7 ms·

Webb's primary camera is infrared, so there is by necessity a choice to be made with how to present the data for humans who can't see in infrared.

whiteboardr 4y ago
I am aware. (And have been eagerly waiting for this moment for ages) It just seems “unscientific” to just use Photoshop and above all curious about the set of rules and algorithms, that enables them to decide which hue to pick for which region, levels, etc.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Any real science will be done on the raw images, not on the color composites released for the public. These color composite images really show off how awesome JWST is. They're meant for the public to enjoy (astronomers enjoy them too).
- vishnugupta 4y ago
  The person seen photoshopping very briefly talked about how he picks different colours for different region/light-frequency. But yes, more details will definitely be helpful. Also I guess they could open-source the untouched photos for other artists and photoshop experts to play around?
  - empyrrhicist 4y ago
    They aren't "untouched photos" in any traditional sense, but rather raw data. To visualize astronomical phenomena always requires processing/compositing. For that matter, traditional cameras on earth automate many of the same tasks being done here in Photoshop via debayering.
  - roywiggins 4y ago
    They did with Hubble: https://hla.stsci.edu/ https://hla.stsci.edu/ This article goes through processing a Hubble image of one of the same objects that Webb did today and includes an example of what it looks like before adjusting for contrast and tone. https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-process-hubble-images-from-black-and-white-into-stunning-full-color/ https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-proces...
  - dguest 4y ago
    Everything will be public eventually. There's a bit on the data policy on wikipedia [1] but basically the operations costs are funded (in part) by people paying for telescope time. The project that is currently paying for the telescope gets exclusive access for a 1 year "embargo" period, after which the data becomes public. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Ground_support_and_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Gro...
    - wthomp 4y ago
      Small correction, no one will be able to pay for time on JWST. But if you put in a proposal for time and it's accepted, they will pay you. That's to make sure there is sufficient funds available to properly make use of the data you proposed for.
      - dguest 4y ago
        Actually that's sort of a large correction, thanks for pointing that out. Isn't it a bit of an inversion of the norm in astrophysics? I'd thought many grants included money for telescope time.
  - pkaye 4y ago
    All the untouched images will be available in the MAST archives which is where the Hubble data is also available. (https://archive.stsci.edu/ https://archive.stsci.edu/)
- mrandish 4y ago
  While Photoshop is widely used in artistic and creative imaging, it also contains a powerful suite of tools for image processing in arbitrary color spaces. I'm not even a serious user and across various hobby projects I've used it for stuff like manipulating 3D depth data and deriving logical bit masks. Photoshop can do just about anything with spatial image data and if it's not built-in, you can probably find a plug-in to do what you want or write a script. The trade-off is the software can be very complex because over the decades it's grown to support an incredible number of use cases. Over the years I've also seen PS used in unexpected ways at work. If you need to do something programmatic to image or spatial data, PS is a good host platform for custom code because it will handle importing file formats, color space conversion, bit plane manipulation, alignment, scaling, cropping, perspective correction and masking before your custom processing and then it'll export the output in whatever sizes and formats you need. And it will do it on gigapixel data sets under script control. That's a lot of grunt work you don't have to implement. I've even seen it wired up to Matlab.
- irrational 4y ago
  What tool would you expect them to use instead of Photoshop?
  - tsbertalan 4y ago
    NumPy or Matlab. And it's possible the "original image" is multispectral (more than 3 channels), so you need to choose an arbitrary 3-channel projection.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  Not just in astronomy but also in biology, pretty much anyone working with images uses photoshop at least for the final layout. In biology where the rgb overlay is paramount for result interpretation, generally it’s frowned upon to play with channels too much. But when you have 10k x 5k pixel images and channels that don’t directly correlate with visual spectrum I don’t see why using photoshop extensively is wrong especially for images to be released to the general public. I’m even sure some local touch up is acceptable for me.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Photoshop is actually more complex than the JWST itself. What makes it "unscientific"? The fact that it's a consumer product?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
shitpostbot 4y ago
I had always assumed they were doing it completely mathematically though. Like collating spectrometry readings to know what elements were present where and figuring out the temperature for blackbody emission or something, or even just linearly transforming the raw data from the spectrum the telescope can receive to the visible spectrum. Kinda disappointing if it's really just a paint by numbers Photoshop to look nice
- bowsamic 4y ago
  No it’s done by hand with artistic license
- roywiggins 4y ago
  Terrestrial cameras don't behave that way. They apply tone curves from the beginning. They have to pick a white balance. They have to cram an HDR signal into an 8-bit image. They have to decide exactly how to process the color- every film stock and digital camera renders color a bit differently, even when ones that are all trying to produce true-color images and there are humans around who can compare it with their own subjective perceptions. The simplest, linearest way to do it is probably wrong, due to mismatches between human color perception and the camera's sensor / film stock. Eg, human rods and cones almost certainly don't have the same frequency response as the color filters inside your camera, and that's just the beginning. Anyway, this post shows an example comparing a "flat" color composite and one that's been tonemapped etc. This is using Hubble data but it's the same subject as one of the JWST images. https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-process-hubble-images-from-black-and-white-into-stunning-full-color/ https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-proces... This video goes into some detail about the filters that were used for one of these JWST images: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAbI8bux-jM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAbI8bux-jM
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
But, the inferred data is supposed to help us determine what I might see if I could teleport there (and time travel, not die, etc)—right?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- empyrrhicist 4y ago
  You'd have a tough time defining "there" in images like this, and your eyes are not evolved to see faint, diffuse, glowing gas structures in the infrared.

whiteboardr 4y ago

I am aware. (And have been eagerly waiting for this moment for ages) It just seems “unscientific” to just use Photoshop and above all curious about the set of rules and algorithms, that enables them to decide which hue to pick for which region, levels, etc.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
Any real science will be done on the raw images, not on the color composites released for the public. These color composite images really show off how awesome JWST is. They're meant for the public to enjoy (astronomers enjoy them too).
vishnugupta 4y ago
The person seen photoshopping very briefly talked about how he picks different colours for different region/light-frequency. But yes, more details will definitely be helpful. Also I guess they could open-source the untouched photos for other artists and photoshop experts to play around?
- empyrrhicist 4y ago
  They aren't "untouched photos" in any traditional sense, but rather raw data. To visualize astronomical phenomena always requires processing/compositing. For that matter, traditional cameras on earth automate many of the same tasks being done here in Photoshop via debayering.
- roywiggins 4y ago
  They did with Hubble: https://hla.stsci.edu/ https://hla.stsci.edu/ This article goes through processing a Hubble image of one of the same objects that Webb did today and includes an example of what it looks like before adjusting for contrast and tone. https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-process-hubble-images-from-black-and-white-into-stunning-full-color/ https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-proces...
- dguest 4y ago
  Everything will be public eventually. There's a bit on the data policy on wikipedia [1] but basically the operations costs are funded (in part) by people paying for telescope time. The project that is currently paying for the telescope gets exclusive access for a 1 year "embargo" period, after which the data becomes public. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Ground_support_and_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Gro...
  - wthomp 4y ago
    Small correction, no one will be able to pay for time on JWST. But if you put in a proposal for time and it's accepted, they will pay you. That's to make sure there is sufficient funds available to properly make use of the data you proposed for.
    - dguest 4y ago
      Actually that's sort of a large correction, thanks for pointing that out. Isn't it a bit of an inversion of the norm in astrophysics? I'd thought many grants included money for telescope time.
- pkaye 4y ago
  All the untouched images will be available in the MAST archives which is where the Hubble data is also available. (https://archive.stsci.edu/ https://archive.stsci.edu/)
mrandish 4y ago
While Photoshop is widely used in artistic and creative imaging, it also contains a powerful suite of tools for image processing in arbitrary color spaces. I'm not even a serious user and across various hobby projects I've used it for stuff like manipulating 3D depth data and deriving logical bit masks. Photoshop can do just about anything with spatial image data and if it's not built-in, you can probably find a plug-in to do what you want or write a script. The trade-off is the software can be very complex because over the decades it's grown to support an incredible number of use cases. Over the years I've also seen PS used in unexpected ways at work. If you need to do something programmatic to image or spatial data, PS is a good host platform for custom code because it will handle importing file formats, color space conversion, bit plane manipulation, alignment, scaling, cropping, perspective correction and masking before your custom processing and then it'll export the output in whatever sizes and formats you need. And it will do it on gigapixel data sets under script control. That's a lot of grunt work you don't have to implement. I've even seen it wired up to Matlab.
irrational 4y ago
What tool would you expect them to use instead of Photoshop?
- tsbertalan 4y ago
  NumPy or Matlab. And it's possible the "original image" is multispectral (more than 3 channels), so you need to choose an arbitrary 3-channel projection.
ramraj07 4y ago
Not just in astronomy but also in biology, pretty much anyone working with images uses photoshop at least for the final layout. In biology where the rgb overlay is paramount for result interpretation, generally it’s frowned upon to play with channels too much. But when you have 10k x 5k pixel images and channels that don’t directly correlate with visual spectrum I don’t see why using photoshop extensively is wrong especially for images to be released to the general public. I’m even sure some local touch up is acceptable for me.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
Photoshop is actually more complex than the JWST itself. What makes it "unscientific"? The fact that it's a consumer product?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

shitpostbot 4y ago

I had always assumed they were doing it completely mathematically though. Like collating spectrometry readings to know what elements were present where and figuring out the temperature for blackbody emission or something, or even just linearly transforming the raw data from the spectrum the telescope can receive to the visible spectrum. Kinda disappointing if it's really just a paint by numbers Photoshop to look nice

bowsamic 4y ago
No it’s done by hand with artistic license
roywiggins 4y ago
Terrestrial cameras don't behave that way. They apply tone curves from the beginning. They have to pick a white balance. They have to cram an HDR signal into an 8-bit image. They have to decide exactly how to process the color- every film stock and digital camera renders color a bit differently, even when ones that are all trying to produce true-color images and there are humans around who can compare it with their own subjective perceptions. The simplest, linearest way to do it is probably wrong, due to mismatches between human color perception and the camera's sensor / film stock. Eg, human rods and cones almost certainly don't have the same frequency response as the color filters inside your camera, and that's just the beginning. Anyway, this post shows an example comparing a "flat" color composite and one that's been tonemapped etc. This is using Hubble data but it's the same subject as one of the JWST images. https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-process-hubble-images-from-black-and-white-into-stunning-full-color/ https://www.rocketstem.org/2015/04/20/how-astronomers-proces... This video goes into some detail about the filters that were used for one of these JWST images: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAbI8bux-jM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAbI8bux-jM

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

But, the inferred data is supposed to help us determine what I might see if I could teleport there (and time travel, not die, etc)—right?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
empyrrhicist 4y ago
You'd have a tough time defining "there" in images like this, and your eyes are not evolved to see faint, diffuse, glowing gas structures in the infrared.