Way O/T, Rant about space photos

[oldred]

A pet peeve of mine is all these "beautiful", "awesome" and "breath taking" photos taken by Hubble and other means and presented to the public as actual pictures of what's out there when in fact they are little more than artistic renditions from digital data of mostly invisible "objects" such as energy waves. When these things are presented (fox news does this a lot) the comments are are the usual "oohs" and "ahs" about God's beautiful work and natures boundless beauty but all those colors are the work of scientists to make these otherwise invisible objects into something we can see! The rant is about the FARCE behind the way they are presented, the people behind these "photos" use obscure descriptions of how they are presented (if you read the fine print) such as "Faux colors" or "digital composites of a grey scale image" but it's obvious they want to mislead people into believing that's what space actually looks like. These "beautiful" images of the cosmos are mostly images of energy waves of varying lengths and the engineers assign certain colors to specific wave lengths to produce these so-called "photos" that so many people are awed by, basically it's little different than producing an image of the radio waves emanating from a radio or tv tower. Why mislead people about this? They do tell the truth about them, sort of anyway IF a person looks for it, but they do so in vague terms and allow the farce to continue.

Just a little rant after seeing still another batch of these photos and reading the comments from people who obviously don't have a clue as to what they are looking at. The Cosmos just don't look like that!

[bikerbeans]

NASA has to provide a "product" to justify the Billions of our tax dollars they spend every year.


BB

[oldred]

I guess you're right, seems everything is about money! Still to me it's a shame when something like this is perpetuated by an outfit like NASA, especially considering how deplorable our schools have become and on average US students lagging behind most of the rest of the world in subjects like science and math. The thing is there are real mind boggling photos from space that could be used, such as the Mars photos (although those too are color enhanced) but they instead choose to deceive.

[nodda duma]

Not sure why you'd get worked up. The raw image data is available in the public domain. You could view that raw imagery and judge for yourself what they did.

And that's the great thing about art... it means something different for everyone who views it. But that said...Your looking balls do the same thing as the Hubble in responding to photonics energy, and your thinking jelly does the same thing as those astronomers (or folks sitting on their computers at home combining images as a hobby...but not engineers) in assigning colors to the different energy levels. As for the colors being assigned...that is merely the artist's choice..same as an oil painter selects his color palette.



Here's an image I took of the Orion Nebula using film and sitting in the desert guiding the scope for an hour.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/11/02/u8ary5um.jpg

I used a film camera and a thousand different details had to go perfectly right to get this image. And while you may not appreciate the photo or the artistic beauty, I like it because it represents a ton of labor, tinkering, and all the equipment that I had to obtain or build-like any hobby-to get that image (most of which I lost in a fire moving across country..so I couldn't replicate that image now even if I wanted to).

But is that the true color? In reality, the best you'll ever see is a fuzzy black-and-white blob and if your eyes are really good and you have a large aperture telescope then perhaps you'd see a greenish tinge... BUT that piece of film sees something different due to the fact that the emulsion has a different response to the energy than your looking balls do...and can collect more photons for longer. It processes chemically what the Hubble and team does electronically.

But that doesn't mean the object isn't there. It is...but it takes human ingenuity, intelligence, and centuries of technological advancement to observe it.

Ever looked through night vision goggles? Or viewed a thermal image? They collect information that you can't detect and renders it in a fashion that you can. Same thing.


Btw the Hubble wasn't designed to make pretty pictures. The scientific data is the real target.. The PR images that are released are to give the public a window into the data collected in a way that many would appreciate...and perhaps inspire kids to become scientists and engineers..like many great scientific endeavors have done for past generations. Because in reality the stuff that those astronomers drool over is just bunch of boring **** for everybody else (of course the same can be said for anyone's passion. Those astronomers would be very skeptical about a perfectly cast bullet being a thing of beauty).

[btroj]

We do lag behind in science and math. Black and white photos don't get kids excited about science, color photos can, and do.
I don't see this as a fraud at all. The photos are enhanced, so are most photos we see today. Wedding photographers eliminate glare from glasses, acne, and many other "imperfections", are they fake?

I don't see the problem here. Maybe it is my science education?

[theperfessor]

I don't see a problem. I'm used to looking at finite-element programs that use different colors to denote stress levels, even though the part represented is a gray piece of steel. I'm used to seeing different colors represent different temperatures of a part that again is simply gray or brown or some other color. I've seen color maps of cell phone coverage even though RF at cell phone frequencies is undetectable by our eyes.

To me the Hubble photos are magnificent examples of human achievement in capturing the beauty and majesty of our Universe. I don't see a problem here either.

[oldred]

I know why and how they do it, that's understandable but that's not the issue. The issue is the way it's presented to the public, of course NASA has the raw images and they do reveal how they are produced (if a person takes the time to look for it) but these photos are all too often presented as representations of what the cosmos actually looks like if we could see it with the naked eye when mostly what is pictured is color representations of invisible energy waves.

[btroj]

And???

[oldred]

This explains it pretty much,

http://www.space.com/8059-truth-photos-hubble-space-telescope-sees.html

A couple of quotes from that site,


" "We often use color as a tool, whether it is to enhance an object's detail or to- [visualize what ordinarily could never be seen by the human eye,"] -NASA officials explain on the agency's Hubble Web site.

" "Creating color images out of the original black-and-white exposures is equal parts art and science," NASA said.

It's just that these "photos" are too often presented as if they are actual snapshots of celestial objects when they are not at all true representations of those objects, certainly it gives us an opportunity to appreciate what's out there but it's the farce behind they way they are presented that I take issue with.

[dragon813gt]

So you do realize that wavelengths of energy to equate to specific colors, right? So who cares? Yes, you can't see the picture with the naked eye. I also can't see the same picture with the naked eye everytime I look down a rifle scope. It's a tool and nothing more. This is one thing I can't imagine why anyone would spend the time and energy being angry about. The shutdown of NASA is one of the biggest blunders the US has made in IMO. The technologies that came out of the program that we use on a daily basis is vast.

[btroj]

They add color to make the photos more interesting to the masses. People expected to see something impressive when NASA sent the Hubble into space. A few photos of drab, colorless nebulas wasn't going to hack it.

I just don't see a big deal here. They enhanced the photos to give them sex appeal. So what?

Graphical representations of what can't be seen are the norm in science.

[oldred]

So you do realize that wavelengths of energy to equate to specific colors, right? So who cares? Yes, you can't see the picture with the naked eye. I also can't see the same picture with the naked eye everytime I look down a rifle scope. It's a tool and nothing more. This is one thing I can't imagine why anyone would spend the time and energy being angry about. The shutdown of NASA is one of the biggest blunders the US has made in IMO. The technologies that came out of the program that we use on a daily basis is vast.


No one is getting angry and yes I do understand about the color/energy wavelength relation but that's not the point, producing these photos and presenting them to the public is fine BUT the issue is the obvious effort to present them as something they are not. Color representations of invisible energy waves to make an otherwise un-viewable object viewable makes all kinds of sense but reading comments on these photos when they are shown on the news sites makes it obvious that too many people believe they are looking at actual pictures of how these objects truly appear. There is little to no effort made to inform the layman of what they are actually seeing and it's this obvious farce that I am addressing, not the photos themselves.

[btroj]

The layman doesn't care!

NASA isn't going to get bland, grainy, colorless photos on the news. People don't want them, the masses want oohs and aahs.

It isn't a farce. It is providing evidence that NASA is doing something. Evidence that the billions spent on space exploration is getting some sort of result.

To use the current terms "there is no there, there"

[jcwit]

Just because you do not find it fascinating does not mean others do not.


It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

[btroj]

Exactly

[Kull]

nodda duma awesome photo. I know how much time and effort you must of put into taking that, well done.

[oldred]

Would a colorful representation of the waves emanating from a tv or cell phone tower be beautiful? It could be if the right colors were selected and by some logic could be used to represent man's wondrous accomplishments right? Again I don't take issue with the photos and I'm not saying they shouldn't be produced and shown just that they really should be a bit more up front about it. In one of the comments about a photo of the "Cat's Eye nebula" one writer said "no human could even approach creating such color and beauty as this" and most of the others agreed but the fact is what they were looking at was indeed a human manipulation to represent an otherwise bland picture! Are these objects awesome? You bet they are but duping the public by mis-representing them is definitely a farce!

[btroj]

Your rant is a farce. Opinions are like that, aren't they?

And the waves from a radio station ARE manipulated to make something beautiful. I don't hear the waves, I hear the data they contain. No manipulation, no sound.

[oldred]

Your rant is a farce. Opinions are like that, aren't they?

LOL, wow, why the hostility? I said at the start this was off topic! All I was pointing out is that a lot of folks have the wrong idea about these photos, and the comments they leave are proof of that, and think they are seeing true nature as it would appear when even the creators of these photos will tell you that's not exactly true, that is IF you ask! I guess some folks just don't want to hear that Santa isn't real.

[btroj]

No, some folks are smart enough to know. I view the photos as being impressive despite of some enhancement.

You said the photos are a farce. I disagree. The photos are what they are. So the colors are enhanced. So what. Are old B&W photos a farce because they didn't show color accurately?

You make is sound like someone is intentionally duping the public. I don't see it that way.

I bet the average American doesn't care what the colors are, they just want to see pretty space pictures.

[Junior1942]

So you do realize that wavelengths of energy to equate to specific colors, right? So who cares? Yes, you can't see the picture with the naked eye. I also can't see the same picture with the naked eye everytime I look down a rifle scope. It's a tool and nothing more. This is one thing I can't imagine why anyone would spend the time and energy being angry about. The shutdown of NASA is one of the biggest blunders the US has made in IMO. The technologies that came out of the program that we use on a daily basis is vast.Exactly. The computer you're using is because of the space program.

[oldred]

You said the photos are a farce.

You make is sound like someone is intentionally duping the public.

I did not say the photos were a farce, I said they way they are being presented is a farce and yes making it sound like someone is intentionally duping the public is my very point! These photos are FAR more than just color enhanced and faux colors (THEIR description, not mine) are used to make normally invisible objects into something that can be seen, in a lot of cases there are very colorful backgrounds that represent energy emissions when what would be seen with the naked eye would be just the blackness of space. In most cases when these photos are shown in the media they are presented as the wonders of nature without a hint that in reality the object would look very different (if indeed it was visible at all) if it could be viewed directly. Very little effort is made even from NASA to point out that these images are colorful renditions, or faux (false) colors as they seem to favor calling it when they bother to mention it at all, and the news media rarely bothers to point out anything except the sensational. The very meaning of "faux" is to fake something (Merriam/Webster definitions described as fake, bogus, dummy, sham,etc) for the purpose of duping a person yet that term is often used on the rare occasions a technical description is included with the photos. Bash me as much as you like but it won't change those pictures into real photos and even the producers when pressed will admit there is a lot of artistic license taken when producing them.

[shooter93]

Maybe you'll get out there some day and get to see what they really look like....smiles.

[dagger dog]

oldred,


I betcha don't even believe in Santa Claus either !:bigsmyl2:

[williamwaco]

[smilie=b:

[oldred]

oldred,


I betcha don't even believe in Santa Claus either !:bigsmyl2:


Santa is too real, he IS!!!!! He is!!!!

[jcwit]

Easter Bunny?????????????????????????????????????

[MtGun44]

I agree with the perfessor - You are viewing electromagnetic waves (LIGHT) that is either above or below the very limited
frequency range of our onboard sensors (eyes) - so in order to present it to the human brain in a USEFUL WAY,
the frequencies are shifted to the visible range. If you were trying to listen to some high frequency sound, beyond the
human hearing range, you could frequency shift it down until you could hear it. Then you would have a good idea
what it "sounded like" - corrected for your crummy sensor systems.

This is just sensible engineering, making data available in a way that is easily grasped by the "customer". I do finite
element analysis professionally and have spent a lifetime studying computer graphics and the human visual system in order to
make images that provide useful information about stress or temperature or electric field strength, or some other variable
to my customer engineers in a way that they can understand what is happening.

Hubble is awesome, the images are REAL - but adjusted so that we can interact with them with our limited visual systems.
No deception there - note that you know that they are "color-shifted" BECAUSE THEY TOLD YOU THEY WERE AND DID NOT
TRY TO HIDE IT.

Bill

[MaryB]

Digital imaging done from my own observatory, I was having tracking issues so the picture is a bit soft. Taken with a 6 inch telescope and a DSLR camera. If memory serves me about 60 minutes of exposure total.

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd248/maryalanab/Astronomy%20pictures/M42.jpg

[oldred]

I agree with the perfessor - You are viewing electromagnetic waves (LIGHT) that is either above or below the very limited
frequency range of our onboard sensors (eyes) - so in order to present it to the human brain in a USEFUL WAY,
the frequencies are shifted to the visible range. If you were trying to listen to some high frequency sound, beyond the
human hearing range, you could frequency shift it down until you could hear it. Then you would have a good idea
what it "sounded like" - corrected for your crummy sensor systems.

This is just sensible engineering, making data available in a way that is easily grasped by the "customer". I do finite
element analysis professionally and have spent a lifetime studying computer graphics and the human visual system in order to
make images that provide useful information about stress or temperature or electric field strength, or some other variable
to my customer engineers in a way that they can understand what is happening.

Hubble is awesome, the images are REAL - but adjusted so that we can interact with them with our limited visual systems.
No deception there - note that you know that they are "color-shifted" BECAUSE THEY TOLD YOU THEY WERE AND DID NOT
TRY TO HIDE IT.

Bill


Even with me explaining several times I understand HOW AND WHY this is done once again someone is explaining it again, you are missing the point. The photos are of real objects and I never said they were fake but we agree that they are manipulated to make them viewable. They also, by the admission of the producers themselves of these photos, are enhanced by taking artistic liberties with them to make them more appealing and there's nothing wrong with that part, the alternative would be bland uninteresting pictures or something that was simply not visible at all. The issue is these photos being presented in the media without so much as a hint of these facts and allowing people to think they are seeing pictures of nature as it would appear to the naked eye when in most cases that's simply not true! NASA, etc tells us how they are made? Yes they do if a person looks for it but the real issue is where most folks see these things and that's in the media where they are sensationalized and rarely if ever explained. All one has to do is read the comments section when some media presents the photos to see that most people think they are looking at pictures of how these objects appear in nature, "The wonderful colorful universe and God's handiwork that no man could even approach producing" when the photos are indeed man's "handiwork" of truly aw inspiring phenomena even when presented in a more truthful manner. It's obvious that most people don't have a clue that what they are seeing would be hard to visualize or simply invisible if presented in it's natural form and if you can't see what's wrong with that there's little point in discussing it. This branch of science is about making people aware of the physical world around them not wooing them with pretty pictures but for some reason a lot of folks seem to want to get mad about pointing out the fact these photos are manipulated, manipulated for good reason but still not actual pictures of nature as it would appear to the naked eye as far too many people have been lead to believe.

[btroj]

We don't know how they would appear to the make eye, do we? Have YOU personally seen some of these very distant objects?

Yes, they enhance the photos. I don't see the big deal. I doubt that most people even care.

Yes, agronomists want people to understand the worlds round them. They generally aren't in the realm of PR but at times they need to be. Showing photos like this gets people interested in science, it excites little kids. These photos also show the idiots in DC that the money they spend on NASA is producing a viable result. People need to see results of some kind, NASA needs these photos to get further funding.

Science can't exist solely for sciences sake, it needs money and it needs new blood. This type of photo brings in both.

We also don't know if the media is aware of the true nature of the photos. They may just choose to not tell us, I don't know.

I will stand by my original premise- the average Joe doesn't care. He sees something pretty awesome and is happy. He doesn't want to know how, why, where, or anything else, he just sees something he likes.

[jcwit]

Even with me explaining several times I understand HOW AND WHY this is done once again someone is explaining it again, you are missing the point. The photos are of real objects and I never said they were fake but we agree that they are manipulated to make them viewable. They also, by the admission of the producers themselves of these photos, are enhanced by taking artistic liberties with them to make them more appealing and there's nothing wrong with that part, the alternative would be bland uninteresting pictures or something that was simply not visible at all. The issue is these photos being presented in the media without so much as a hint of these facts and allowing people to think they are seeing pictures of nature as it would appear to the naked eye when in most cases that's simply not true! NASA, etc tells us how they are made? Yes they do if a person looks for it but the real issue is where most folks see these things and that's in the media where they are sensationalized and rarely if ever explained. All one has to do is read the comments section when some media presents the photos to see that most people think they are looking at pictures of how these objects appear in nature, "The wonderful colorful universe and God's handiwork that no man could even approach producing" when the photos are indeed man's "handiwork" of truly aw inspiring phenomena even when presented in a more truthful manner. It's obvious that most people don't have a clue that what they are seeing would be hard to visualize or simply invisible if presented in it's natural form and if you can't see what's wrong with that there's little point in discussing it. This branch of science is about making people aware of the physical world around them not wooing them with pretty pictures but for some reason a lot of folks seem to want to get mad about pointing out the fact these photos are manipulated, manipulated for good reason but still not actual pictures of nature as it would appear to the naked eye as far too many people have been lead to believe.

Ever watch a western in a theater or on TV? Its manipulated so as to appear real and we all know different, does that bother you?

If I took everything in life this serious I'd be in a heck of a mess.

[fouronesix]

Just have to know what you are looking at and understand it. The EM spectrum is much, much wider than the "visible" spectrum. And no, it's not fabrication or falsification that many associate with the term "photoshop". It's real... where the non-visible portions of the EM spectrum are colorized so as to be seen.

The reporting media are the ones usually dumb as a box of rocks so that's where the real rub is.

[David2011]

Oldred,

So, when energy that is invisible to the human eye is recorded, how do you suggest that it is presented other than by assigning colors? Does the additon of color reduce the usefulness of the data? No, thank you. The failure to assign colors would show nothing at all. The visible light images by Nodda Duma and Mary B are admirable. I have some fairly nice telescopes but have never made the financial commitment to photograph deep space objects. Adding a camera and the required accessories would run another $1500-$2000 for one scope along with a substantial investment in time. The colors in many space photos are real. The human eye sees color at brighter light levels and goes to monochromatic imaging in low light level so we can't see the color that exists except with cameras and long exposure times. That does not equate to false color. Some images require enhancement to be useful as they are not made of visible light. Others are quite spectacular with no enhancement.

IMO, NASA is the best bang for the buck in our entire govenrment. They consume a tiny portion of the budget. I don't believe any other agency has produced so much technology that has enhanced our lives. Hospital and medical telemetry has descended directly from NASA. Digital watches, CAT scans, MRIs, microwave ovens and virtually everything that runs on microchips exists because of technology developed from the space program.

If you want to talk about the government wasting money through the space program, let's look at the decomissioning of the Shuttles. The cost to send eight astronauts on a flight was $15 million including ground support teams. (Source: a friend on the Shuttle flight team) The cost to send a single astronaut to the ISS on a Russian spacecraft: $50 million. Beyond the direct dollar cost of ISS access, we can no longer maintain satellites. I'm a fan of NASA, having grown up near Johnson Space Center in the Mercury days. As a member of the Manned Spacecraft Center RC Club I got to know many of the men involved in the early launches through the Shuttle program. Those are engineers who had common sense and could actually "do stuff."

David

[Blacksmith]

Oldred

Have you ever looked at high speed pictures of Bullets hitting objects? Something else that the human eye can not see without help. Many things are enhanced and most people don't understand or care about the science and engineering behind the enhancements they just accept them. A better crusade, although tougher, would be to get the people to understand and care.

[oldred]

How many times do I have to say it? I UNDERSTAND WHY it's done yet you guys keep coming back and explaining why and how even though I have already said the same things, why is that? All the excuses in the world does not change these manipulated images into the real photos that some people obviously want to believe, my ONLY point is the misleading way these things are presented NOT how or why they are produced! The issue is that a great many people actually think they are looking at an actual photo as these objects would appear in nature and far too often the media presents them in exactly that manner, the ensuing comments show this clearly and it's quite apparent that people are being intentionally duped by a lack of information! I guess it's human nature to want to believe the sensational no matter how contrived but uninformed people are oohing and ahhing at "natures beautiful art", as one article put it, when what we are seeing is basically an artist's/engineer's rendition of a bland or possibly even invisible object. For all you guys making excuses for this farce let me ask a question, what is wrong with making it plain how these photos would really appear if they weren't doctored? What's wrong with explaining to the public that most of these "awesome, spectacular and colorful" photos are artificially made to appear this way so that they are viewable? Again reading the comments following some of the photo articles would be comical if it weren't so sad that so many people are ignorant to what they are really looking at and little to no effort is made to present the truth, indeed just the opposite seems to be the case.


As far as the western movie analogy what's that got to do with anything? Movies are not meant to be accepted as actual pictures of places or times but if that fictitious western was being presented as a real time documentary and allowing people to think they were seeing actual pictures of the old west when they were actually made on a Hollywood set then yes we would have a comparison to this issue!

[jcwit]

As far as the western movie analogy what's that got to do with anything? Movies are not meant to be accepted as actual pictures of places or times but if that fictitious western was being presented as a real time documentary and allowing people to think they were seeing actual pictures of the old west when they were actually made on a Hollywood set then yes we would have a comparison to this issue!

OK, then lets show a documentary of the life & times Bonney & Clyde, or going back to westerns how bout the life & time of the Earp Brothers & Doc. Holiday, or ANY other documentary for that matter.

Maybe you wish we all should live in a black & white world.

Further more, in Hillary's words, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

[btroj]

I don't find it misleading at all. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[nodda duma]

It's kind of on the end viewer to educate themselves on what they're looking at.

And realistically speaking, the folks who post comments are probably the geek types who understand what they're looking at.

The folks who don't appreciate what those images are and what they represent aren't going to care enough to wonder what outer space looks like.

[Bongo Boy]

If they were in black and white...they'd be 'enhanced' also. I guess we could ask for a protective disclaimer on each image saying "if this were the real image it would be pure black as this object emits no radiation in the visible spectrum", or "this image is a false-color rendition of energy emissions both within and outside the visible spectrum". Now, that would clear things up for 999 of a 1000 viewers, I'm sure.

To my mind, the photos are no different than looking at an xray image of my broken collar bone--the image only exists because we've used a mechanism to make the invisible visible--it doesn't matter if the image I look at is black and white or shades of pink--they're both equally fabricated and neither is even slightly more accurate a rendition of reality than the other. Reality is, if it wasn't given a 'color' then I wouldn't be able to see it.

So, if a cloud of gas is radiating in the far ultraviolet and the image is rendered with that radiation showing as deep purple, do I really need the government to put a disclaimer on the image (sold for no scientific purpose whatsoever but rather as a pretty image for the wall)?

The enormity, dynamics and genesis of the formations are revealed in the photos--and they certainly have some educational utility.

For some of us, I suppose, they would be marginally more interesting if an image color/actual wavelength legend was tastefully provided on the print, but in many cases I suppose there isn't an easy way to do that. There are probably a large number of more practical examples where the general public is ill-informed and easily misled regarding what appears real vs what actually is real--this wouldn't be one of them I'd worry about. Most anyone with any aptitude for scientific inquiry would have among his/her first questions, "Is that really what color it is?".

The cross section of America I see down at the DMV has really got far more serious misunderstandings than this one. :)

[Blacksmith]

Everybody here understands that these are not real photographs. We get it, go explain it to the people who don't understand.

[oldred]

Everybody here understands that these are not real photographs. We get it, go explain it to the people who don't understand.

Exactly, everyone does understand but that never was the issue, it's they way these things are being hawked to the public not whether they are real or not! How or why or real/not real never was the issue but there seems to be a "ssshh, don't let the big secret get out attitude". I simply mentioned at the beginning of this thread that it was a pet peeve of mine that the media has a habit of presenting these photos as actual pictures of nature and rarely if ever make any effort to explain what they really are and NASA, etc is little better unless someone digs for it. Of course the media has a habit of sensationalizing most everything and I wouldn't think much about it except for reading those comments from so many people who are obviously being mislead, mislead by omission either intentionally or unintentionally, and it's just wrong to do that. All the anger and hostility directed at me for mentioning this or all the excuses of why and how these photos are produced do not change the fact that a GREAT many people have a very mistaken idea of what they are looking at and almost no effort is made to tell the real truth about them! There's nothing at all wrong with the way these things are made and they remain quite interesting but I think there is something inherently wrong with the way they are all too often presented, obviously something has to be wrong for so many people to think they are looking at "real" photos of nature. I know, I know, these photos are REAL,,,,,,,,,,, in the sense that,,,,,,well that's been covered a dozen times now.

[btroj]

We get it. YOU have a problem with how the photos are presented and think they are a misrepresentation of reality.

I don't agree. It seems that many others don't agree either.

Anyone who takes what they are presented by the media at face value is a moron. Everything should be looked into further to see what was presented, what the point of view was, and to see if more info is available. Don't believe anything until you get the info elsewhere.

I understand your rant but I think it is sort of silly. I don't see any there, there. Sorry, I just don't agree.

[oldred]

We get it. YOU have a problem with how the photos are presented and think they are a misrepresentation of reality.

I don't agree. It seems that many others don't agree either.

Anyone who takes what they are presented by the media at face value is a moron. Everything should be looked into further to see what was presented, what the point of view was, and to see if more info is available. Don't believe anything until you get the info elsewhere.

I understand your rant but I think it is sort of silly. I don't see any there, there. Sorry, I just don't agree.

Silly? Really? The picture "show" currently on MSN that was the one that prompted me to even mention this is a good example of what truly IS silly and that's the responses to the presentation! Out of the whole bunch of the usual "God's wondrous beauty" and "The Aw inspiring colorful universe" one response simply said "Nice pictures, false colors" and he/she was inundated with dislikes and only a couple of likes, why is that? Do people want so desperately that these pictures be actual true-to-life portrayals of the universe that they simply don't want to hear the truth? Just look at the anger and hostility that has been directed at me for even daring to mention this here, why so much animosity over the mere mention of this? Like I said in the last post there seems to be an overwhelming dislike for exposing the big secret!

[Dan Cash]

The colors are pretty. Is this part of NASA's muslim outreach program?

[btroj]

What big secret?

You make this out to be a major conspiracy.

Dude, put more foil on your hat, you are getting some leaks!

It isn't an attempt to mislead the public. It isn't a conspiracy. They made some photos more appealing. They made the photos ready for the masses.

I hold no animosity towards you, I just think you are worked up over nothing. Trust me, my anger is towards the silliness that is your rant, not you as a person. This is my real opinion, no color enhancement at all.

The photos are what they are. Could the media do a better job of informing the masses of the color manipulation? Yes. Do people care? Nope. I doubt informing people of color manipulation would change a darn thing. People just don't care. They don't understand. They don't want to think about it, they just want to see a pretty picture.

Don't feel hated. Just understand that others don't seem to feel this is as big of a deal as you do.

[jcwit]

This is like comparing the picture of the Playmate of the month with the real model.

Anybody care? Nope, we'll stick to the presentation put forth in Playboy.

[Garyshome]

So is NASA paying artists to paint these things? If so how many of my tax dollars?

[popper]

I can agree with most statements here. Oldred is correct, in that the media types try to present 'pretty' pictures as 'evidence' that they 'know' how stuff works. In fact they don't. Yes, the data is 'doctored' to make it more understandable for the public. Not a problem. It's the media 'interpretation' of those images where the public is generally misled. The scientist's hypothesis are often wrong too. Our interstellar probes were supposed to hit the 'wall' a few years back and quit working. Didn't happen - back to the drawing board. Shucks. Kind of like the 'fact' that pigs came out of trees to be bears and then whales. Media types just plain 'suck'.

[blackthorn]

Anybody else see a parallel here to the whole liberal driven firearm issue?? Would any of the nay-sayers here feel the same way (non issue) if the disscussion were about the false "gun" c*** foisted on the public by the media?? Should John Q Public educate themselves as to what is actually true? You bet! Will they? Highly unlikely! Will they just accept what the media tells them? Probably! Oh well----Truth a non-issue? I think not BUT we need to pick our battles!

[oldred]

Yes, the data is 'doctored' to make it more understandable for the public. Not a problem. It's the media 'interpretation' of those images where the public is generally misled.

That's been my point from the beginning but apparently some here thought I was trying to say the photos themselves are a farce but that was not it at all, basically that's the only way we can "see" these objects and if they appear a bit "prettier" that's fine if it generates interest. As far as the tin foil hat conspiracy that was mentioned I never said anything about a conspiracy just a tendency to allow the public to be mislead about these things and I hardly think that's deniable as evidenced from the comments following a presentation of these photos.

[oldred]

What big secret?

I never said it was a big secret just that some folks seem to get upset when this is pointed out as if they don't want "the big secret" to get out, just a figure of speech is all and the tech descriptions are there it's just that they usually are not very apparent. The person who made the statement "nice pictures, false colors" in the comments section getting all the disapprovals is what I was referring too, he was right but some folks obviously didn't want it even mentioned! So now I am wondering why just even mentioning this generates so much animosity as is evidenced by that MSN page and even in this thread? For a non-issue no one cares about there sure was a lot effort made to discredit the point I was trying to make when even NASA tells us if we look for it!

[Norbrat]

Here's an interesting photo! http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap131101.html :D

[JakeBlanton]

So, it's their fault that our eyes are so limited that we can't see the other bands of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Even back in the B&W photo days, we were using colored filters to bring out the colors so that they would stand out more in shades of grey (http://grammarist.com/spelling/gray-grey) that was produced by the film you were using.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images_2/interview/w2-lgsrgb.data_/img_01.jpg

[JakeBlanton]

This is like comparing the picture of the Playmate of the month with the real model.

Anybody care? Nope, we'll stick to the presentation put forth in Playboy.

Just think how many teenage boys were surprised to learn that women didn't have staples in their navels.

Well, these days, they might, come to think of it.......

[oldred]

So, it's their fault that our eyes are so limited that we can't see the other bands of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Even back in the B&W photo days, we were using colored filters to bring out the colors so that they would stand out more in shades of grey (http://grammarist.com/spelling/gray-grey) that was produced by the film you were using.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images_2/interview/w2-lgsrgb.data_/img_01.jpg

Still ANOTHER explanation of how and why it's done, WHY? I have repeatedly explained that I understand how and why they are done the way they are and have no problem with that! It's the misleading way these things are being presented that's the issue, HOW AND WHY they are produced has nothing to do with it. Once again, it's the fact that so many people have been duped into believing these photos are simply magnificent true to life pictures of nature as it would appear and the media encourages this instead of making even a minimal effort to explain the truth about how they are produced.

[btroj]

The media doesn't inform us of many truths.

The real travesty is that someone still expects the honest to goodness truth and full disclosure form the media.

[popper]

Oldred - kind of like the Dino pics we all see. Reality is we have an organized pile of bones and someone adds a body around it. We really don't have a clue ( I personally don't know why anyone even cares, maybe $$?). Dinos were originally birds - why - cause the have hollow bones. Yikes, my bones are hollow, after you remove the marrow.
His point (and mine) is that programs like 'through the worm hole' & 'how the universe works' are hypothesis, not theory or fact. We don't know, just educated guessing (SWAGs). Yes presented to the mindless masses (and our school kids) as fact. I worked with a gal who wanted to vacation on Mars. Told her I'd pay for the one-way ticket when they were available. Curiosity is not the same as stupidity.
If you think you know a lot, explain to me the reality of negative imaginary numbers or why PI has been calculated to extreme decimal places and still the last decimal is not zero. But we call it a constant. The solution is way above my pay grade so I really don't care.

[btroj]

Pi is a constant. It is assumed to have an unchanging value in mathematical calculations.

Pi is also an irrational number. I think this is what you are speaking of popper.

[jcwit]

Still ANOTHER explanation of how and why it's done, WHY? I have repeatedly explained that I understand how and why they are done the way they are and have no problem with that! It's the misleading way these things are being presented that's the issue, HOW AND WHY they are produced has nothing to do with it. Once again, it's the fact that so many people have been duped into believing these photos are simply magnificent true to life pictures of nature as it would appear and the media encourages this instead of making even a minimal effort to explain the truth about how they are produced.

We are misled by so many thing in todays world that actually matter, that the depiction of space and the universe is by and large the least of my concern.

Don't believe it? Well take another look at our administration. Let Captain Kirk worry about the universe.

[popper]

Btroj, yup, good old PI to 2.7 trillion decimal places and still no accurate answer. An unsolvable (to humans) mathematical number, many many more irrational numbers that we use daily without knowing why they work. Then there are the people who declare string theory proves information exists forever. Snake oil!

[btroj]

But without theory where would we be? The structure of DNA was a theory at one point, now it is known. At one point the idea of the earth being round was a theory, took a long time to prove otherwise.

Sciences job is to push the envelope and try to explain the unexplainable.