Blowing out the core of M42

[johnfosteruk]

I don't understand this argument, never have, never will. 

Alpollo, you refer to 'daytime' photography but in your beach BBQ photo, the goal is different to that of an astrophoto or astroimage (same thing, pedantic to say otherwise IMO) at the BBQ.

At the BBQ you're capturing a memory for posterity, a reminder of who was there, the beautiful sunset, or the fun moment. You're using settings, and composition to present an interpretation of the scene. That's different as with an astrophoto/image the goal is to show as much of what is going on as possible. Doing the same thing for a slightly different reason.

At the BBQ you're being selective, at the telescope you're trying to throw it all in there, unless you're not (HDR/bracketing etc - if all cameras did HDR and nothing but, the photos on shutterbug would all be HDR - decision by the manufacturer). Either way though as Olly says there are decisions being made. But at the BBQ the motivation is sentimental, or taste driven. I'd argue that the primary driver for the astrophoto/image is not sentiment or taste, it's to show a representation of everything it's possible to show, unless you're being selective of course.

It's only the technology which limits what can be shown and just because somebody is using technology that seems a bit more advanced than the classical techniques their results are no less valid.

I'm wondering whether if there was an internet in the '30s would the good people on Shutterbug lose their whatever you said at Ansel Adams with his filters, plates and processing techniques?

Smacks of artistic snobbery to me and that's flawed as this is not art, it's something else and it's all valid IMO, as has been discussed half to death hereabouts.