Debate: Should we edit out satellites or leave them in astrophotography shots?

Was out near Flagstaff last month capturing the Andromeda Galaxy, got a solid 4 hours of data, but a dozen satellite streaks cut right through my best frames. On one hand, cloning those out gives you that clean Hubble-style image that most people want to see. On the other hand, I feel like removing them is pretending modern light pollution and space traffic don't exist. Do you guys think it's dishonest to erase satellites, or is it just standard post-processing like stacking and stretching? Has anyone else had a shot ruined by Starlink trains?

3 comments

3 Comments

dakota4151mo ago

You got a solid 4 hours of data" and you want to strip out the reality of what that data actually captured... I'm going full devil's advocate here and saying leave them in. Erasing satellites turns your photo into a fantasy, like airbrushing a crow out of a sunset because it doesn't look poetic enough. The whole point of astrophotography is documenting what's up there, not what we wish was up there, and right now satellites are a huge part of our night sky. If you're cloning them out, you're basically lying about the state of modern astronomy to anyone who sees your final image.

parkerbrown1mo ago

Absolutely, the streaks are part of the story now. Had the same internal debate last month with my Milky Way shot, left a Starlink train in and honestly it makes the image feel more honest about what 2025 night photography actually looks like.

sage_green1mo ago

Lying about the state of modern astronomy" hits hard but it's true. If you're gonna remove satellites, at least drop a note in your description saying you cleaned them out so people know what we're actually dealing with up there.