This image was standardised and then normalised while stitching it together, and the final product enhanced a lot of colouration. They’re subtle to the naked eye, but they exist. They are reflected in the different minerals present. I’ve done this stuff with different imagery.
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.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 months ago
This image was standardised and then normalised while stitching it together, and the final product enhanced a lot of colouration. They’re subtle to the naked eye, but they exist. They are reflected in the different minerals present. I’ve done this stuff with different imagery.
foofiepie@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Pasted from the Reddit thread:
fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 months ago
Those are great explanations!
Liz@midwest.social 3 months ago
Yeah when you get into “proper” photography you quickly realize a “real” image is somewhat subjective. This moon is cracked to 1000%, though.
StaySquared@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Excellent explanation. Appreciate you sharing it!