Originally Posted by njp:
“Can you give an example?
How "true" is any image that can only be seen at all with the help of very expensive optics? How about microscopy, where the specimens have to be stained or (in the case of electron microscopy) subjected to very extensive preparation (such as coating them in metal)?
I can see what you are hinting at, but you did your argument no favours by making a comparison with the sort of image manipulation routinely performed by glossy magazines.”
I realise that and in hindsight it was perhaps not the best analogy to use.
The essential point I was trying to make was that typically the images are colourised to demonstrate the chemical compositions of an object i.e. a nebula, so in truth there is no green or orange or yellow or rusty red or what ever. Or the colourisation is used to enhance detail not ordinarily visible.
Quote taken directly from the NASA sight you linked to:
Quote:
“Color in Hubble images is used to highlight interesting features of the celestial object being studied. It is added to the separate black-and-white exposures that are combined to make the final image.
Creating color images out of the original black-and-white exposures is equal parts art and science.
We use color:
• To depict how an object might look to us if our eyes were as powerful as Hubble
• To visualize features of an object that would ordinarily be invisible to the human eye
• To bring out an object's subtle details.”
The vast majority of the public who see these images would not have a clue about that. It really doens't matter as long as people see the images and are inspired by them in some way.