this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
599 points (98.7% liked)

Astronomy

4055 readers
55 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Knowing what I know, I am assuming this image was standardised and then normalised (fancy stats algos to keep things in the same visual range) while stitching it together, and the final product enhanced a lot of colouration (saturation). They're subtle or undetectable to the naked eye, but they exist. They are reflected in the different minerals present. I've done this stuff (raster stitching) with different imagery. Op was active in the comments with info, but I didn't read up on it.

[–] foofiepie 44 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Pasted from the Reddit thread:

The colors don't match what a human eye would see, but without going into a philosophy tangent, color is extremely complex and a huge part of what a human sees is your brain doing representations and mapping that isn't perfectly represented in the physical object being observed. In this photo the saturation has been increased (versus a human eye) because it helps show the geological differences on the lunar surface. The reddish areas are high in iron and feldspar, and the blue-tinted zones have higher titanium content. Instead of thinking of the color as "real" or "fake" it's probably better to think of it as a tool, to simulate if you were a super human with the ability to adjust saturation and detect metal composition with your eye. Usually when a photo like this is shared by researchers and scientist all this nuance and exposition is included, but then journalist and social media get a hold of it and people start crying "fake" without an understanding of what the image is trying to accomplish. TL;DR - The image isn't what a human eye would see but it isn't just art to look cool, the color and modifications have physical meaning and serve a purpose.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Those are great explanations!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah when you get into "proper" photography you quickly realize a "real" image is somewhat subjective. This moon is cracked to 1000%, though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's true. I did photography as a hobby as a kid and it set me ahead when I started mapping. It's all the same no matter the domain.

[–] StaySquared 1 points 5 months ago

Excellent explanation. Appreciate you sharing it!

[–] mojofrododojo 1 points 5 months ago

here's what I'd like to know: would we perceive any of this pigmentation from the lunar surface?