Ethics in Landscape Astro Photography

Thanks for this. Fwiw, I’d preface things by saying that I think the whole idea of “judging” astro-photographs (or any other form of art) is wrong. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder - if you like an image, you like it. If you don’t, you don’t. Who is anyone to judge the creative work of another?

Setting that aside, I’d go with the question: is the image something that could be seen by someone in real life? Or is it something completely impossible (like putting Eta Carina above the Matterhorn)? If it’s the latter, then that is not a photograph, it is a fantasy image - which may still be beautiful, and striking, and deliver significant impact. But it is no longer a photograph.

Whereas if its the former, then its not a problem because the image that is being conveyed is realistic - the combination of the foreground and background are something that could be seen and captured by someone in real life standing at that place at that time of year. So then to detract from that image because of the factors you describe is a bit like saying well a painting isn’t a legitimate painting b/c it didn’t use pigments that were made in the same year as each other?

HR_Maurer · Jun 27, 2026, 11:09 AM

However, i think for our passion there is some kind of intrinsic ethics, because of its strong connection to science, which at least in deep sky is at least as present as the artistic component.

Before I address the statement above regarding the common thought about astrophotography having a stong connection to science, I want to address the thread topic. I believe that astrophotography is an art, a sub-genre of all of photography. For most people who participate here and in other ways, often privately, this art is practiced as a means of personal exploration, in technical practice and to see (and for some) to learn more about what is out there in nature. In the technical part, this is no different than any other art. It exists even in finger painting. We certainly get all hyped about the gear, for sure, but it really all boils down to the same fact. As far as what the person who is doing this art feels counts as success, it is and has always been up to that one person. If that person never shows his images to anyone else, then there is little pressure to do something that is technically, or artistically ethical. In the other extreme, if one is trying to impress an audience, or clientele and is attempting to commercialize what it is they produce, then there will be a whole bunch of pressures and constraints. Even in the latter case, I think the ethics issue is still open. And that is because there will always be sub-populations of the audience that will care, and others who won’t. The hypothetical given in the extreme was that just one nice image of the Milky Way could be sufficient to generate an almost endless number of landscape asto images, thus leaving the artist to just travel around and get the best lanscape images to which you just plop the two together and viola! Maybe, take one or a few deep sky images for each season of the year and that can extend your images to all 4 seasons! Even as a person, who would never show my images to another, I would not go there, because what would the fun be doing that!? I might argue that someone into this for the money might be more tempted to do this sort of thing, only because making such images in the most cost-effective way and that would mean the artist could get closer to making this a sustainable endeavor. As an astrophotographer, who understands a bit of how these images are put together (and I have not yet gone the landscape direction), what catches my eye more than the super bright, unrealistic deep sky overlays, are ones that can also portrait some aspect of control in the process and bring me to a place I might actually believe. Yes, I do still appreciate some enhancements, and yes I can never tell what that photographer really saw at that site and at that time. That is probably why the landscape images that attract my eye more than any are ones including a “connected” set of features between the landscape and the deep sky part of the image. For instance, one that include interesting clouds, complex horizons, distant lit features and light domes that reach up to the clouds above and clearly show that at least some of the features are real and believable.

Now to the science issue raised. Mentioned many times here. Often, though more in the past, causing truly upset responses here by some who are told they are not doing science when doing astrophotography. It seems that the evolution of science and the reporting of science by news, and by popular culture, e.g. science fiction novels, books, etc. have put foward the idea that only that which involves space is real science, or the ultimate science, to the masses. As a global culture, we seem to have fallen down that hole fully after WWII and have never stopped. Everything else, chemistry, biology, etc. seems to have been recategorized as technology. So for most of the non-scientific community, if some astrophotographers show a picture they took to a novice and that novice gets excited, the novice often will think that the person taking the photo has done science. And not a few astrophotographers will encourage and adopt such a sense. But think of this objectively! Astrophotographers are recording and presenting the images of objects found in nature. And as such, are never testing any hypotheses. Think a little deeper and you begin to realize that every photographer is recording something that is found in nature. (Here I won’t say that 100%, without exception because I don’t want to spend the time trying to figure out the exceptions.) A person taking a picture underwater of a coral reef is not doing marine biology (even though a marine scientist might take pictures underwater to support their science). Yet few marine photographers confuse this fact. A person taking a landscape photo, say the mountains, are not studying the the geology of plate tectonics. Ansell Adams never considered himself a geologist. A portait photographer, taking the photo of a person, is not doing so because they are interested in human biochemistry, anatomy, dermatology,… and none have ever considered themselves as even amateur biologists. I think that it is time that astrophotographers dispense with the false sense, expectation, or conceit that this art is somehow science or associated with science. I is no different that any other photography genre, with the exception that there is some specialized equipment involved. But that goes for many of the other genres. And yes, other genres want equipment that can be far more expensive and involved from what most here are willing to pay for. Having spent a number of years doing this, the biggest difference between astrophotography and almost all the other genres is a huge disadvantage, and that is our subjects are 99% unmoving, unchanging in shape perspective, etc. There are many more photos of mountains, different mountains in circulation than that off deep sky nebulae. (this maybe a gross assumption on my part!), But inarguably, most of those mountains have been imaged from many more perspectives than any nebula has ever been. On and on. To me, this has a great impact on what this thread is discussing. Yet after much too many words, I have no definitive answer to the topic raised. And maybe that is because there never was a definitive answer.

My ethics on this are entirely personal, imply no judgement of anyone else or other images. But my personal guidelines (which are not written in stone, things change and evolve….):

• Foreground and sky should be the same night. Within reason, if my sky shot say is bad then I have no problem repeating it from the same location and within a reasonable time frame.

• Should be the same focal length.

• Nothing added that was not in the sky or landscape frames

I am not a big time astro landscaper. Although that was how I got into deep space imaging. But the more I do and look at landscape astro photography, the more I want to keep it reasonably simple and fairly “realistic” (a personal thing, I am not even sure what that really means). I guess what I mean is that increasingly I can really admire an amazing milky way shot or pano, but the wild Ha regions popping off, and light painted foregrounds just are starting to lose their appeal. I like to imagine that the image is sort of what I could imagine seeing under super dark skies (like where I live).

Honestly, these days the most gratifying shots are single exposures or a simple well done pano. Maybe a comet shot with a still slightly bright sky and a bit of ground visible. The wild stuff just is starting to become less appealing. But that is me. Kind of like SHO imaging. At first I was thinking “wow” and now I just find myself more attracted to “real” colours. Again, with the caveat that I am well aware that “real” is very subjective and it is all personal taste and not a critique of what others like or do.

NeilM · Jun 28, 2026, 12:06 AM

I teach Astrophotography classes and I promote DarkSky International’s “Principles of Astrophotography.” Their second principle is this:

“Promote honest representation: Be transparent with your audience. Label composite images, clearly describe your editing process, and ensure the night sky aligns naturally with the geographic location of your foreground.”

To me this says it all!

www.darksky.org

Neil

Neil,

I followed the link that you posted and I couldn’t find the principles. I did dig into the areas where rules to their contest(s) were listed. Those seem consistent, but not really what you describe. I am curious if the group has that as a general principle or just the contest rules. It seems a bit arrogant that any organization tied to an art would ever make up and post rules that generally define an astrophoto. I think for anyone who feels a sincere alignment to an organization, group, whatever, if they post such rules for their participants, then that might be a way for someone who is is a bit lost as to what their ethic should be. It at least seems like a reasonable starting point. As much as I have issues with the IOTD regarding its effects on many here, and certainly the early development of an astrophotographer, I think reviewing the rules for that contest is a good place to start for general astrophotography. Regardless, I feel that once the astrophotographer becomes better versed in what they are doing (not even expertise), best that they define their style and ethic on their own. It should be a deliberate conscious effort and separates what a true artist vs someone who ends up being a perpetual follower. I assume that most people operate that way. I should add that I have no disagreement with the rules you printed above, but that is my opinion.

I think I agree with the OP; returning under the same skies to correct technical defects or improving the framing is acceptable. Also translating your tripod a few meters away for an unobstructed view and merge the sky with the foreground is still acceptable. I see it as completing or improving the experience you had at that location.

It is tempting to go to extreme integration times for the sky and then blend an unrealistic sky to the foreground. What I do is to pick a simple landscape+sky shot and process its exposure levels as a single image. I stop when I feel the exposure isn't that unnatural even if the noise level is horrendous. Then I use this as a reference for my stacked, high s/n composite.

We have witnessed composite images going to extreme directions both on the treatment of the sky and the background. Ultra long sky stacks with enhanced Ha and foregrounds lit with artificial sources. I can't consume such images as landscape astrophotography photographs but as purely composite images or collages. Such images were impressive at a first glance but I have already seen a lot. Nowadays I am quickly bored even for some well-crafted images taken under exotic skies. The “art aspect” does not work for me anymore. I am just bored of lighthouses and especially individuals holding lanterns. And lonely trees 😉

If I have to return to the place, I will just abandon the old data and do it all over again. In the post processing, I will only use data taken in the same place, the same hour(ish). The sky condition changes, and therefore lighting changes. Combining sky and landscape under different conditions just doesn’t make sense to me.

Some people like to use extremely deep sky exposures with perfect background gradient removal and put it behind a landscape. (This appears like a perfectly good deep-sky photo but with foreground landscape added to it. I believe you have seen many such photos.) This makes no sense to me. In such shots, the effect of atmosphere is completely gone. What are such shots trying to show? To simulate what astro-landscape would be on a planet that has no atmosphere? This is just not my cup of tea. And therefore, for the same reason, I wouldn’t try to combine sky and landscape from different times. I want to show (approximately, to a reasonable degree) the same lighting and atmosphere for both sky and landscape.

That being said, all the above has nothing to do with ethics. This is just personal taste.

Alan Brunelle · Jun 27, 2026, 05:37 PM

Now to the science issue raised

i didnt say, astro photography is science, and i didnt want to bring op this topic here, because it has already issued elsewhere. I said it is related to science. Because of the methods and technology involved. And for some subjects it’s even the motivation. Take an image from a distant galaxy with an ongoing SN for example. And i think this is also justified, because there are hundreds of images from the same objects displayed the same way. That’s not what i would recognize as purely artistic.

But still, this is off topic.

HR_Maurer · Jun 29, 2026, 07:22 AM

Alan Brunelle · Jun 27, 2026, 05:37 PM

Now to the science issue raised

i didnt say, astro photography is science, and i didnt want to bring op this topic here, because it has already issued elsewhere. I said it is related to science. Because of the methods and technology involved. And for some subjects it’s even the motivation. Take an image from a distant galaxy with an ongoing SN for example. And i think this is also justified, because there are hundreds of images from the same objects displayed the same way. That’s not what i would recognize as purely artistic.

But still, this is off topic.

It was not my intention to be critical of your comment. I actually addressed it in this thread because I think the issue of science in astrophotography is relevant to how and why people practice astrophotography. In any case, I addressed it here because you brought it up. You did not mention any intentions of why you brought it up, but I happen to think you were right to do so. My point is when it comes to the art of astrophotography, I think people should cast off any constraints as to how they do it, what is allowed, etc. and the belief that it is doing science (or as you say related to science) adds to those constraints. In my view, it only adds to the list of constraints/rules under which some people feel the art should be practiced. Again, there is science in absolutely every practice of photography. And I won’t repeat the reasons here again.

What I said in my comment and the paragraph above does not preclude that someone cannot do science with astrophotography. There is a tinge of science (the discovery part) that gets highlighted on AstroBin on a fairly regular basis. New planetary nebula discovered is the typical one. On this topic of landscape astrophotography, I believe it is the genre least likely to present an image for a scientific purpose. I have not seen any landscape images presenting a new discovery of anything, though I love the images of sprites, comets, aurora, etc. This is no different than any other photography actually employed in science. I believe that the two large scientific journals publish an art issue (I know at least one does) for scientists to publish artistically attractive images gathered in the field, in the lab, or are computer generated.

Alan Brunelle · Jun 29, 2026 at 03:25 PM

For me, not so artistically pleasing, but what a stunning way to show me the true scale of size for some of these features! Prior to that, does anyone really have an idea of how large Barnard’s Loop is? That some of the SNR in our sky take up like 30 degrees of the FOV?

Using foreground to judge the size of celestial objects is highly misleading. It’s possible to manipulate the apparent size of foreground objects by changing the combination of distance and focal length, while for celestial objects only focal length matters. You can make a foreground object to appear as small as certain celestial objects by using a telephoto lens and shoot from a large distance, and vice versa.

If you want to get an idea of the size of a celestial object in a picture, all you need is to check the focal length and sensor format (and cropped or not). Comparing it against the foreground is the last thing you should do.

HR_Maurer · Jun 27, 2026, 08:52 AM

Adding more tracked images in a different night is okay for me, but taking it from a different location already feels odd. And the database approach feels completely wrong. But i can not define a strict border, which is more than a tiny step, at which i could say “until here it is absolutely fine, but beyond it is a no-go

I believe the only ethical question here is about representation. If you have collected the data in “different” locations and/or “different” times and/or used compositions and/or used some synthetic data, and clearly said so, there is no problem. The problem starts when some result is declared to be done not in the way it was actually done. That is bamboozling the viewers, and setting fellow amateurs for unreasonable expectations for their own future work.

But I think part of the question is about the definition of “different”. For “different nights” we have a fairly clear time grid to get the consensus on. The night on June 29 is different from the night on June 30.

The “different location” is far broader. What I think most folks add to their sense of “a different location” is the “a location where local conditions changed enough to affect the outcome”, in addition to the regular sense of distance. The different sides of a dark site that is tens of kilometers wide might be considered the same location as long as we do not have the landscape in the frame. On the opposite end, I cannot reasonably claim that shots that I took from my inner backyard (very dark without apartment lights) and outside my street door (lots of street lights) are in the “same location”, even though they are technically only 10m apart.

NeilM · Jun 29, 2026, 09:38 PM

Alan Brunelle · Jun 28, 2026 at 02:14 AM

NeilM · Jun 28, 2026, 12:06 AM

I teach Astrophotography classes and I promote DarkSky International’s “Principles of Astrophotography.” Their second principle is this:

“Promote honest representation: Be transparent with your audience. Label composite images, clearly describe your editing process, and ensure the night sky aligns naturally with the geographic location of your foreground.”

To me this says it all!

www.darksky.org

Neil

Neil,

I followed the link that you posted and I couldn’t find the principles. I did dig into the areas where rules to their contest(s) were listed. Those seem consistent, but not really what you describe. I am curious if the group has that as a general principle or just the contest rules. It seems a bit arrogant that any organization tied to an art would ever make up and post rules that generally define an astrophoto. I think for anyone who feels a sincere alignment to an organization, group, whatever, if they post such rules for their participants, then that might be a way for someone who is is a bit lost as to what their ethic should be. It at least seems like a reasonable starting point. As much as I have issues with the IOTD regarding its effects on many here, and certainly the early development of an astrophotographer, I think reviewing the rules for that contest is a good place to start for general astrophotography. Regardless, I feel that once the astrophotographer becomes better versed in what they are doing (not even expertise), best that they define their style and ethic on their own. It should be a deliberate conscious effort and separates what a true artist vs someone who ends up being a perpetual follower. I assume that most people operate that way. I should add that I have no disagreement with the rules you printed above, but that is my opinion.

Alan

here is the link to the Principles: https://darksky.org/news/darkskys-principles-for-responsible-astrophotography/

I didn’t understand your comment “arrogant that any organization tied to an art would ever make up and post rules that generally define an astrophoto”

DarkSkyInternational is a non-profit that its dedicated to preserving the night sky. It is not a commercial enterprise, if that’s what you were implying.

Neil

Not what I was implying Neil. I actually read through that list and just completely got fixated on most of the other rules listed, some having to do with behavioral practices while present at a dark sky site, and I just missed number two, because it seemed disjointed with the set. Then I went on to the contest pages and it was those rules I conflated with general principles. I think number two is not an extreme statement. That said, I do think that even that gentle statement says something about where we are. I think here, this statement is clearly made in the form of a declaration about what this group is about. We exist for the purpose of promoting… And we follow principles… It is something akin to an oath for the boyscouts or like group. The odd thing about number 2 is that how one does this art has nothing to do with promoting and protecting dark sites. Number 2 is a statement that cuts close to defining what a proper astroimage is. The arrogance comes from how such a group, or individual came to decide that it was their authority to call for such criteria. If this is a club, for profit or not, to belong, must one abide by these standards? Certainly the expections of number 1, 3, 4 that would be expected. A member showing up with flood lights would be, should be, expelled. If a member should publish a photo of the sky that was assembled from different geographic locations without disclosure, would they be expelled or reprimanded? I think on this subject, better to use a statement of guidance from informed practitioners somewhere else on the page.

As far as rigorous rules for the submission of photos to contests, I have no issues at all whatever rules they use there.

NeilM · Jun 30, 2026, 01:26 AM

Alan

it seems that you don’t understand the mission and objectives of DarkSky international, which is fine. However, seeing as you have already invested some considerable time in debating one of their principles, let me try and help.

The mission of DarkSky International⁠ is:

“To restore the nighttime environment and protect communities and wildlife from light pollution.”

and their vision is:

“Natural darkness at night is protected worldwide as essential for people and nature.”

Everything they promote is in fulfillment of this mission and vision, including their “Principles of responsible astrophotography. “ They attempt to accomplish their mission through education, awareness, advocacy, policy, conservation and research.

Principle #2 absolutely aligns with their mission. If someone were to blend a background Milky Way image taken in the Black Rock Desert and combine it with foreground image in Los Angeles, and not promote this honestly, that could lead to poor outcomes depending on how the photo was used. (There are many appropriate analogies about misrepresentation of photographs with regards to climate change - but I digress and that is a topic for a different forum)

I promote DeepSky International principles in my classes because I personally care about Natural Darkness.

The OP asked for opinions about “ethics in landscape astrophotography,” and I gave mine.

I appreciate the OP for starting the discussion on this topic!

Neil

I agree with the principles and their intent to protect the dark skies and natural areas. But I don’t agree with anything you just stated about the potential damage or the stretch to create relevance. Your example,… are you kidding me? Your example is covered by at least two of the other items. I am all for photographers being open about what they do, but not laws that state they must! The image is made by the artist, and what cannot be done in images and writing have been well vetted by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. While the organization that this is may be private, areas within Dark Sky sites that are not private are open. And for those that own the land, they can set rules as they feel fit. And who is going to police such a thing? I commend you for choosing to promote these goals especially with respect with protecting and building more Dark Sky sites. And also for passing along that ethic. Teaching students about the concept of ethics in astrophtography is excellent. I agree with most of what everyone here says about how they process their images. And almost none of them agree completely on how they process their image! But that is my point. A person doing this art is responsible to generate their own reasons for why and how they do things. And how that evolves for each person is their business. If they are not breaking a law, then all you can do is agree to disagree. If a dark site cannot withstand an image like you describe in your comment, then that site was standing on soft ground to begin with.