3, NEF, and DNG are pretty "raw" in the sense that they are not color interpolated, gamma or color corrected, gain adjusted, etc. My understanding is that these truly are digitized voltages at photosites. When one opens a RAW file in Lightroom, though, it shows up as a regular image with some basic development applied (demosaicking, color correction, gamma correction, gain adjustment) together with lens imperfections corrections from the lens profile. There could possibly be more that Lightroom does without notifying the user, such as removing hot/dead pixels, even though I do see them in my images. Having said this, if one uses e. g., dcraw or ufraw, Raw therapee, instead of Lightroom for development then one can achieve a pretty low-level control of what is being done to the image. But then again, only astronomers would care about the smallest of the things. Aurora chasers should be just fine with Lightroom, IMHO.

Apologies to the group. This is the photo thread. I stomped on @Jesterface23 sorry dude.. Mike.

Anyway Samrau naturally enjoyed my foray into Russian temporarily! I absolutely haaaate Google translate btw. I don’t know how he is able to live with it.

3 hours ago, JessicaF said:

I agree that JPEGs should not be used for astrophoto. However, the lossy character of the compression is much less damaging to a typical aurora / landscape image than the low dynamic range. If the JPEG has a high quality, the aurora shot does not degrade as much as when underflow/overflow remove detail in shadows and highlights.

BTW, chrominance may or may not be down sampled, depending on the exact settings of the JPEG compressor (4:1:1 vs. 4:4:4). The primary loss occurs during quantization of the DCT (discrete cosine transform) coefficients that are used to represent the image on disjoint 8x8 pixel blocks. Quantization is controlled by quantization matrices - one for luminance and one for chrominance - which are determined by the JPEG quality factor (1-100, 100 being still lossy) or selected by the camera manufacturer (custom quant matrices). Chrominance channels typically have a harsher quantization matrix compared to luminance quantization, which will indeed distort the chrominance more than the luminosity.

I would say that CR2, CR3, NEF, and DNG are pretty "raw" in the sense that they are not color interpolated, gamma or color corrected, gain adjusted, etc. My understanding is that these truly are digitized voltages at photosites. When one opens a RAW file in Lightroom, though, it shows up as a regular image with some basic development applied (demosaicking, color correction, gamma correction, gain adjustment) together with lens imperfections corrections from the lens profile. There could possibly be more that Lightroom does without notifying the user, such as removing hot/dead pixels, even though I do see them in my images. Having said this, if one uses e. g., dcraw or ufraw, Raw therapee, instead of Lightroom for development then one can achieve a pretty low-level control of what is being done to the image. But then again, only astronomers would care about the smallest of the things. Aurora chasers should be just fine with Lightroom, IMHO.

Thanks for info on the JPEG compressor, interesting to learn about the down sampling setting.

Also I can't disagree that CR2 / NEF are pretty raw files by your definition.

But no you are not getting a real digitized reading from the cmos sensor. Many older and some newer cameras have/ had issues with 'star eating' in their raw format. This is an example link to the Sony problem and does not mean their current cameras do it (IDK). So this clearly means some kind of processing is done after the ADC stage. Yes us astrophotographers care about such things 😂

Tidbits my accumulated knowledge:

Lightroom uses Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), it just incorporates that same base ACR code that is. ACR can be used with Photoshop and other Adobe products. IE when you open a raw file directly in PS.

ACR originally used some of dcraw's code and iirc acknowledged it way back in the day. I'm sure they deviated and updated their own raw conversion code over time.

dcraw has been dead since 2018 but really 2015 as Dave didn't update it much. The current closest thing is libraw that is used in many open source programs like Darktable and Rawtherapee. The Darktable project also uses a converter called rawspeed that they maintain.

1 hour ago, astroHoward said:

Thanks for info on the JPEG compressor, interesting to learn about the down sampling setting.

Also I can't disagree that CR2 / NEF are pretty raw files by your definition.

But no you are not getting a real digitized reading from the cmos sensor. Many older and some newer cameras have/ had issues with 'star eating' in their raw format. This is an example link to the Sony problem and does not mean their current cameras do it (IDK). So this clearly means some kind of processing is done after the ADC stage. Yes us astrophotographers care about such things 😂

Tidbits my accumulated knowledge:

Lightroom uses Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), it just incorporates that same base ACR code that is. ACR can be used with Photoshop and other Adobe products. IE when you open a raw file directly in PS.

ACR originally used some of dcraw's code and iirc acknowledged it way back in the day. I'm sure they deviated and updated their own raw conversion code over time.

dcraw has been dead since 2018 but really 2015 as Dave didn't update it much. The current closest thing is libraw that is used in many open source programs like Darktable and Rawtherapee. The Darktable project also uses a converter called rawspeed that they maintain.

Fascinating. I did not know about the "star eating" algorithms. For astronomers, nothing should be removing "defective" pixels. You guys need the file as raw as possible.

There is one more kind of people who care about such details - digital forensic experts and steganographers.

In my own experience with digital imaging, over the years, we have accumulated a list of mysteries that we do not understand, such as a mysterious fixed pattern noise or non-Gaussian shot noise. They are mysteries only because manufacturers will not generally respond to queries directed at their firmware and hardware. And the mysteries are not of sufficient importance for researchers to spend their time on, hence they remain oddities.

On 8/31/2025 at 3:46 PM, bluedemon25 said:

A lot of the newer cameras include in-body image, stabilization Ibis. I'm looking at wider lenses and I noticed that some of them that are fastest and wide do not include image stabilization on the lens. These are for non-zooms when I'm looking at the Ken Rockwell list of Canon wide lenses. I do see that there are some with image stabilization but they are a bit slower. They are 2.8. I'm wondering how much it matters to have the image stabilization in the lens versus just relying on that within the body?

I didn't see anyone address this (I may have totally missed it, however, I haven't had enough time to read through everything as well as I would like to) --

but -

AFAIK, image stabilization is something you utilize when you're shooting hand held. When your camera is set on a tripod, it is usually recommended (or at least was back when I first started learning all this camera stuff many years ago) to NOT have IS on, because your camera may try to "fix" shake that's not even there, resulting in a worse image.

So, if you're planning to use a lens primarily for night sky, which means you'll have it mounted on a tripod - you will not need IS at all.

If things have changed recently, feel free to correct me and get things up to date :)

4 hours ago, NightSky said:

I didn't see anyone address this (I may have totally missed it, however, I haven't had enough time to read through everything as well as I would like to) --

but -

AFAIK, image stabilization is something you utilize when you're shooting hand held. When your camera is set on a tripod, it is usually recommended (or at least was back when I first started learning all this camera stuff many years ago) to NOT have IS on, because your camera may try to "fix" shake that's not even there, resulting in a worse image.

So, if you're planning to use a lens primarily for night sky, which means you'll have it mounted on a tripod - you will not need IS at all.

If things have changed recently, feel free to correct me and get things up to date :)

And if ya have an iPhone don’t trust its ability to “ know” when it’s ok to shoot. Tripod with remote trigger ( cheap) is essential 😊

On 9/9/2025 at 3:27 AM, NightSky said:

I didn't see anyone address this (I may have totally missed it, however, I haven't had enough time to read through everything as well as I would like to) --

but -

AFAIK, image stabilization is something you utilize when you're shooting hand held. When your camera is set on a tripod, it is usually recommended (or at least was back when I first started learning all this camera stuff many years ago) to NOT have IS on, because your camera may try to "fix" shake that's not even there, resulting in a worse image.

So, if you're planning to use a lens primarily for night sky, which means you'll have it mounted on a tripod - you will not need IS at all.

If things have changed recently, feel free to correct me and get things up to date :)

If it's VR/Vibration Reduction (Nikon) or IS/Image Stabilization (Canon) it shouldn't cause issues, they use accelerometers and offset the optical focus(lens) or move the camera sensor so it stays the same throughout the exposure. With that said, the manual for my Z6 also recommends turning it off when mounted on a tripod "to prevent unintended results".

However be warned there's a lot of mumbo-jumbo out there with 'anti-shake' and various other features, especially for mobile phones. They usually work by boosting ISO and lowering the exposure time without informing the user, resulting in less blurry but much more noisy images.

I'd imagine VR/IS would help to counteract shutter shock(Tiny vibrations from the mechanical shutter) to a certain extent if your camera for some reason doesn't have electronic shutter as an option, but I haven't tested it. Not EFCS/EFSC as it can introduce half diffraction spikes and bokeh, and I'm unsure how the auroral light affects it as EFCS can cause flickering and banding if used with artificial lighting(might be hz related, if so auroral lights won't cause this) - but I'm sure @JessicaF has a more definite answer here.

Mind you the only time I've really noticed shutter shock was when I tried photographing M31 using a 900mm telezoom, but I was shooting at 1/10 or thereabouts which is where shutter shock is the most notable.

Edited September 10Sep 10 by Rudolph
Removed IBIS, a different thing

3 hours ago, Rudolph said:

I was shooting at 1/10 or thereabouts which is where shutter shock is the most notable.

Yeah that's where you're going to see it.

I'm sure I've seen a range of shutterspeeds where the shutter shock is the most obvious / damaging.

But yeah, that would be for mechanical shutters.

On 7/1/2025 at 9:21 PM, DavidS said:

@Cations I quickly grabbed some examples with the lenses you were considering that I've personally either owned or rented for aurora (Sigma 14/1.4, Sigma 15/1.4 Fisheye, Sigma 20/1.4, Sony 14/1.8 GM and Sony 24/1.4 GM). If I only had one available it would still be the 14/1.8 GM for mix of IQ and size.

Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCk8Wn

I was just reviewing these photos again and thinking about lenses

That Sigma 20mm looks amazing. I can't really detect any distortions in it, which is what my eye tends to prefer. I get distracted by things that don't look "normal".

In a previous post you mentioned that you were tending to prefer shooting the 20mm Sony right now. Is 20mm like a sweet spot where significant distortions start to appear when you drop down to 18mm?

I finally picked up the Sony 16-35mm 2.8 GM and the Sony 24mm 1.4 both from a guy who tests gear then sells it. Both essentially were taken out of the box used for the tests and then boxed back up until he sold them to me. So I got them for about half original price (about a hundred dollars higher than half off, but really the only way I could afford them). So I'll finally be able to evaluate the 16-24mm range to see if I like it or not for my eyes shooting what I want to shoot.

Also FYI @JessicaF I've finished my abstract and grant applications so now it's install Linux, run nnUnet, make the YouTube channel and post some private links for you guys here and I'll find a way to upload some of my photos and get them to you. I know I'm going slow but I'm making progress.

I want to ask our Russian friend about running my own security cameras (via DIY DVR) but that's after all the above.

Question - I've got up to 4 cameras I can use to shoot during auroras now. I was thinking if it might be possible to use up to three of the cameras to take simultaneous photos to make a really wide timelapse of the sky if they are stitched together later.

Could this work?

How would I setup the cameras to get the same height but different shot composition? Would it be with a tripod with a bar and two mounts on it? I guess I would need identical tripod heads too. If so that could work for two cameras, but what about the third? Maybe center and the two ends might work. I guess cheap heads would be the best.

I'm concerned about the composition because I'm not a landscape photographer and I've heard about paralex points and nodal rails but I'm not sure how to deal with any of that, just aware that it's tricky.

Then there's more. What about synchronization? I guess I would have to build a custom intervelometer which isn't quite as tricky as it sounds but also can't be ordered from Amazon because I would have to control all three cameras with it to get identical start times for synchronization. It would have to have three ports and three cables (I can't y use USB-C for this I guess, but it should be available on all cameras).

I guess I'm sounding things out here, but I think I'll need a way to figure out the paralex problem before I build the intervelometer.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to shoot three (even two) cameras at the same time to stitch them all together without paralex issues?

Another question

What would the a1 II get me that my a7iv's would not for auroras? I find myself wishing for just a little bit more from my a7iv's

Yes its got more mp and (much, much) better video and the AI chip. Maybe the staked sensor would be an advantage (I'm not up to speed on what the staked sensor will do)? Maybe something else?

But is the A1 ii sensor more sensitive than the a7iv? I think not because the a7iv has bigger pixels.

Same with the a7s iii, it has significantly bigger pixels to let in more light per Pixel and that's why it's the "sensitive" Sony camera and some have suggested that it is the last in the Sensitive Sony camera line because getting any more mp means smaller pixels and that's going to degrade the sensitivity of each Pixel. Maybe the new triple stacked sensor Sony sensor will get us more mp with the same a7siii sensitivity.

I've seen comparisons of the a7siii and the a7iv and the video seemed to indicate that the a7iv was slightly better than the a7siii (for ASTRO but didn't compare for auroras). So I think the extra mp may help, but I don't know if it's a losing game or winning game going from the a7iv to the a1 ii because I haven't seen that comparison.

Thank you all for your help. I know I must be asking very simplistic questions, but I am sincerely grateful for the help.

Let's all hope that we get at least one more G4 to G5 storm this calendar year. (selfishly I really hope it comes during Columbus day week, but I will love it whenever it comes to us)

On 9/6/2025 at 7:42 PM, Samrau said:

Yes, I noticed that. My new TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Diagonal Fisheye Lens prefers F8. But F5.8 is acceptable to me.

Anti-fog protection - of course! I have a fan and a USB heater

A fan is not as effective as a heater. With a heater, you don't have to worry about morning dew.

I thought I was the only one who used fans, that's cool! For preventing light fogging they are great for me.

You're right though, when there is a lot of dew (especially when it's extremely humid and the temp is close to the dew point for long periods of time) the fan gets less useful to near uselessness. The worst is when the dew condenses and then it frosts. My lens heaters (MSM) could not quite prevent the frost from the very center of the lens. The MSM heaters are really thin strips, 1&5/8" total width but the heating strip itself only 7/8" wide.

Your lens heater looks nice and really wide, like maybe 2.5 inches wide. What brand is it?

I got the MSM ones because all the ones on Amazon looked cheap and some (more than one brand) had reviews (with pictures!!!) that showed where the heater melted their lenses and/or caught fire and destroyed lenses (again, with pics of the damage). I didn't see anything like that for the MSM heaters and their cable coatings are made from plastic that is supposed to remain flexible at low temperatures. They worked pretty well the last time, so they aren't terrible.

Today I discovered another interesting thing for myself. When I was photographing the Northern Lights, I put a tripod with a camera on the hood. I did this in order to raise the diagonal fish-eye lens higher, to capture more of the sky. It was 3 degrees below zero outside, as you can see, my car was completely covered with frost, the second camera that was on the hood with a table tripod was also completely covered with frost. But the top camera without a heater made me more than 500 frames and there was not even a hint of frost. 😉 Purchase 5-meter-high tripods 😄

@Cations I bought an noname heater on Aliexpress

37 minutes ago, Samrau said:

Heute habe ich noch etwas Interessantes entdeckt. Beim Fotografieren der Nordlichter habe ich ein Stativ mit einer Kamera auf die Motorhaube gestellt. So konnte ich das diagonale Fischaugenobjektiv höher platzieren und mehr vom Himmel einfangen. Draußen waren es minus 3 Grad, und wie man sehen kann, war mein Auto komplett mit Frost bedeckt. Auch die zweite Kamera, die mit einem Tischstativ auf der Motorhaube stand, war komplett mit Frost bedeckt. Mit der oberen Kamera ohne Heizung habe ich jedoch über 500 Bilder gemacht, und es gab nicht einmal einen Hauch von Frost. 😉 Kauft euch 5 Meter hohe Stative 😄

@KationenIch habe bei Aliexpress eine Noname-Heizung gekauft

You poor one, here it had 8 degrees and I was frozen after one hour. 🙈

1 hour ago, Samrau said:

Today I discovered another interesting thing for myself. When I was photographing the Northern Lights, I put a tripod with a camera on the hood. I did this in order to raise the diagonal fish-eye lens higher, to capture more of the sky. It was 3 degrees below zero outside, as you can see, my car was completely covered with frost, the second camera that was on the hood with a table tripod was also completely covered with frost. But the top camera without a heater made me more than 500 frames and there was not even a hint of frost. 😉 Purchase 5-meter-high tripods 😄

@Cations I bought an noname heater on Aliexpress

Might be quite a sight to see! Presumably you remove the tripod duirig high speed travels @Samrau ?

57 minutes ago, Luise said:

You poor one, here it had 8 degrees and I was frozen after one hour. 🙈

I always have warm shoes and clothes in my trunk 😄

2 hours ago, Samrau said:

Today I discovered another interesting thing for myself. When I was photographing the Northern Lights, I put a tripod with a camera on the hood. I did this in order to raise the diagonal fish-eye lens higher, to capture more of the sky. It was 3 degrees below zero outside, as you can see, my car was completely covered with frost, the second camera that was on the hood with a table tripod was also completely covered with frost. But the top camera without a heater made me more than 500 frames and there was not even a hint of frost. 😉 Purchase 5-meter-high tripods 😄

What a sight! You made me laugh, Samrau. You indeed are a dedicated chaser. Most people would be afraid to scratch the paint but you just went with it :) I applaud you! VWs will last an eternity. You could also pass for a Google car :) That cold, ice, and frost is something I do not envy. Are you at high elevation at those Ural Mountains?

54 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

What a sight! You made me laugh, Samrau. You indeed are a dedicated chaser. Most people would be afraid to scratch the paint but you just went with it :) I applaud you! VWs will last an eternity. You could also pass for a Google car :) That cold, ice, and frost is something I do not envy. Are you at high elevation at those Ural Mountains? :) That cold, ice, and frost is something I do not envy. Are you at high elevation at those Ural Mountains?

😁No, I wasn't far from home. The Ural Mountains are 80 kilometers away, and the nearest mountain I could climb by car is even further – 200 km. Besides, I have to go to work. By the way, I use this VW for off-roading. I have a second car, a station wagon, and I mostly drive it to work.

Don't forget, I'm sitting in the car and controlling the camera with my smartphone. Also, the car has a Webasto heater, so I don't start the engine to prevent it from shaking the camera.

Everything is thought out to the smallest detail, I just forgot to take coffee with me today.

Edited September 30Sep 30 by Samrau

@Cations @bluedemon25

https://www.ttartisan.com/?full-frame-lenses/62.html

Canon RP, TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Fisheye Lens. Top photo: 3200/20s/F2.8. Bottom photo: 3200/6s/F2.8

Photos without processing. I just converted the RAW to JPG