4 ms·

I also thought that wasn't "fair" since many of the comparison images are taken with long exposure times. I have a very old astronomy book that includes simila

• tusslewake 5y ago
  Curious, what is the book?
  • narag 5y ago
    "Astronomía" in Spanish, by José Comas Solá. It was a gift for me, almost 50 years ago. I think it was a little dated already.
• dredmorbius 5y ago
  Where "long" may be measured in anything from hours to months. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image (a follow-up to the original 1995 Deep Field image of an "empty" region of sky), has a total exposure time of just under 1 million seconds (11 days), with single channel exposures of a minimum of about 1.5 days. This somewhat exceeds the duration and light-collecting capabilities of a human observer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field Though granted, such prolonged exposures aren't necessary for the nearer observations (many within the solar system) included in the article here.
• redisman 5y ago
  Especially the Orion Nebula. I see the picture on the left and think oh yeah that’s almost exactly what I see with my scope. Then on the right it’s some crazy photoshopped (playing with channels) long exposure.