Re: [APML]: Astrophotography or Astro-Art?

[Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------

Robin,

>Composition is also an important aspect of what makes Ansel's work
>considered to be Art. The dynamics of his compositions have an affect on the
>viewer. Composition and selection are closely related and can be used
>together to make a statement with a photograph.

Interesting that you should bring this up. We cannot change the lighting
or the seasons to make a celestial object look different but we can 
change the focal length of a telescope and how the film is developed. I
have many pictures of the same objects taken through different scopes and
lenses, some with filters, some not. Typically there is one combination
that is far more striking than any of the others. I also find that some
photos look better scanned and some printed. For me, my photo of IC1318
in B&W with the 130EDT is one of the most striking photos I have - but
only as a print. My recent tricolor of IC1318 just doesn't have it - at
least on the monitor. But at the same time I'm pleased with the M31 tricolor
and the Pelican. I have some photos of some objects that don't look good in
any context. I simply consider them unphotogenic.<g>

Although I don't think you can't make the kind of statement that you can with
with traditional photography, you do have some control in how you make your
exposure, how you develop the film and how the object is framed. At least it's
a try at a statement.

Chuck <aa6g@aa6g.org>