Zolt Levay , Sep 15, 2003; 09:24 p.m.
This relates to a post
here back in July by Allison Heinrichs, a reporter intern for
the Los Angeles Times,
researching a story on the production of
color images from the Hubble Space Telescope. Her article appeared
Friday, September 5, 2003, though she is no longer with the paper.
It's available on-line (but does require a free
registration to read there). I figured nobody would see this if I
just replied to the original post.
As it turns out, this story features yours truly fairly prominantly,
as I am one of the primary sources of the color images from Hubble at
the Space Telescope Science
Institute; therefore I do have a personal and professional stake
in this. I feel that we were completely honest with the L.A.
Times (as we are with anyone willing to listen) in describing
what we do to prepare images for public outreach.
The reason I am posting this followup is to alert anyone interested
in this topic to the article, and to try and counteract
misleading and damaging claims in the Times story. It's
pretty clear that the motives of the editors and reporter were not
entirely honest. They apparently wanted to report that we
are "faking" Hubble images by extensive manipulation in order to make
Hubble look better than it really is, though this agenda was not
clear during Allison's extensive interviews with me and others here,
and subsequent followups. We have always been sensitive to the
criticism that our images are not "reality" so we are careful to
explain the entire (non-trivial) process of reconstructing color
images from many individual, grayscale exposures.
Despite nearly unanimous responses from photo.net members (and others
independent of this exchange) denying that we (Hubble) are doing
anything misleading or underhanded, as well as significant interview
time devoted to explaining the processes we use, the paper still
chose to ignore those facts and claim that we are the ones misleading
the public. The most disturbing assertion is that we falsely inflate
Hubble's power in order to keep the public interested and money
flowing from funding agencies. Yes, we do work hard to promote
Hubble and its scientific results to as broad an audience as
possible, partly through the admittedly powerful resources of NASA
PR. But in fact, we work with the astronomers analyzing the Hubble
data to make sure the images (as well as any non-data-derived
illustrative graphics) we produce are honest to the underlying data.
The reason the Hubble images are spectacular is not because
we artificially over-manipulate them, but because the underlying data
are astonishingly high quality.
We do not ever claim that this is what you would see with your eyes.
We have resources available explaining the process and technology
behind it (Behind
the Pictures, for example), and disclose for each picture at
least the nature of the data used to produce the images. In fact,
all Hubble data are available to the public, so anyone can in
principle reproduce the color composites, making their own technical
and aesthetic choices (though it does take some experience and
expertise to do so as the data are not simply the equivalent
of "camera raw" digital images).
I welcome further comments on the topic of producing color images in
astronomy, or Hubble specifically, or the Times article,
here in this forum or privately.
Mark B Bartosik , Sep 16, 2003; 02:20 a.m.
I truly believe that you (Hubble) are doing a magnificent work. Not only by collecting fascinating scientific data but also by presenting them to public in the form that allow the average person to visualize the universe. Newspaper people have to make a living and unfortunately they very often try to make it easy way on pseudo sensational news counting on lack of the deeper knowledge of majority readers. Most of them (reporters) jumping from subject to subject forgetting the fact that it takes years of study to even understanding the basics.
Craig Gillette 
, Sep 16, 2003; 02:58 a.m.
I happened to see the article (in spite of my marked aversion to dealing with the Times, my mother subscribes and my wife often picks it up at work), and it was everything she protested it wouldn't be. In her discussions here she insisted on having an open mind (yet continued to insist on a need to tell "both" sides of the story).
I still wonder to what extent she discussed the story with the photographers on the paper to discuss how they handle color photography for use in the paper.
Karl Lehmann , Sep 16, 2003; 10:13 a.m.
I just read the article. I must say I was surprised, because I remembered the post from July and I didn't think Allison sounded that unreasonable or irrational at the time. So I did a google search on "Allison Heinrichs" and now I'm even more mystified. She seems to have a background in science in general and astronomy in particular - which one would never guess from reading the LA Times article!
I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt because it's hard to believe someone with her background would have written the article as it appears. Perhaps what she actually wrote has been dumbed down and slanted by the editors to appeal to the general public?
I'm not familiar with the LA Times but if they run articles like this on a regular basis it's hard to believe anyone takes the paper seriously anyway.
Karl Lehmann Lost World
Arts
Greg S , Sep 16, 2003; 11:56 a.m.
Zolt, At times I have questioned some Shuttle program missions, but never the Hubble. Perhaps the most important missions ever performed by Shuttle astronauts was to launch, repair, and maintain Hubble.
I will read through the various articles and info (especially Behind The Pictures) with interest, but fully expect to end up feeling the same as I always have. To me the Hubble telescope has been an example of science at its best. As it turns out, because of the instrument's incredible leap in resolution from everything which preceded, it is also sometimes science at its most entertaining (which is not a bad thing).
I could go on and on, due to being such an avid astronomy/cosmology fan, but I'll do some reading and learn. Two things though: 1) thanks for visiting the forum and clarifying your position. 2) many/most in the public are totally behind the program and do not doubt its scientific importance or integrity one iota. The Hubble has and I'm sure will continue to be one of mankind's most important and rewarding tools in pure science.
BTW, I've always been impressed with the coordination of HST and other astronomical sites, such as Keck. It's a valuable resource which looks to have always been very well managed (once the initial optics problem was solved :)
Al the best,
Greg
Andrew Dawson 
, Sep 16, 2003; 04:06 p.m.
I remember the LA Times article when it came out; I think I only
browsed it, since like many here I was already aware of how
astronomical images are manipulated, and that it is accepted
practice to do so. Not to defend the Times needlessly, but it
strikes me that they are falling into the same trap as alot of news
organizations these days. In an attempt to appear "fair and
balanced" they spout some alternate or opposing view, even if it
doesn't hold the slightest bit of water scientifically. Hubble is
one the unqualified success stories, in spite of its rough
beginnings. Yet another media outlet tries to create controversy
where it doesn't belong...
Bob Atkins 
, Sep 16, 2003; 04:46 p.m.
The Hubble images and the whole program are examples of what science should be about. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of astronomy and photography will be in no doubt at all that the images are real and that there is no attempt to "fake" or "enhance" images in order to fool the public.
It's stories like this one that give the press a bad name. Whether it's due to lack of knowledge by those doing the reporting or slants insisted on by editors I don't know, but I expect to soon see stories on how the earth is a sphere along with the inclusion of convincing evidence from the flat earth society that there are alternative theories...
nathan cohen , Sep 17, 2003; 07:21 a.m.
Hello Zolt,
I am an astronomer. I am not sure why this 'debate' is being presented here. There is no debate:-)
Here is the criterion for whether the images you discuss are 'honest' or not.
Are the images part of an ongoing observing program which is part of the data base of-- research--?
If they are, are the processing steps any different from the those used to detail scientific content?
If an image was processed for some DIFFERENT reason, is its inclusion back into the data set going to invalidate the data set? In other words, would it be interpreted as a 'fudged' data point? If so, is it described as being non-physical?
Enhancement steps are standard practice in astronomy, On rare occasions, such images are enhanced --purely-- for aesthetic reasons. While such pictures are beautiful, they do not (nor are meant to) convey the actual image accurately. Several pictures by David Malin of Australia; composites and collages of the moons of Jupiter; and so on are have been shown in this light, which is described as such and legit in its own right.
I have never seen ANY NASA images--from STSI or otherwise--which have been fudged in any way. Composites and aesthetically enhanced images have always been described accurately.
Jim Arnott , Sep 18, 2003; 02:19 p.m.
Dont tell me stars dont have 5 points now.
Leif Goodwin , Sep 18, 2003; 06:06 p.m.
I worked for nearly 10 years in academic research (condensed matter theory). It really irked me how 99% of people weren't interested in any of the details. All they wanted was sensationalist sound bites. It also really irks me how many people think scientists make up things for political reasons rather than the reality which is a search for truth (corny though it might sound). People in positions of influence and responsibility have a duty to ensure that science is reported fairly and honestly.
The Hubble pictures on the web are outstanding.
