I've been saying for a while now that in astrophotography there are as many schools of thought as there are astrophotographers.
Yet, every time I see someone using the term "pretty picture" referring to the type of astrophotography that mainly focuses on the aesthetic aspects of imaging celestial objects, I wonder if the work of Ansel Adams or Art Wolfe should also be defined as nothing but "pretty pictures" as well.
Don't get me wrong, I don't really mind people using the term "pretty picture". The term is good enough to describe one of the many ways a person can embrace astrophotography (and probably easier to understand than "aesthetic astrophotography"), and when someone uses it, if they like to photograph and measure asteroids or comets, I'd just say that they like to "take pictures of rocks" (in a FRIENDY way of course!), and if they enjoy measuring imaging devices and optics I may friendly refer to them as "data nuts", although data enthusiasts probably sounds more polite (never mean to call someone "nut" just because they have an interest in something!)
The problem is when the concepts collide - usually in the minds of people who think art and science are rather incompatible when it comes to astrophotography. The fact is, art and science have a lot more in common than what some "data enthusiasts" think - they just can't or simply won't embrace them simultaneously, but doing so is a skill too - just because some people simply reject the concept doesn't make it any less important, valuable or respectable, nor the person who does it is less capable. Many data enthusiasts know that.
For example, not long ago, one of these data enthusiasts (again, I use the term with love, just as others apply it when they talk about pretty pictures) stated that no matter the processing, the data "underneath" is always the same, so "who cares about fancy processing", disregarding any work or creativity in the processing of astro images as something rather pointless. To me that was like saying that a chicken is a chicken no matter how you cook it, literally disregarding the work and creativity of chefs all around the world. Raw chicken is interesting to biologist and other scientists, it just doesn't taste good :-)
Which brings me to the point I really wanted to make... Probably the biggest mistake often made by some (not all!) data enthusiasts and rock photographers is to disregard the work of those whose goal is partly or mainly aesthetic as images that are useless for astronomy.
Useless for astronomy? Well, usually it is not observing logs, graphs or inverted monochrome linear images, but those fine (and "useless for astronomy") pictures - and the science associated to them - the ones that probably most often capture the mind of a young man or woman and spark the plug that will get them hooked into astronomy, for life. In other words, chances are that many of the astronomers of tomorrow will embrace astronomy as their lifetime work because of those "pretty pictures".
Which to me it means that "pretty pictures" may be useless for astronomers, but definitely not for astronomy.
So if your interest in astrophotography is driven mainly or in part by an aesthetic interest, keep doing what you're doing! The world needs you as much as they need everyone else - plus you will be exercising a much more diverse spectrum of disciplines, because no matter how much art-driven you are, you will still also need to be a bit of a data enthusiast regardless ;-)
