I totally get what you're saying. What I was trying to point out is that an image caption saying something like: "This is composite image created using bands x,

I totally get what you're saying. What I was trying to point out is that an image caption saying something like: "This is composite image created using bands x, y and z converted to their approximate color and corrected for albedo variations due to the time and position of the different exposures.", or saying: "This is an artist rendition.", would be great. I get that there can be discussion of whether or not the processed image data is or isn't an accurate depiction of reality. Sometimes the raw images are good enough to release without any processing. Sometimes the 'raw' image has so much processing and generation of new data done to it to even get to an image (that latest black hole photo being a good example), that it would be disingenuous (at least in my eyes) to call it an 'image acquired using a telescope'. This is indeed a good discussion to have. My point is however that news sites can't just leave out their image captions and let the public guess about it. That's the worst option. Best would be clear image descriptions, so that at least the public knows what it's looking at. Even if those image captions don't fully convey the complete process of how the image was acquired and processed, but just a short synopsis of the process.