| Is astrophotography a science, art or both? | |
|---|---|
| Astrophotography is a science | |
| Astrophotography is an art | |
| Astrophotography is both a science and an art | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
5.96
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
A bit of philosophical question but something I've always thought is an interesting topic. My position is that astrophotography is both a science and art. There is a lot of science and tech underpinning telescopes, cameras, tracking mounts, autofocusing, guiding, plate solving and the post processing software used to register and stack images, noise reduction and image sharpening, colour calibration.... Etc There is also a lot of knowledge and expertise that goes into correctly setting up the equipment in an appropriate location and using the software and hardware to produce images of celestial objects in focus and with sufficient detail, artefact free and appropriate dynamic range (neither under or over exposed). But there is quite a bit of scope for interpretation over how to we present an object in the night sky. We can affect FOV/framing, colour pallete, choose to image in broadband or narrowband, we can adjust contrast, colour saturation/hue... All of which affect the final presentation of the object in question. What does everyone think? Clear skies 🔭✨📸 |
4.82
#...
·
·
16
likes
|
|---|
|
The end result itself is undeniably art, we play fast and loose with very flawed data, purposefully overexaggerating certain aspects and downplaying others for an aesthetically pleasing result. If you had a ridiculously huge 5ft astrograph and shoot from a dark site, high up in the mountains, then perhaps the data would be valid scientifically for astrometry. But the data we produce from our light-polluted, seeing limited backyards, with our 2-14" inch optics is hardy valid for scientific purposes. Sure, there is a lot, and i mean A LOT of technical know-how involved in aquisition and processing of the data, but that doesn't make it science, just like driving a car doesn't make you an engineer. |
1.43
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Probably both and more. Let's compare it to "normal" photography - you can take pretty pictures of people's faces, and apply some filters to them and put on instagram. You can also make beautiful portrait photos and display them in art gallery. You can also take photos of faces needed for all kinds of documents. Subject is the same - human face - yet so many different approaches and needs. I think it's the same with astrophotograpy - we just have peculiar targets and special equipment needs, but it all comes down to gathering and saving some information, and it's up to you and your specific needs to treat this information in one way or another. Possibilities are endless. |
11.14
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
None of the above. As I have mentioned in an entirely different thread, astrophotography has more in common with the trade of product photography and astrophotographers may not differ a lot from the shop owner in the corner of the street who is specialized in passport photos. Some science is involved, some technical requirements must be met, and some creative freedom in post-processing is allowed. The best I can suggest is that astrophotography belongs to the realm of applied photography. One series of artworks which involves astrophotography is the work of the German photographer Thomas Ruff, Sterne (Stars). Ruff studied photography with Bernd and Hilla Becher at the Düsseldorf Art Academy. If Ruff was brave enough to present his work in an astrophotography forum, he would probably be stoned to death by the forum members. So, for all of the above, none of the above. |
8.42
#...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
|
It's observing nature, and documenting that observation. As such, I'd compare it to bird photography or weather photography. Is it science? Maybe a little bit. Occasionally there is a discovery by an amateur astrophotographer, like a new faint planetary nebula, a transient event (nova/supernova) or some observation of "weather" on our sun or planetary neighbours. There's so much professional data out there that the amateur AP has perhaps limited value, but still all of us together are keeping an eye on large swathes of the sky and the solar system almost 24/7 (the professionals still have gaps in their coverage) and an observation of "no change" is still an observation. Is it art? Looking at the modern art museum nearby, seems like anything can be art if the artist wants it to be. But does an astrophoto of a group of sunspots carry a message? Does it have meaning? Is it trying to move the viewer emotionally? My 2 cents is I don't think most AP does any of this, and the art argument is an excuse for overprocessing. But that's me, and the only thing I know about (visual) arts in general is I dislike most of it. Ultimately it's in the eye of the beholder. |
 #...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
It's both art and science but varying by the needs and expectations of the audience one is intending to communicate with visually. Here is a YouTube video posted by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), which manages Hubble and Webb, including image processing intended for public outreach. This talk is titled, "The Art & Science of Webb Imagery" https://youtu.be/dJX0RAyuqos And here's another video posted by them showing (greatly accelerated) all the steps and software used, which include the use of tools in artistic ways vs. pure scientific formalism (e.g., quite a lot of fiddling of Photoshop until something looks good). "Creating a Hubble Galaxy in Two Minutes" https://youtu.be/p5c1XoL1KFs When I started this hobby, this book provided a great introduction to appreciating the professional community norms of the visual language of astrophotography...not that such norms can't be broken as one may wish, but there is value in knowing what they are. (I strongly recommend the hardcover vs. the ebook editions; it's glorious to hold and behold.) Coloring the Universe: An Insider's Look at Making Spectacular Images of Space by Travis Rector, Kimberly Arcand, Megan Watzke University of Alaska Press ISBN-13 978-1602232730 |
|
5.96
#...
·
|
|---|
Jim Lindelien: *** Thanks Jim. I was wondering about how the Hubble and Webb photos are processed. They may be billion dollar space telescopes but the data still has to be presented in a manner that is visually appealing (At least in terms of images that are published in the public domain). ill defo follow up on the links and book recommendation. Thanks so much for the super information! *** |
|
5.96
#...
·
|
|---|
Jim Lindelien: *** Thanks Jim. I was wondering about how the Hubble and Webb photos are processed. They may be billion dollar space telescopes but the data still has to be presented in a manner that is visually appealing (At least in terms of images that are published in the public domain). ill defo follow up on the links and book recommendation. Thanks so much for the super information! *** Probably both and more. *** Excellent points! coming from a science and engineering background I'm always interested in science meets art question when it comes to astrophotography.... and nowadays you only have to click on an article on Facebook or Youtube and it's flooded with comments claiming that the images are CGI and/or have been in some way doctored but as you rightly point out, even terrestrial photographs can be presented in a number of different ways, with different filters and post processing techniques. *** |
0.00
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I don't see my version of astrophotography as science or art. For me AP is just a hobby. One I enjoy immensely. Joe |
1.91
#...
·
|
|---|
| Maybe narrow band is more art than RGB or OSC images. |
2.41
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
The data can be used for either art or science, assuming permissive quality. I could even use my current setup (a small frac and a modest EQ6 mount) to confirm exoplanet transits. That same data could also be stacked into a pleasing photo, but once a non-linear stretch is applied it loses most useful scientific fidelity. Is a piece of wood part of a door frame or a photo frame? It depends on what you do to it |
6.06
#...
·
|
|---|
Benny Colyn: ^^^^ This. I am neither an artist or a scientist. I am an observer and this is a hobby. I may learn the best I can about the subjects that interest me but thats as far as it goes. |
19.68
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
Astrophotography is a tool of science if it is used for scientific purposes (e.g., testing a hypothesis, discovering an uncataloged object). It is also a medium for art if the intention is to create an artistic interpretation. Astrophotography can also bet a hobby, a wonderful pastime that is a rewarding connection to the cosmos. Here at Astrobin, most of us are hobby astrophotographers, some of us are endeavoring to make art (e.g., Fine Art Astrophotography Group), and a few are doing science (e.g., Marcel Drechsler identifying uncataloged PN). CS, Gary Lopez |
7.12
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
It is not science to me. I don't study the properties and results of my images to derive scientific conclusions. That being said it brings me closer to the science. I see celestial objects in ways I have no hope of seeing any other way, and it drives me to find out more about the science that could explain the appearance and existence of those objects in ways I would not have otherwise. We aren't traveling to space to get better views of these objects in our lifetimes. Might as well let our cameras/ scopes do the travelling for us and use them to do the sight seeing. |
|
5.96
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Ashraf AbuSara: *** Very nicely said 🙂*** |
8.77
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Science is the pursuit of truth and fact regarding the material universe--time, space, matter and energy. Art is the pursuit of beauty that whispers, cajoles and shouts to us that we live in a multi-dimensional lawful cosmos. Religion is about values, ethics and how we keep trying to learn to live with one another. Astrophotography, like so many human pursuits, has some connection, however remote, to the fear of death. We want to feel we are a part of something far greater than ourselves, which is why we have children, do science, make art, build governments and businesses. It's even why the sociopathic among us make wars. We know the universe has been here billions of years before us and will be here billions of years after we are gone. We crave meaning, purpose and activities that give us pleasure and a sense of connection to life, nature and others. Neither the die-hard atheist/materialist nor the most devoted spiritual seeker have a clue as to what happens after we die--a profound mystery that is always in the back, or forefront, of our minds and has been plaguing and preoccupying humankind for eons. As long as humans exist, there will be science, art and religion, and philosophy isn't far behind attempting to find the unity behind these apparently disparate activities. |
 #...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I ticked the Art box in the survey. A few here have stated succinctly mostly my point of view. But I will add that for it to be a science, a scientific process must be applied to the effort. Some here on AstroBin have presented science. The cataloging of new objects (i.e. discovery) is an activity recognized as science. As were those who did field work in assembling collections of animals, insects and plants, etc. That work may not have required a deep implementation of the Scientific Method, but the goal was to create systematics that could lead to further areas of understanding and deeper works. A modern example is the seeking of, and collection of spectral data of type Ia supernova throughout the universe. Its activity was to discover these objects, examine them in detail, for sure. But the collection alone was not the goal. It was to get their redshifts and intrinsic brightnesses so that the Hubble constant could be refined. Thereby discovering the acceleration of the universe's expansion. (And whether that holds up is to be seen as new data roll in. See below on the requirements for science through a robust scientific method.) Using the same tools that scientist may use means nothing if a scientific method is not applied. I.e. hypothesis (a model of what is thought to be happening. A question, of sorts), predictions (under some stress situation), experimentation (i.e. apply a stress, or observing locations where that stress is occurring), and comparing the experimental results to the prediction. Finally, there must be a reexamination of the hypothesis in light of the new data and an altering the hypothesis toward a better understanding through a continuing application of the scientific method. Again, using the same tools as what scientists use does not make one a scientist. In fact the lovely images that Hubble and now Webb have and are producing are art, plain and simple. The stated purpose of the images produced and published by the institute, under the efforts of the artists who do the work, is for public consumption and public relations. They are wonderful public relations posters. In fact many of the data used to produce the works, do come from science projects, as collateral benefits. But I can bet that the scientists use of the data has more to do with spectroscopy, elemental analysis and other less photogenic issues. Please look up some of the publications, the real science publications, and see how the data is used and presented. I am sure the scientists love to assemble in front of the great art work that their data captures led to. Yes they ooh and aww over the photos like us. But that is not what is buttering their bread. It would be good for the public to be aware of these facts. I fear that too many in the general public and also some here on Astrobin believe that the goal of these observatories is not those photos. It is to support the many scientists who use the platforms to test their hypotheses. In some respects, I believe the Institute kind of promoted Hubble in a way that failed to educate the masses as to what fraction of work is "just science". Now with Webb data coming in, the Institute is clearly trying to shift the narrative toward the scientific questions, and the less spectacular imaging results. Astrophotographers certainly reap the benefits of the technical developments that the science has brought into the public domain. But most of our telescopes are rather simple photographic lenses, by design, and generally much much cheaper than the super duper fast and long Ziess's and others that professional photographers use routinely. I am sure that artists such as painters, sculpters etc have thought long about the sorts of modern technology that they could apply to their art. It may not be many who want to do so, and may not be as applicable to all art, but using technology to record that which has been recorded many times over does not make science, its still art. I do not think less of Astrophotography if it is not science, as mostly practiced. As art it can be extremely inspiring to those who see it. For young kids and older adults and anyone in between. If it inspires just a few to go into the sciences because of our art, then that is wonderful. For those who believe that it is science, in any part, I would have to ask the following: When if ever did you formulate a hypothesis prior to choosing a target? If one is a cataloguer, has the target ever been seen and documented prior to your effort? What test did you apply to the course of imaging the target? (And was the test sufficiently and appropriately quantified and controlled to be repeatable and believable?) Did you follow up on that target when you rejiggered your hypothesis after the first results required a need to rethink the first hypothesis? Science is hard... And mostly not for technical reasons. |
0.00
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
It depends. I mostly shoot well known targets which have been imaged countless times with much more serious gear so I know my work has no scientific value. What I can do is get as much detail as I can with my gear and seeing conditions then process the data to make it as aesthetically pleasing as I am able to. This kind of astrophotography won't produce scientific papers but has the power to inspire people into learning more about astronomy. What I do is definitely more art than science. Then there are amateur astrophotographers who hunt for nebulae and measure emission spectra etc. These citizen scientist are making discoveries which are of genuine scientific value. |
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Andy Vo: *yes! I have also seen examples of data some here have shown measuring the periodicity of variable stars and planetary transits. They show the occasional example, but I know they are likely recording much more data. And there is a repository for such data. Certain criteria need to be met. Citizen astronomers have contributed group data and solo discoveries. And I believe that more can be done to fill in the cracks that the relatively few pros just can't cover. |
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
I did not vote. It could be neither, it's a hobby |
|
11.14
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Art is hard... And mostly not for technical reasons. Using the fruits of technological evolution doesn't make everyone an artist. David Hockney employs an iPad (how many Physics Nobel Prizes are contained in a tablet?) as a medium to convey his artistic messages. If I use the same tablet that doesn't make me a painter. In the end of the day, the tools used by an artist are not important. They serve the purpose of implementing what he envisions and nothing more. No one remembers the brand of the paintbrushes Henri Matisse routinely used. We first recognize an artwork of Matisse for being a thought-product of Matisse. The means serve the message. The means aren't the message. But us, the astrophotographers recognize the creator of an image by the lens and software used (Samyang cat's-eye stars, PixInsight HDRTransform inside-out Orion Nebula). We recognize a Samyang work and not a Die Launische Diva work. What we are doing is important especially if it relieves our souls from the calamities of our daily lives. I understand that because astrophotography is a demanding hobby, it is tempting to attribute to ourselves the noble title of a scientist and/or an artist. I, am extremely biased, and my knowledge in history of arts and photography is rudimentary. That's why I would like to hear the opinion of an external observer, an artist not related to astrophotography. |
1.51
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
Astrophotography can be done for science (E.g. searching for new objects). Some say its losing its scientific value as soon as we apply a non linear stretch, which is not necessarily true. Now regarding "art" this can easily become a disagreeing about semantics. There is the term "fine-art photography", which means using photography for creative expression. Then there is representational photography, such as photojournalism. There its the intend to represent objective reality rather than expressing your subjective interpretation of that reality. Astrophotography can be anywhere between those. Now if we just say photography is art, then we can throw our hands in the air and everyone who is doing a photo with his smartphone is doing art. But wait, now someone says "thats not what i mean by photography" and the discussion goes on... Also i want to point out that using astrophotography as an art form doesnt necessarily mean paintbrushing and AI enhancing the image into oblivion. The postprocessing itself could still be done in a rigorous way, but for example the framing, exposure time, choice of filter can be used for artistic expression. It still could be a an image with scientific value. |
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Die Launische Diva: So very well stated. For those who believe that art cannot be good unless done by someone so trained, or recognized, I disagree. A child working with fingerpaints is doing art. Real art. It may look so similar to a Pollock, but not fetch the $. For those who wish to substitute the word art for hobby, I think that is an avoidance. A hobby is something someone does in their leisure that gives them reward and pleasure. It connotes a bit of a more personal pastime. And can be all true. But the word "hobby" is a qualifier term. A hobby must be something. It can be art. It can be working on cars (some of which turn out to be very much art!). It can be writing, gardening, modeling, volunteering, teaching, whatever. It can also be doing science! My statement above may have seemed a bit harsh. But as a scientist, I know that the activity of science is intended to be an objective activity. Harshly objective. Failure required! Hence my wanting to establish clarity for those who seem so unsure of that. Its goal is further understanding through the discovery of facts. It can and has been colored by everything that is good and bad about human nature. It is a human endeavor after all. That art is or can be a means to discover truths of another kind also seems evident. Its process is not necessarily rigorous by today's science standards. Astrophotography, however used, can be very fulfilling, making it a wonderful hobby, or pastime. And AstoBin is a wonderful resource of feedback and information toward those ends. We here should certainly be aware that many who practice this sort of thing do not post on AstroBin. Maybe some only showing works to family and friends. Some, maybe not even that. In that case, it may be one of the purest forms of hobby that can be had. I would be curious to know what fraction of astrophotographers do not post their work publicly, but do so only for personal discovery and fulfillment. |
|
11.14
#...
·
|
|---|
Alan Brunelle:Die Launische Diva: Thank you for your comment. Maybe I was also harsh and provocative. As both a scientist and a photographer I am trying to find where in the broad spectrum of photography astrophotography shines. So far my belief is that astrophotography has less in common with what we consider "art photography". Regarding children's art, I assume you had in mind the quote "Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up" attributed to Pablo Picasso. Thanks to the Youtube channel Kurzgesagt and their video on beauty, there is at least a research paper (not my field of study) stating that untrained viewers can discern abstract expressionist art from children's paintings. BTW, here are all the sources Kurzgesagt have used for their video. |
|
8.77
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
Die Launische Diva: Hi, I am a professional composer and music producer. I was lucky enough in my early 50s to be able to retire from soundtrack work and focus on album production and music composition that did not have to make compromises with the commercial world and for that I am very grateful. Speaking for myself, the urge to give artistic expression can be motivated by the most narcissistic and immature impulses for attention and recognition, it can also be motivated by a sublime desire to give expression to aspects of reality, both inner and outer reality, that are generally ignored in highly materialistic capitalist societies. Or anything in between. Like all human motivations, there is no one answer, most of us have multiple motivations for doing what we do. We say musicians play music--we don't say musicians work music. This is because the element of play is crucial to all artistic activity, the artist plays with ideas, with sound, or image, or words or paint--and it's through the element of play that we discover new ideas and ways of organizing artistic works. Mature artistic activity is the blending and synthesis of play and work, of knowledge and imagination, of technique and spontaneity. Artistic expression is the about the need to explore the beautiful; and beauty can be found in nature, in people and relationships, in joy, sadness, even in grief and sorrow. It depends upon how we look at life. I didn't take up astrophotography under any pretense that I am a scientist. I place as much value on subjective experience as I do on the objective world of fact and evidence. By this I mean the inner lives of human beings interest me as much as the physical world, if not more so. I took up astrophotography because deep space objects elicit such awe, beauty, mystery and profundity that trying to get good photos of them has been something I've wanted to do for a very long time. I guess you could say it's been #1 on my bucket list. Unlike music, where I can go into my studio and create anytime I want to (which is pretty much every day) astrophotography has far more uncertainties. It's highly weather-dependent and no matter what level of skill, devotion and equipment we bring to this pursuit, the weather and sky conditions are always a dominant factor. That's been the most difficult aspect of learning astrophotography for me because no matter my level of enthusiasm, the sky really is the limit. I think there is an art to science and a science to art. Because we are all human beings, we bring an inevitable subjectivity to every pursuit, and because we have reason, logic, curiosity and intelligence, we also want to understand things as objectively as we can. So, maybe the artist and the scientist are not really that different, but use different tools, techniques and approaches to understand reality and the multiple levels that reality encompasses, including time, space, matter, energy and consciousness. Probably consciousness is the most mysterious of all because we are inside it and it is inside of us; we know we have it, but nobody really knows how it arises, where it comes from and why it exists. Watch! Astrophotographic Music Videos |
