Update: I just read that the Hubble Deep Field image took 342 separate exposures

Found that in an old article from 1998... it's crazy how much work went into one picture. Anyone else have a favorite deep space image that took a surprising amount of effort?

3 comments

3 Comments

robin_lee13d ago

Remember when they first showed us the Hubble Deep Field in school? Our teacher made a big deal about it being basically nothing, then blew our minds saying every tiny speck was a whole galaxy. It kind of ruined regular space pictures for me after that, because you start seeing the empty black parts and wondering what's actually hidden there. I get what @riverthompson is saying about wanting a clear shot of Saturn, which is awesome, but that deep field stuff hits different. It's less about a pretty postcard and more about the sheer scale of everything, you know? It makes my brain hurt in a good way.

jennifer_henderson8914d ago

Honestly that sounds like a waste of telescope time. They could have pointed it at something new 341 times instead of staring at empty space. My favorite space pictures are the simple ones, like a clear shot of Saturn's rings, where you can actually see what you're looking at without needing a math degree to understand it. All that effort for a bunch of fuzzy dots just feels like showing off. They probably spent more time on that one picture than I spend cleaning a whole office building.

riverthompson14d ago

Exactly. It's like they're trying to make it a puzzle only they can solve. Give me a picture where I can point and say "that's a planet" or "that's a moon." Not a bunch of colored smudges that need a whole press release to explain. Feels like they forget regular people want to look at space too, not just other scientists. All that time and money for something most folks just scroll past.