Genres becoming a bit more fuzzy. I hate photographic gatekeepers/ing, and I feel like when people say "That's not a real [genre]" might come across as a bit too stuffy, not having a good definition for a genre does make entering competitions or attending galleries a bit of a crapshoot. Is "Astro Photography" nebulae and planets? Or is it the milky way over a canyon? Is macro photography just really close to something? Or does it need to be at least 1:1?
Hashtagging an up close picture of a flower as "Macro" or a milky way shot over a barn as "Astro" is "whatever" in my book, but when an astro photography competition is expecting only night-landscapes-with-milky-way-shots (or worse, star trails), I definitely feel duped.
Genres becoming a bit more fuzzy. I hate photographic gatekeepers/ing, and I feel like when people say "That's not a real [genre]" might come across as a bit too stuffy, not having a good definition for a genre does make entering competitions or attending galleries a bit of a crapshoot. Is "Astro Photography" nebulae and planets? Or is it the milky way over a canyon? Is macro photography just really close to something? Or does it need to be at least 1:1?
Hashtagging an up close picture of a flower as "Macro" or a milky way shot over a barn as "Astro" is "whatever" in my book, but when an astro photography competition is expecting only night-landscapes-with-milky-way-shots (or worse, star trails), I definitely feel duped.