Serious question, how much editing is too much for an astro photo?

I read on a NASA blog that the raw data from the Hubble is basically black and white, and all the color is added later. That makes me wonder if heavily processed shots are still 'real' astronomy photos. Where do you draw the line?

4 comments

4 Comments

davidkim2mo ago

Honestly, I don't see a line at all. All data needs processing to be seen. The Hubble example proves it. To me, it's about showing the real structures in space, not making up things that aren't there. A heavily processed shot that reveals true detail is totally real.

grant4782mo ago

Wow, I actually used to think there was a clear line, but you're right. Processing to show what's really there changes everything.

the_anthony2mo ago

That astronomy podcast said even raw telescope data is a kind of translation.

the_paul1mo ago

Doesn't that mean the line is really about intent rather than how much processing you do? @davidkim makes a good point about revealing real structures, which is different from just making things look pretty for social media. If the processing helps show what's actually out there in space, it seems reasonable no matter how many steps it takes.