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

["Robin Casady" <rcasady@carmelcoast.com>]

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

>>In astrophotography, selection is often a matter of picking an NGC number.
>>It is not quite the same as picking a moment in time, an angle of view,
>>relationship of objects, effect of lighting, and placing borders that
>define
>>the image. Composition in astrophotography is often little more than
>hitting
>>the object. The borders are usually defined by the scope we are using.
>
>I disagree. An astrophotographer does not have the ability to manipulate or
>wait for the lighting or perspective to change on an object, but analogous
>control is exercised by film selection (particularly as it affects spectral
>response), filtering, etc.. Even the act of waiting for the object to be
>high in the sky on a moonless night in good seeing is a choice equivalent to
>waiting for the conditions to be optimum before taking a terrestrial photo.

I was not talking in absolutes. It is not a digital yes or no issue. My
point was that there are more choices to make, hence more ability to use
those decisions for expressive purposes. 

>As for composition, perhaps some just center the object and open the
>shutter, but many astrophotographers do not. I use my own custom FOV
>overlays and small-scale astro charts to select very carefully the framing
>and composition of a shot, selecting not only the camera rotation angle but
>also the focal length to get just the composition I want. (That's why I have
>in addition to telephoto lenses up to 400mm I also have and use astro optics
>of 430mm, 500mm, 600mm, 700mm, 800mm, 1200mm, 2000mm, and 2800mm.)  And it's
>obvious I am not the only one who does this; a lot of others do too.

Because of the distances involved, astrophotography is usually dealing with
the equivalent of a flat scene from a fixed location. In terrestrial
photography we are dealing with a three dimensional world. The location of
the camera can have significant effect on the alignment of objects in the
frame. So, again there is more to work with for expressive purposes. 
The astrophotographer has fewer compositional choices to make.

It is good that many are concerned with composition in astrophotography. It
is something that is rarely mentioned. I hope more people with think about 
the balance, visual movement, 

Photography as art was a controversial topic because many considered it to
be a recording medium with insufficient expressive control. Over time a
number of talented photographers showed that it could be used as an
expressive medium. My personal feeling is that astrophotography has fewer
expressive options than terrestrial photography. So, it is more difficult
to make astrophotos that make a statement. Yes, they can be beautiful, but
so can the recording of a view through a microscope that is done without
any aesthetic intent. To me, Art requires the an expressive component.

Robin Casady
http://www.CarmelCoast.com

Casady & Greene, Inc.
http://www.casadyg.com