Nightscapes and Digital Manipulation
Landscape astrophotography has become increasingly popular, but with it has come a contentious issue among photographers: the use of composites. In its simplest form, a composite is a collage of photographs that includes part of the starry sky. Through skillful processing, the photographer can create an image that appears to capture what they saw in the night sky. However, at its most extreme, composites can include unnatural phenomena and misrepresentations of celestial objects, resulting in distorted or false depictions of reality.
Critics of composites often refer to them as "fake" or "photocopies," while their creators defend them as digital or fine art or simply as composites and collages. While composites can produce stunningly beautiful images, particularly in the aesthetic realm, some question whether they can truly be considered astrophotography. The same debate exists across all genres of photography, as the search for digital deception continues. Major international competitions such as Nikon, Wildlife Photographer of the Year, and Astronomy Picture of the Day have even canceled results when they discovered that the winning photographs were composites or had been processed beyond what the regulations allowed.
While composites may not be everyone's cup of tea, they undoubtedly offer a unique form of creative expression. However, it is important for photographers to be transparent about their methods and acknowledge when they have manipulated an image beyond what is acceptable in their particular field. As with any art form, honesty and integrity are essential to maintain the credibility of landscape astrophotography and other genres alike.
The winning photo of Yu Wei that was withdrawn from a Nikon photo contest
The issue of composites in landscape astrophotography is complex, with various factors contributing to the prevalence of such images. One of the main drivers is the pressure to create visually stunning images that will garner attention on social media. This demand for the "wow" factor can lead photographers to push the boundaries of reality and create composites that lack realism. Additionally, the landscape astrophotography community attracts two distinct groups of creators: amateur astronomers who come from a background in widefield astrophotography and amateur or professional photographers who occasionally dabble in astrophotography. While the former group tends to be more meticulous and accurate in their approach to composition, the latter may lack knowledge and experience with astronomy and night photography, leading to the misuse of editing tools like Photoshop.
Online photography groups and hubs are filled with a wide range of images, including composites that combine sunsets with the galactic path or night landscapes that appear to have been taken in the southern hemisphere but are actually from the north. The consistency and popularity of these images can create a feedback loop, with photographers feeling pressure to create ever more extravagant images to stand out in a crowded field. This can perpetuate misinformation about what astrophotography should look like and the techniques required to produce it.
It is important for aspiring photographers to recognize the role they play in this dynamic and set their own limits on what is acceptable in their work. By maintaining a commitment to accuracy and transparency, photographers can help to ensure that the images they produce are not only visually stunning but also contribute to the collective consciousness and imagination in a positive way. Ultimately, the relationship between a photographer and their audience is a two-way street, and it is up to both parties to work together to foster a deeper understanding and appreciation of the art of astrophotography.
Before photoshop. Fairies dance around a portrait of a girl, The Strand magazine 1920. It took almost 30 years for the photo to prove to be "fake".
The conclusion drawn above confronts us with a challenge that has plagued many photographic genres throughout the evolution of photographic art, that is, the camera's ability to accurately capture the reality of the world around us. Photography gained widespread popularity from its inception, as its raw material is always the real world, unlike other visual media. However, apart from its documentary character, the medium also explored its ability to express the artist's point of view, its aesthetics, and its inner world. The photograph as a testimony has been susceptible to manipulation from an early age. Various photographs were manipulated either as pranks or propaganda tools to deceive or convince the public that the facts they described were absolute, even fooling scientists. In the field of art, photography has gone through different movements such as pictorialism, naturalism, dandyism, and "pure" photography, expanding the artist's ability to express themselves while proving that each person captures the meaning of reality differently. Two worlds seem to collide, don't they?
Composition of three different photos for the portrait of Ulysses S. Grant, a statue of the North and the 18th President of America.
Indeed, the issue of trust in photography is a complex one, particularly in the age of digital imaging where manipulation can easily occur. In the case of astrophotography, where images of the night sky are captured with the latest camera technology and narrowband imaging, the line between what is real and what is not can become blurred. This presents a challenge for both the viewer and the photographer. There are many talented photographers who strive to capture the beauty and wonder of the night sky as it appears in reality, without resorting to excessive processing or compositing.
At the same time, it's also important to acknowledge that astrophotography as a genre does lend itself to creative expression and interpretation. The vastness and complexity of the cosmos can be difficult to capture in a single image, and photographers may choose to emphasize certain aspects of the scene or add elements to create a more compelling composition.
Wow! What the fuck?
The problem becomes even deeper as astrophotography has many technical peculiarities that differentiate the result produced. Where can the concept of the natural or the real be introduced in the said genre that already from the initial click the result differs significantly from what can our own eyes see? One can rightly claim that astrophotography is a world beyond the natural world that we can perceive, a dreamy if not a fairytale place. Photos of our galaxy taken from light-polluted places show us a very different galaxy taken from a dark sky. As if all this were not enough, think of the modded cameras for astrophotography which introduce another additional element that although it has scientific value, as it emphasizes the areas rich in hydrogen, produces an even more different look from the usual image of the night sky. The use of light pollution filters, trackers, techniques such as multiple shots for stacking, and the combination of these although they are intended to overcome technical limitations of the camera or the environment also produces different kinds of images. All that before we even start the processing that is supposed to be the root of the unreal evil look. It seems to me that we can not have a clear position on the concept of realism when shooting, but clearly, we can agree that an image is not astrophotography when the laws of nature are not followed, whether concerning its equipment and capabilities or natural phenomena. After all, this is the way in which most digital compositions are exposed. But why are more and more people resorting to them?
It is not unreasonable to say that landscape astrophotography is one of the most difficult types of photography as it tests both the photographer and the limits of his equipment. Endless hours at night, exposed to the weather, with a lot of equipment, thorough planning, scouting during the day to find the perfect composition, polar alignment in the case of the tracker, multiple shots, and applications of techniques and all provided that the weather conditions work with him. We do not need anything more to understand why many people resort to compositions. The reason why he resorts to unrealistic performances of the sky, apart from what we mentioned in our introduction to social media, we must admit that the main reason is ignorance and the secondary reason is the service of the artistic vision. Let's see if the analysis of the individual editing or downloading modes could further shed light on the issue.
The "clean". Although few, probably the most fanatical, deny any use of editing software, they usually shoot in jpeg, single shots. The use of analog film cameras is not missing from the category. Although the jpeg format is the default Photoshop of every camera company they do not seem to realize it.
Multi-shot blend for stacking, focus stacking, exposure blending, and tracking in order to overcome light pollution or equipment limitations.
Blend/composite of different hours or seasons in the same frame. Also, mix lenses on the same subject.
Composite completely different photos from each other.
Most astrophotographers from astronomical communities are usually found in the first and second categories. This does not mean that they do not apply the rest. The difference is that their compositions are not irrational. They know a lot about the sky and their shots are almost always nocturnal, following the laws of nature while remaining faithful to their recording but often lacking in aesthetics. On the other hand, those who through the compositions depict the sky as it suits them, either on the occasion of aesthetics or out of ignorance, fail to give an image of it that follows basic natural rules. The question emerges by itself. How can we bring the two ends together?
The former suffers in rendering the landscape. They are more interested in the celestial body they depict than in the landscape, which becomes the weak link in the composition. The logic behind this is that since their single shot does not give special details to the landscape it is a more "natural" recording. We do not need to analyze in particular that their reasoning is wrong. From the moment they choose to record the sky in a specific place, they "must" perform just as dynamically as the terrestrial part of their frame. They will definitely need more work but they will have approached the artistic part of landscape astrophotography.
A well-known mosque becomes part of a composition with the galactic path. In fact, the light pollution of the area is the same as in the center of Athens, not allowing the recording of the night sky, let alone its reflection in the water. The photographer never mentioned that it was a composition.
The latter group, whether driven by a desire to stand out or a lack of knowledge, often produces unrealistic depictions of the sky or landscape. While these images may be more aesthetically pleasing, they create a factual discontinuity with our physical world and contribute to the overwhelming amount of digitally manipulated content that we are exposed to. While it is true that art is not simply a dry representation of reality, but rather an interpretation through personal filters, artists cannot use this as an excuse to push their audience away from the reality of the world. The means of production have changed, with the computer often taking precedence over the camera and the resulting product being more of an image than a photo. The argument that Ansel Adams spent endless hours in the darkroom dodging and burning his photographs is not a convincing one, as his photographs were completely natural.
To bridge the gap between the two approaches, those in the first category must focus on improving their landscape rendering skills and aim to create a balance between the sky and the terrestrial part of their frame. They will need to put in more effort, but this will result in a more dynamic and artistically satisfying composition. Meanwhile, those in the second category must strive for realism while also incorporating their personal artistic vision. This can be achieved through a better understanding of the natural laws governing the sky and the landscape, as well as by employing more subtle editing techniques. Ultimately, the goal should be to create images that are both aesthetically pleasing and faithful to the natural world.
“Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.”
Ansel Adams
This does not mean that compositions should cease to exist. On the contrary, it means that creators must be honest and proud of the art of digital composition. The knowledge of the natural laws that govern astrophotography on their part would be more than legitimate and would serve much better both their art and their audience if they recognize that they themselves are co-shapers of our photographic unconscious.
Summing up my thoughts on Composites in landscape astrophotography, I would like to say that in no case have I reached safe conclusions and it continues to concern me every time I click on the camera or the computer mouse. I dare say that it is the responsibility of every photographer to state if the image he offers us is the frame of a moment of the place he visited or if it is the result of his inspiration using the computer.
Whatever the picture, it will either move us or not, but there are many people who are motivated to visit places they first saw in photographs just to experience the frustration that what they saw is almost non-existent. Also, there are many who continue to reproduce images of the sky full of misunderstandings. Every photographer must realize that in addition to being a creator, he also bears the responsibility since he inadvertently or voluntarily educates his audience. The study of the sky and its correct depiction, whether in simple mixing or in composites, must be preferred by every aspiring astrophotographer not only for the sake of plausibility but also for the realization of his photographic object.
It is the knowledge of celestial bodies, their distances, and the material of which they are composed, that satisfies and can convey the inspiration and the need to find dark skies at a time when they are in danger of disappearing, not allowing humans to have the opportunity that every man who walked the earth before them had: to stand in the night with his head held high and try to realize who he is and where he is.
bibliography-references
"HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHIC AESTHETICS 1839-1975" Alkis Xanthakis
THE IMPLICIT LIE Rodney Lough Jr.
Realism and Honesty in Photography by Tim Parkin What Fake Astrophotography Can Teach Us, Mark Hanna
