Aren’t images like the one with Saturn basically just different pictures photoshopped together?
Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
31–40 of 43 posts
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#32NASA guide to astro photography with smartphones:
https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/SMBooks/AstrophotographyV1.p...
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#33This is the kind of discovery that I love to see on HN. Regardless of who wins the competition, we all win by getting to see all of the entries. Absolutely gorgeous shots. Made my day.
> Absolutely gorgeous shots
Yes, but these days I have to wonder whether AI was involved, and I hate having that thought because of the massive time, expertise, equipment, and luck that it takes for the real photos to be created.
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#34Norwegian here. Not a young one. Ive seen my share of the northern lights and Ive also seen a lot of photos of it. The photos are attractive, but they are never like seen by the photographer with the naked eye. I blame that dark/night photography is an impossible task. The tricks like long exposure, ISO boost and noise cleanup, saturation, hdr or whatever you throw at it, just wont be like your eyes. Photographers ge…
I'm all for managing people's expectations, but I'm just not agreeing with your conclusion. Human vision is only capable of registering such a small piece of the spectrum that is there. Just because human eyeballs cannot perceive the information does not mean it is not there. This is true of pretty much any astronomy photographs, and that is why people do it. When you look at the milky way, you don't see all of the c…
I believe you and the parent are arguing from two different axis.
You seem to be arguing from a perspective that photography is an opportunity to use technology to show humans what's impossible to see, be it because our eyes don't register the low light (thus needing long exposures or composites), or because we experience time differently than a long exposure photograph shows it.
Meanwhile, the parent is arguing from the perspective that photography should reflect only what our eyeballs can see, without embellishing (or at least as much). Capturing the moment, as it were.
You can both be right, and (I would argue) are. There's room for both (and many more) perspectives in art.
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for managing people's expectations, but I'm just not agreeing with your conclusion. Human vision is only capable of registering such a small piece of the spectrum that is there. Just because human eyeballs cannot perceive the information does not mean it is not there. This is true of pretty much any astronomy photographs, and that is why people do it. When you look at the milky way, you don't see all of the c…
I believe you and the parent are arguing from two different axis. You seem to be arguing from a perspective that photography is an opportunity to use technology to show humans what's impossible to see, be it because our eyes don't register the low light (thus needing long exposures or composites), or because we experience time differently than a long exposure photograph shows it. Meanwhile, the parent is arguing from…
If we only ever “saw” the universe through naked eye observation, we’d “know” a lot less about our universe. Creating waveforms or spectrographs of sound would be similar since humans can’t see sound, should we never be allowed to use those. We can’t see x-rays, so should doctors just have to guess at where your bones are broken?
The fact that humans can over come their limited abilities from their natural senses to be able to experience real world in wider gamuts is a very cool thing. These types of astro images are real world data. It’s not some genAI made up from thin air. People are not rendering things in some 3d software and passing it off as real, or making obviously impossible comps. These are just presenting data that exists that we can’t “see” without help.
Again, I’m all for managing expectations. Every time I let someone look through my telescope, I remind them it is not going to be what they’ve seen from Hubble or anything else online.
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for managing people's expectations, but I'm just not agreeing with your conclusion. Human vision is only capable of registering such a small piece of the spectrum that is there. Just because human eyeballs cannot perceive the information does not mean it is not there. This is true of pretty much any astronomy photographs, and that is why people do it. When you look at the milky way, you don't see all of the c…
More so than just the colors, capturing moving northern lights at night invariably means capturing an aggregation over a long time. That isn’t just capturing something we can’t natively parse, but aggregating data into something new. Think someone who only ever saw waterfalls in long-time exposure shots, these frozen, milky streams that look nothing like actual water, while still being pretty to look at. Would you sa…
Capturing motion with timelapse and/or long exposure again is just a way of showing us things that we cannot “capture” on our own. We know the sky moves, we know the auroras change shape, intensity, colors, but on a timescale slower than our perception can handle. Capturing that through a camera just proves that, and is not making things up.
Your premise is just too out there. Someone only ever having seen long exposure of a waterfall is just so preposterous, and is more guilty of making shit up than the GP’s concern over faking imagery by pushing contrast/saturation in images. Yours is just totally made up nonsense trying to make a point while the other is just enhancing real data.
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you and the parent are arguing from two different axis. You seem to be arguing from a perspective that photography is an opportunity to use technology to show humans what's impossible to see, be it because our eyes don't register the low light (thus needing long exposures or composites), or because we experience time differently than a long exposure photograph shows it. Meanwhile, the parent is arguing from…
If we only ever “saw” the universe through naked eye observation, we’d “know” a lot less about our universe. Creating waveforms or spectrographs of sound would be similar since humans can’t see sound, should we never be allowed to use those. We can’t see x-rays, so should doctors just have to guess at where your bones are broken? The fact that humans can over come their limited abilities from their natural senses to…
> We can’t see x-rays, so should doctors just have to guess at where your bones are broken?
Hey if I wanted to see strawmen, I'd watch The Wizard of Oz instead of trying to have this conversation.
Actually, I'm unsure why you're arguing with me. I literally said you were both right. Unless your stance is that GP's definition of art is incorrect? If so, that's a far more slippery slope than I wish to go down and I bid ye adieu.
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#38This is the kind of discovery that I love to see on HN. Regardless of who wins the competition, we all win by getting to see all of the entries. Absolutely gorgeous shots. Made my day.
> Absolutely gorgeous shots Yes, but these days I have to wonder whether AI was involved, and I hate having that thought because of the massive time, expertise, equipment, and luck that it takes for the real photos to be created.
Hello, astrophotographer here.
The unique thing about astrophotography is that the subject that we are imaging is (relatively speaking) static. Any slight deviation, even the smallest detail, that is not structurally accurate is PAINFULLY obvious.
As an aside, we do use traditional neural networks for certain processing steps. Deconvolution and noise reduction are very common. However, these are only helping in correcting errors caused by viewing conditions. They are not the "imaginative" AI that you are dreading.
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Absolutely gorgeous shots Yes, but these days I have to wonder whether AI was involved, and I hate having that thought because of the massive time, expertise, equipment, and luck that it takes for the real photos to be created.
Hello, astrophotographer here. The unique thing about astrophotography is that the subject that we are imaging is (relatively speaking) static. Any slight deviation, even the smallest detail, that is not structurally accurate is PAINFULLY obvious. As an aside, we do use traditional neural networks for certain processing steps. Deconvolution and noise reduction are very common. However, these are only helping in corre…
I had a feeling something like this was true, thank you for confirming it!
I would actually be more worried about a knowledgeable human engaging in clever Photoshop alterations, or pasting different images together. Is this an issue in astrophotography? Are there ways to easily detect this?
Re: Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2025 shortlist
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
More so than just the colors, capturing moving northern lights at night invariably means capturing an aggregation over a long time. That isn’t just capturing something we can’t natively parse, but aggregating data into something new. Think someone who only ever saw waterfalls in long-time exposure shots, these frozen, milky streams that look nothing like actual water, while still being pretty to look at. Would you sa…
Capturing motion with timelapse and/or long exposure again is just a way of showing us things that we cannot “capture” on our own. We know the sky moves, we know the auroras change shape, intensity, colors, but on a timescale slower than our perception can handle. Capturing that through a camera just proves that, and is not making things up. Your premise is just too out there. Someone only ever having seen long expos…
It was an analogy. Most people have only ever seen northern lights in Timelapse shots, and thus have no clue how the real thing differs. Capturing auroras in a photo creates a visualisation of their movement in the sky, and not an accurate representation of what the phenomenon looks like.