Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Riegel_Haribo t1_ixzc0vv wrote

This is no official release, she writes "credits" like that to give herself false impression of association on her Photoshops of misregistered products.

22

Plow_King t1_ixzkmib wrote

so it's not "real"?

6

Riegel_Haribo t1_ixzlf4y wrote

It's as "real" as the half dozen that came before in /r/jameswebb.

.. Except with sharpening that surrounds stars with nebula-sucking black rings (greyscale is raw imaging): https://i.imgur.com/dBYr1Eb.gif

9

Plow_King t1_ixzm4zt wrote

ok, that's kind of what i meant. thanks for the info and the new sub!

5

RiseFit1638 t1_ixzsazw wrote

Are those planets really a deep blue? Or is that just added?

0

Riegel_Haribo t1_ixztz2q wrote

Because James Webb Space Telescope observes infrared light, here, a very deep mid-infrared, it is impossible to tell the actual color they would appear. For those appearing quite red, it is likely objects (not planets) are invisible to visible light or even Hubble.

If the image was composed maintaining spectral accuracy and calibration of the different wavelengths assembled to make color, blue would imply that there is more shortwave light flux (the end closer to visible light) than seen in longer wavelengths..

The red giant Betelgeuse, for example, emits most of its light in visible red, not down into deep infrared, so it appears blue in a transposed spectrum.

Very distant galaxies might even appear purple (blue + red) or green, from addition of searing ultraviolet brightness and the dust swirling around young stars, shifted into infrared by the expansion of the universe.

6

ALetterAloof t1_ixzrc1h wrote

Wait so Judy Schmidt isn’t an engineer/photographer, just a photoshopper? I’m confused

5

Riegel_Haribo t1_ixzsdu6 wrote

Profile here (with widely circulated "Jupiter aurora" made of telescope diffraction artifacts)

7

RaifRedacted t1_ixzzu0i wrote

Nice article. Basically just explains she's one of any number of people applying filters to data NASA provides, only she's also one of the few NASA has acknowledged with her JWST work. Beautiful photo. A bit too much like water for me, though.

7

LesbianLipReader t1_ixzv322 wrote

I'm not very well informed on the behind the scenes stuff going on around JWST images, but you seem to be based on your comments.

Is there a publicly available place on the internet where I could find the raw data/images produced by the JWST, that you know of? I imagine it will be mostly incomprehensible to me, but I'm curious to learn more about what the Telescope is capturing before it's been curated or edited or otherwise interpreted for the public.

2

Riegel_Haribo t1_ixzztab wrote

I created a post to give you a behind the scenes look at what the uncalibrated and "raw" imagery can look like, and even that is processed to make it presentable on the screen.

The science instruments of the telescope, when they are used for imaging or otherwise, capture a very large dynamic range of light, from a single photon strike to the brightness of Jupiter, in a single wavelength passband at a time (aka black-and-white). Multiple data products can be contained in a FITS data file, sometimes hundreds of groups of integrations in some low levels of "raw". Some manual intervention is needed to at least set the brightness contour and background to highlight the observation target.

All public Western space telescope data is published on the STScI MAST portal (or the ESA equivalent), where one must make queries of the database, know what science program you are interested in, know the instruments and modes, data pipeline products, etc. A random hot-off-the-presses image might leave you merely whelmed, if you don't know the science behind it.

4

LesbianLipReader t1_iy015lq wrote

Thanks so much for the thorough reply! I appreciate it a lot. I'm saving this comment so I can come back to it. I'm very grateful.

3