From: Whisky-dave <>
Subject: Re: Jupiter photos
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id q17mr3864605qtg.38.1510330468810;
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:14:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id y18mr728982vky.6.1510330468643; Fri,
10 Nov 2017 08:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:14:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ou4d1f$1v9p$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
References: <l8VMB.233452$mj4.3561@fx29.fr7> <ou1o6q$1cf9$>
<> <ou2990$h56$>
<> <ou4d1f$1v9p$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Jupiter photos
From: Whisky-dave <>
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:14:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 117
Print Article
Forward Article
On Friday, 10 November 2017 14:28:09 UTC, Mayayana  wrote:
> "Whisky-dave"<> wrote
> | It;s not willy nilly when they have the information that tells you what 
> the colours mean. It's like staining cells in biology at school there's a 
> reason for doing it and it's not for artistic perception of reality.
> |
>   Take a look here:
>   They invite you to download photos and upload your
> own version. Some are more subtle. Some are wild.

yes I've been tempted to do such a thing and upload a picture of Elvis hidding in the clouds and

> Where do you draw the line? 

Why would you draw a line we don't with most photos.

>It's a scientific photo if it's
> tastefully done and it's an art project if it looks like a
> Peter Max poster? Both are made up. It's basically
> a 6th-grade art project.

So, NASA makes the images availble for people.
If someone adds a bowler hat to a picture of jupitor  so what.
Scientists want believe that jupitor has suddnly decided to wear a bowler hat it might confuse or
trick you, but that isn;lt NASAs fault is it.

>   Staining a slide is done to increase the visibility of
> structures. In that scenario the color itself is not
> relevant and one knows that it's not accurate.

ell I know the same about pictures of juipitor and other objects.
I know that if I want to understand what the picture means I have to do more than just look at it, I
must read the description and details supplied.

> Colorizing
> NASA photos is done to make them look more interesting
> aesthetically and spark the imagination. Entertaining
> space fantasies might help to increase public support
> of NASA.

That will help I guess and the pictures from hubble are composite images so peole can see wavelenghs
of light the human eye can't see.
Typically when a nebula is shown in blue that is the gas clouds which while the the human eye can't
see, it's only invisible to the human eye thiose gas clouds do exist. Using technology that only
records a tiny fraction of teh light emitted IS a fake picture of the object as yuo're only seeing
the visable light.

This is why we need sun glasses too, just because you can only see the visiable light that doesnl;t
mean that no other radiation  is being emitted.
I;t syou that;s seeing a fake picture because of relative poor eyesight, I know because I have a
friend that can't see the colour red so for him a sunset is quite differnt to what I see.

> "Junocam is on the spacecraft explicitly to reach out to the public and 
> share the excitement of space exploration."
>   NASA are trying to increase interest by making
> it all look more intriguing.

if they wanted to do that they'd show alien pyrimds on mars more than they do.

> As someone interested in
> science I find that misleading and devaluing. 

What I find worse are artists impressions but sometimes these are required to make things clear. 

> I can
> see how many people might think it's simply fun,

for some it is, just like believe in zombies or jesus.
Pleanty of picture of jesus despite few if any being drawn by anyone that saw him.

> like an artist's rendering of how they imagine trceratops
> might have been adorned with war paint-like stripes.
> But they should make it clear that these are doctored
> photos with made-up colors. That's all I'm saying.

I think NASA do, but maybe they expect those viweing them to read the captions too.

> Separate the science from the entertainment. It's
> not as though we need an artist's rendering. The whole
> point is that they have actual photos of the planet.

Yes but we can;t move earth above the red spot to compare sizes so we need either a fake photo as
you put it or an artosist impression or a rather dry statment using miles or KMs or perhaps you'd
prefer AUs