Reported by:

Neuer Steinwurf

It's on the third panel helmet.

124
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Also these two but they're boring and old.

![](/images/16583263986609104.webp)

![](/images/16583263987888827.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(((They))) edit the actual image before releasing it to the public to hide the cosmic truths I guess.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don't you find it strange that telescopes looking in non visible spectrums of light always have such beautiful colors in their photographs?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

colors are just values on the electromagnetic spectrum though saying its not a real photo because its constructed from that is like saying a jpg isnt a real photo because its contructed from on and off switches.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reported by:

Colors in a jpeg correlate to visually similar colors of a real world object.

The colors in a non visual spectrum picture correlate to whatever the visual processing person thought would look the best. If they actually correlated to individual wavelengths of the telescope then we'd have a lot more clashing ugly photos.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

r-slur

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>there's inherent value in pretty pictures that vaguely correlate to structures in the sky

Keep yourself safe r-slur

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The colors in a non visual spectrum picture correlate to whatever the visual processing person thought would look the best.

That's really not the process, which is why you are r-slurred.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

Why wouldn't they adjust it for the visible spectrum though? Do you also think long exposure to take photos of night skies is also fake? "I hate current thing" strikes again.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I agree with you that the post processing NASA does is fine but your comparison is r-slurred. Long exposures are just showing more of what's actually there, the post processing is almost entirely arbitrary

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yet the pictures appear more vivid than what it is with the naked eye. Similar to moving light in the invisible spectrum to the visible.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>there's inherent value in pretty pictures that vaguely correlate to structures in the sky

Keep yourself safe r-slur

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What's the point of visualizing invisible data if you don't make it visible, r-slur?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

Because quite often the images have very very narrow wavelength receptors. It's not a pretty continuous spectrum, but a few bright bands spread out

Most work is done in black and white because they've only got one tiny 'color' to look at

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

32 absolute brainlets upvoted your comment. The frickin state of dramatards lmao

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Oh that's it. Makes more sense tbh.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don't you gind it strange we never point the telescopes up or down?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I felt it was more of a dig at the I FRICKIN LOVE SCIENCE crowd of space fans pretending to be nerds.

Whom I hate vitriolically.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Redditors just repost shit cuz they're r-slurred sheep. It devalues the achievements by reducing it to a karma whoring mechanism.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

First among us is on the roll on the backpack

Second among us is on the second panel keyboard

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.