Am I the only one who thinks most deep-space photos are just fake color jobs now?

Three years ago I saw a raw Hubble image compared to the processed version at a public talk in Phoenix, and it honestly made me wonder if we are just painting pretty pictures instead of actually seeing what is out there, does anyone else feel like the color mapping has gone overboard?

3 comments

3 Comments

the_emery6d ago

I saw one of those raw vs processed comparisons online, and it hit me the same way. That raw Hubble image was just gray blobs with maybe a hint of blue, but the processed one looked like a neon galaxy. I started digging into how they color map based on elements and wavelengths, and it helped me chill out a bit. For me, it helps to focus on what the colors actually mean, like hydrogen glowing red or oxygen glowing blue, instead of thinking it's all made up. It's not fake, it's just a translation of light we can't see with our eyes. Once I accepted that, I could enjoy the pretty pictures knowing there's real science behind the mapping.

joel_butler6d ago

You're totally right, @the_emery. I had the exact same reaction when I first saw those raw versus processed photos. It felt like they were just making stuff up to sell posters. But then I read up on how they assign different colors to specific elements and filters, and it clicked for me too. Knowing that the red in those nebula pictures is literally glowing hydrogen and the blue is oxygen made a huge difference. It's like taking a photo in black and white and then coloring it based on what's really there. Now I love the finished images even more because I can appreciate the science behind the art.

jordan9036d ago

My buddy Dave was blown away when he learned the colors were actual elements, not just Photoshop filters.