<p>You may find unaltered images difficult to obtain. Firstly, most images are made from a combination of many short exposures, leading to the colours being 'built up'. Secondly, all but the newest astrophotographers tend to use imaging devices which are more sensitive to the IR part of the spectrum. Further to this, many will use filters to accentuate H - alpha regions, further obscuring 'true' colour.</p>

<p>The reason that these techniques are used is to aid you, the viewer. Unedited images are often grey, faint and show little detail.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-20T22:36:43.740Z
Probes have cameras on them, with digital sensors to record the intensity of light at different points on the focal plane. They have multiple colour filters that select different combinations of wavelengths for different images. The selection of filters is based on the science needs of the mission, so  it is quite unlikely that any of these filters match the colour response of the cells in the human retina, or of the filters in the type of camera used for TV or holiday snaps. So you are very unlikely to see the kinds of colour pictures you want.
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-08T22:59:45.127Z
Indeed. Perhaps I should of asked what probes even had real cameras on them. Mars rover, Voyager 1,2 and...?
Mazura
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-04T14:19:07.083Z
Most spacecraft which visit astronomical bodies have a "real" camera on them of some kind. Every lander I can think of, all of the sun-staring probes, Galileo, Opportunity & Spirit, Juno... I'd say it's more unusual NOT to have such a camera on a probe. The question is often 'how accessible is the data from such a camera'. Sometimes cameras will not be intended for generating useful data, but are aids to navigation, targeting, calibration etc of other instruments.
Guy Stimpson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-08T09:23:26.370Z
2014-08-08T09:23:26.370Z
Guy Stimpson
<p>You can use one of the digital sky surveys. Examples include:</p>

<ul>
<li>Sloan digital sky survey <a href="http://www.sdss.org/" rel="noreferrer">SDSS</a></li>
<li><a href="http://archive.eso.org/dss/dss" rel="noreferrer">ESO online digitized sky survey</a></li>
</ul>

<p>Their images contain visible (red or blue) wavelengths as well as infrared. All images are monochromatic, as are almost all professional astronomy photographs. You could build your own composite color image from the different channels.</p>

<p>Here is an example image from the ESO DSS2 archive in red wavelength:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/o0Hv6.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-09T06:22:08.803Z
2014-08-09T06:22:08.803Z
Arne
<p>I guess, this is among the best you can find: <a href="http://heritage.stsci.edu/" rel="nofollow">Hubble Heritage</a>.</p>

<p>These are visible picture, real, and not modified, taken from space, and super-amazing.</p>

<p>If you meant pictures in wavelengths other than visible, please just ask.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-08T22:29:25.920Z
That's not quite true. They are composite images from multiple filters. Here's how they are actually made http://hubblesource.stsci.edu/services/articles/2005-02-10/.
Aaron
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-08T22:57:12.457Z
Yep, all Hubble pictures don't count. Nice site though.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-29T07:48:37.223Z
Of course, they are optimized. Yet, there is no fabrication. The images are real.
Py-ser
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-07T05:48:02.260Z
2014-08-07T05:48:02.260Z
Py-ser
<p>Many are now viewing the sky with electronic eyepieces. The images they post on the net range from unprocessed &quot;what the camera sees is what you get&quot;, on the fly mildly processed as the image is made and images made with the full blown astro photography sort of post processing.</p>
<p>I use the Mallincams. The Mallincam iO group has a photo section containing thousands of images made with those cameras. <a href="https://groups.io/g/MallinCam" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://groups.io/g/MallinCam</a></p>
<p>The group members can direct you to the photos you are interested in.</p>
<p>Many broadcast their viewing sessions on the Live Skies website <a href="https://www.liveskies.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.liveskies.org/</a></p>
<p>There are no schedules. Most broadcasts originate in North America. Check the site occasionally during the evenings. You will eventually find a broadcast.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-21T19:06:00.123Z
2020-10-21T19:06:00.123Z
L d Bonnie
<p>Where can a gallery of actual unaltered photographic images taken in (or of) space be found? Specifically ones that are untouched, not colorized (not necessarily black and white, but they usually are), and taken by natural light photography? Pictures and videos claiming "actual image" are few and far between.</p>

<p>E.g., this:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/LlCt7.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/LlCt7.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Not false color:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/vFuPa.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/vFuPa.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Both of these pictures are from NASA's (Voyager) <a href="http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/image/saturn.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Saturn Images</a> gallery. Some of the other ones there are listed as false color, some aren't (but obviously they are). Or maybe not so obviously, hence the question: <em>what does it really look like out there?</em></p>

<p>I've a pretty good idea of what Saturn looks like IRL, because I've seen it in a telescope (exactly like the first picture, except it's more colorful - absolutely nothing like the second). For most other celestial objects, I have no such baseline.</p>

<p>The title of the website I'm looking for would be along the lines of: <em>View of our solar system through the eyes of a human.</em> Decidedly, <em>not</em> containing any pictures from the HST, as all of them are photoshopped.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-13T21:59:10.750Z
I'm not sure I get the question. "Through the eyes of a human" Saturn is a bright star-like point.  Through a telescope at is a little disc with hoops. Black and white is not what humans see. CCD and Film is not what humans see. It is possible to take images that are intended to simulate human vision, but these are not unaltered, rather they are altered in a specific way. The black and white photo of saturns rings is certainly altered, it has had its brightness and contrast adjusted.
James K
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-14T00:15:43.437Z
Beginning to think I should've asked at Photography.SE, how can I better tell if a photograph is altered in any way, considering my obvious lack of knowledge in it and my difficulty in wording this. But I don't think playing with the exposure should discount the 1st pic. It deff doesn't have a blue ring tho... There's a gif of the 1st pic that absolutely brings it to life. I can tell from it, what it *must* look like. #2 looks like a 90s DOS game. Over exposed is one thing, highlighting aspects with color, of things *not* in the visible spectrum; that's what I need a baseline of it for.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-07T13:47:00.353Z
Lots of amateur astrophotography can be found here: http://reddit.com/r/astrophotography
asawyer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-31T23:49:53.533Z
@RobJeffries I'm not all that hip to photography. I'd guess I mean only pictures from Narrow or Wide Angle Lens Cameras (ISS), not IRIS, UVS or PPS. -[Voyager's Cameras](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes) I want pictures of what it would look like to my eyes if I was there. I will admit that until you mentioned it, it escaped me that Voyager actually had CCD cameras. Maybe the next question is for a gallery of *developed film* from space.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-01T06:37:55.857Z
Something to consider: an unaltered photo from a camera is already different than what your eye would see.  Most cameras have an aperture at least 10x larger than your eye.  And your eye, while sensitive, only acquires an image for a fraction of a second, whereas a typical photo of the sky may be seconds long.  It actually takes a lot of work to make an image that is as poor as your eye would see. Here is an example of a (beautiful, wonderful) unaltered photo which is nevertheless not what your eye would see.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/07/milky-way-photo-dorset_n_4056336.html
ZSG
<photography>
Gallery of 'actual images' from space?
Mazura
# Gallery of 'actual images' from space?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-08-07)

Where can a gallery of actual unaltered photographic images taken in (or of) space be found? Specifically ones that are untouched, not colorized (not necessarily black and white, but they usually are), and taken by natural light photography? Pictures and videos claiming "actual image" are few and far between.

E.g., this:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/LlCt7.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/LlCt7.jpg)

Not false color:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/vFuPa.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/vFuPa.jpg)

Both of these pictures are from NASA's (Voyager) [Saturn Images](http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/image/saturn.html) gallery. Some of the other ones there are listed as false color, some aren't (but obviously they are). Or maybe not so obviously, hence the question: *what does it really look like out there?*

I've a pretty good idea of what Saturn looks like IRL, because I've seen it in a telescope (exactly like the first picture, except it's more colorful - absolutely nothing like the second). For most other celestial objects, I have no such baseline.

The title of the website I'm looking for would be along the lines of: *View of our solar system through the eyes of a human.* Decidedly, *not* containing any pictures from the HST, as all of them are photoshopped.

**Tags:** photography

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Lots of amateur astrophotography can be found here: http://reddit.com/r/astrophotography  
> **username_0**: @RobJeffries I'm not all that hip to photography. I'd guess I mean only pictures from Narrow or Wide Angle Lens Cameras (ISS), not IRIS, UVS or PPS. -[Voyager's Cameras](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes) I want pictures of what it would look like to my eyes if I was there. I will admit that until you mentioned it, it escaped me that Voyager actually had CCD cameras. Maybe the next question is for a gallery of *developed film* from space.  
> **username_3**: Something to consider: an unaltered photo from a camera is already different than what your eye would see.  Most cameras have an aperture at least 10x larger than your eye.  And your eye, while sensitive, only acquires an image for a fraction of a second, whereas a typical photo of the sky may be seconds long.  It actually takes a lot of work to make an image that is as poor as your eye would see. Here is an example of a (beautiful, wonderful) unaltered photo which is nevertheless not what your eye would see.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/07/milky-way-photo-dorset_n_4056336.html  
> **username_1**: I'm not sure I get the question. "Through the eyes of a human" Saturn is a bright star-like point.  Through a telescope at is a little disc with hoops. Black and white is not what humans see. CCD and Film is not what humans see. It is possible to take images that are intended to simulate human vision, but these are not unaltered, rather they are altered in a specific way. The black and white photo of saturns rings is certainly altered, it has had its brightness and contrast adjusted.  
> **username_0**: Beginning to think I should've asked at Photography.SE, how can I better tell if a photograph is altered in any way, considering my obvious lack of knowledge in it and my difficulty in wording this. But I don't think playing with the exposure should discount the 1st pic. It deff doesn't have a blue ring tho... There's a gif of the 1st pic that absolutely brings it to life. I can tell from it, what it *must* look like. #2 looks like a 90s DOS game. Over exposed is one thing, highlighting aspects with color, of things *not* in the visible spectrum; that's what I need a baseline of it for.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2014-08-08. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

You may find unaltered images difficult to obtain. Firstly, most images are made from a combination of many short exposures, leading to the colours being 'built up'. Secondly, all but the newest astrophotographers tend to use imaging devices which are more sensitive to the IR part of the spectrum. Further to this, many will use filters to accentuate H - alpha regions, further obscuring 'true' colour.

The reason that these techniques are used is to aid you, the viewer. Unedited images are often grey, faint and show little detail.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Indeed. Perhaps I should of asked what probes even had real cameras on them. Mars rover, Voyager 1,2 and...?  
> **username_4**: Most spacecraft which visit astronomical bodies have a "real" camera on them of some kind. Every lander I can think of, all of the sun-staring probes, Galileo, Opportunity & Spirit, Juno... I'd say it's more unusual NOT to have such a camera on a probe. The question is often 'how accessible is the data from such a camera'. Sometimes cameras will not be intended for generating useful data, but are aids to navigation, targeting, calibration etc of other instruments.  
> **username_5**: Probes have cameras on them, with digital sensors to record the intensity of light at different points on the focal plane. They have multiple colour filters that select different combinations of wavelengths for different images. The selection of filters is based on the science needs of the mission, so  it is quite unlikely that any of these filters match the colour response of the cells in the human retina, or of the filters in the type of camera used for TV or holiday snaps. So you are very unlikely to see the kinds of colour pictures you want.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-08-09. Score: 7

You can use one of the digital sky surveys. Examples include:

* Sloan digital sky survey [SDSS](http://www.sdss.org/)
* [ESO online digitized sky survey](http://archive.eso.org/dss/dss)

Their images contain visible (red or blue) wavelengths as well as infrared. All images are monochromatic, as are almost all professional astronomy photographs. You could build your own composite color image from the different channels.

Here is an example image from the ESO DSS2 archive in red wavelength:

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/o0Hv6.jpg)


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2014-08-07. Score: 4

I guess, this is among the best you can find: [Hubble Heritage](http://heritage.stsci.edu/).

These are visible picture, real, and not modified, taken from space, and super-amazing.

If you meant pictures in wavelengths other than visible, please just ask.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: That's not quite true. They are composite images from multiple filters. Here's how they are actually made http://hubblesource.stsci.edu/services/articles/2005-02-10/.  
> **username_0**: Yep, all Hubble pictures don't count. Nice site though.  
> **username_7**: Of course, they are optimized. Yet, there is no fabrication. The images are real.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2020-10-21. Score: 0

Many are now viewing the sky with electronic eyepieces. The images they post on the net range from unprocessed "what the camera sees is what you get", on the fly mildly processed as the image is made and images made with the full blown astro photography sort of post processing.

I use the Mallincams. The Mallincam iO group has a photo section containing thousands of images made with those cameras. <https://groups.io/g/MallinCam>

The group members can direct you to the photos you are interested in.

Many broadcast their viewing sessions on the Live Skies website <https://www.liveskies.org/>

There are no schedules. Most broadcasts originate in North America. Check the site occasionally during the evenings. You will eventually find a broadcast.


---

