Thought I would post this image here, though it is technically a skyscape, not a landscape. I had posted it in the Canon Forum and it was well received there, so thought I would share it here. This is the Rho Ophiuchus complex near galactic center. It's a stack of eight (tracked) 30s exposures at f/2.2 and ISO 3200 on the R5 using the RF 85/1.2 L.
I think that your question is a reasonable one. The answer does not address the quality of the work, just how we categorize it. (I often enjoy and impressed by good astro-photography.)
In my view such a photograph is not landscape photography. Landscape photography itself grows out of the tradition of landscape painting, which has been broadly accepted to be work that focuses on… the landscape: mountains, oceans, forests, fields, rivers, meadows, and the elements of the more or less natural environment of the earth. It also traditionally embodies a perspective on the relationship between humans and the landscape — either by the inclusion of human elements or by their exclusion. (Traditionally, neither people nor other evidence of humans, such as buildings were NOT excluded from landscape art, in fact it used to be expected that the human presence was included for scale or other reasons.)
Astrophotography is not this. In fact, it is “from” the earth, not “of” or “about” the earth and its landscape.
There are always edge cases where the lines are less clear, but that doesn’t change the underlying ways of categorizing things. For example, one could certainly make an environmental portrait of a person in the landscape and then wonder whether it was more of a landscape or more of a portrait. Or produce a stunning photograph of a downhill ski racer against a monumental alpine landscape and suggest that it was something of both. But we are still able to distinguish between portrait, sports, and landscape photography as genres.
There is an analogous situation with astrophotography in the form of landscapes that include the night sky. So a long exposure night photograph o fthe landscape in which star trails are allowed to form would seem to remain a landscape photograph. Or a similar photograph made with a high ISO camera that freezes the stars’ motion against the natural landscape would also seem to be a landscape.
But a photograph that is purely of the heavens seems to be not landscape photography, but astrophotography.
This question may only be such here, where there is no obvious FM forum for astrophotography. If there was an astrophotography forum, I don’t think that the question would even arise.
gdanmitchell wrote:
This question may only be such here, where there is not obvious FM forum for astrophotography. If there was an astrophotography forum, I don’t think that the question would even arise.
HInt. ;-)
ROFL, and yes, this was the unstated purpose of the question!
This one I would definitely consider a landscape. Shot at Crater Lake on the same trip as the one in the first post. I believe this was taken with the Laowa 15/2.0 at f/2.8, and is also a stack of at least eight tracked exposures for the sky, and another eight or so (untracked, of course) for the foreground:
IMO, the short answer is, No. I understand the dilemma of needing to post your image somewhere, but forcing it into a forum where it doesn’t obviously fit, seems like a bad idea. There are plenty of astro forums on which to post your astro images; not sure why FM is the forum of choice. It’s a great image, especially considering it wasn’t done with “traditional” astro gear. Nevertheless, until FM creates an Astro Board, this seems out-of-place.
Same goes for posting on the Canon Board. Following that logic, every image posted on a Presentation Board should, then, be posted on the associated Gear-talk Board. I disagree with the practice of multi-posting one’s images; but that’s probably just me.
jforkner wrote:
IMO, the short answer is, No. I understand the dilemma of needing to post your image somewhere, but forcing it into a forum where it doesn’t obviously fit, seems like a bad idea. There are plenty of astro forums on which to post your astro images; not sure why FM is the forum of choice. It’s a great image, especially considering it wasn’t done with “traditional” astro gear. Nevertheless, until FM creates an Astro Board, this seems out-of-place.
Same goes for posting on the Canon Board. Following that logic, every image posted on a Presentation Board should, then, be posted on the associated Gear-talk Board. I disagree with the practice of multi-posting one’s images; but that’s probably just me.
jforkner wrote:
A wise man once told me. "If you don't think you'll like the answer, don't ask the question." You do what ya gotta do.
Wise indeed.
FWIW, while I expected the answer, I *don't* dislike it. The post was intended, in fact, to generate discussion, and perhaps to provide a small push in support of an astro/night sky forum.
What I disliked about your response was the abrasive tone and the insinuation that even posting it in the Canon forum was somehow a breach of etiquette. If my reaction was also abrasive, I apologize.
This is every bit as much landscape as doggie pics are in "People Photography", which BTW there are many doggie Feature Thread winners in PP.
Personally, the way FM is categorized, I think "Landscape" is the best place for these skyscape/astro pics, which also are Feature Thread winners. Personally I love them! (And as mentioned earlier they are humbling to see).
