Reading a thread about old Hubble shots flipped my opinion on post-processing

I used to think any edited astro photo was cheating, straight out of camera or nothing. Then I saw a post on here breaking down the Hubble Heritage images, explaining how they layer 3 different filters and assign colors to make invisible gases visible. At Kitt Peak last year I watched a guy spend 40 minutes just on stretching his light curves, and suddenly it clicked that we're translating data into something our eyes can see, not faking reality. Am I alone in being stricter before, or has anyone else come around to this way of thinking?

1 comments

1 Comment

claire_campbell14d ago

Whoa, hold up, I gotta gently push back on the Kitt Peak part. Most of that 40 minutes is usually just fine-tuning the color balance and cropping out satellite trails, not so much the stretching itself. The actual histogram stretch takes like five minutes tops once you got your data stacked. But I do feel you on the filter thing, I used to think Hubble colors were fake too until I learned it's basically a map where each color stands for a different gas. It's more like translating, not drawing on top of the photo. Still, I swear half the time I see a super processed pic, a third of the "data" is just the person's aesthetic choice.