It's funny that even an article that purports to be about the accomplishments of JWST still contains mostly vanity images. To my knowledge most of the interesting science done with Webb doesn't...
It's funny that even an article that purports to be about the accomplishments of JWST still contains mostly vanity images. To my knowledge most of the interesting science done with Webb doesn't actually result in pretty pictures – those are made specifically for PR purposes by artificially coloring different spectra to create a striking picture.
Don't get me wrong, I love the pretty pictures. My desktop wallpaper at the moment is a slideshow of photos I stole from the JWST Flickr and they're breathtaking. I just think there's an interesting dichotomy between the actual science that the telescope was built for and the fluffy PR images that keep the public engaged, and NASA has clearly realized that both are crucial.
That's a fair assessment, but it's always been like that. NASA has to make sure Congress keeps funding them and people -- Congress-critters and people-people -- like the pretty images because they...
That's a fair assessment, but it's always been like that. NASA has to make sure Congress keeps funding them and people -- Congress-critters and people-people -- like the pretty images because they sure aren't reading the publications. It's like that with wildlife conservation, too. And similarly, the assumption is with wildlife conservation is that the cute animals are much better funded than they really are.
My visits to NASA open houses were always about collecting cool posters of sciencey stuff that wasn't actually explained anywhere on the poster or in any kind of document that might be purchased at said open house. They weren't just enlargements of press-released photos of the latest nebula or grainy red dwarf or satellite mission, they were also advertisements for specific satellite and rover missions as well as programs highlighting their partnerships with Lockheed Martin or North American Rockwell and other defense/aerospace contractors. It's PR all the way down.
I agree that even the popular-ist pop-science publications could stand to have more informative content in them. And having factual information would be even better (SciAm I'm looking at you and your 'what if' articles masquerading as probably truths).
For those looking for more science to digest and ruminate on, that's still accessible to the layperson, I suggest subscribing to:
Hearing this perspective makes me a bit sad, I can't help but push back on that a bit. There seems to be an attitude among commentators who are trying to be more "serious" about high-level...
mostly vanity images
Hearing this perspective makes me a bit sad, I can't help but push back on that a bit. There seems to be an attitude among commentators who are trying to be more "serious" about high-level astronomy that colour images aren't worthwhile, even that they are unscientific. Which dovetails nicely with the sometimes common public perception that the images are all fake anyway.
Sure, photometry is more automated than done by eye these days, and spectroscopy has undoubtedly taken over from visual astronomy. But the pictures are still scientifically valuable in their own right. They help to disseminate knowledge of a research target, not just to the layman, but among other astronomers as well - they sometimes show up in papers. A well-crafted image can highlight the features of an astronomical object, especially in non-visible wavelengths, much better than words can. They help the viewer to really understand what features are producing what light (hence what spectral features) and where, in a region. We're a visual species and that benefit can't be understated, I think. Colouring an image also just provides more information than a flat monochrome image does alone, it allows you to represent more information at a time about an object, and all together rather than in separate frames. And when image specialists create an image a lot of work goes into cooperating with the researchers who took the data to make sure the image is scientifically accurate - if the researchers aren't creating the image themselves!
I think people sometimes aren't aware that the "pretty pictures" have a purpose alongside, or even beyond, their PR purpose (which is no small benefit either, it garners public support for astronomy and it gets people into the science!). But I especially don't like a complete dichotomy being drawn between the two, it's way too cynical for my understanding.
Perhaps "vanity images" was too harsh a term; I didn't mean to imply that they don't have value! It wasn't clear from my comment but I'm glad NASA is putting more effort into PR images, because as...
Perhaps "vanity images" was too harsh a term; I didn't mean to imply that they don't have value! It wasn't clear from my comment but I'm glad NASA is putting more effort into PR images, because as you say they help greatly with funding and political will and we're short on both lately. But I still don't think I would classify re-imaging Stephan's Quintet or the Pillars of Creation as "accomplishments" per se.
The discouraging part about it for me personally is that it starts to feel like a bit of an arms race. I have worked on Roman for years and though we've only just started I&T, the public outreach is already starting to spin up and the narrative seems to be "better than Hubble, wider field than Webb." I wish each new observatory didn't have to be bigger and better and prettier in some way to keep folks interested, but that's life.
It's funny that even an article that purports to be about the accomplishments of JWST still contains mostly vanity images. To my knowledge most of the interesting science done with Webb doesn't actually result in pretty pictures – those are made specifically for PR purposes by artificially coloring different spectra to create a striking picture.
Don't get me wrong, I love the pretty pictures. My desktop wallpaper at the moment is a slideshow of photos I stole from the JWST Flickr and they're breathtaking. I just think there's an interesting dichotomy between the actual science that the telescope was built for and the fluffy PR images that keep the public engaged, and NASA has clearly realized that both are crucial.
That's a fair assessment, but it's always been like that. NASA has to make sure Congress keeps funding them and people -- Congress-critters and people-people -- like the pretty images because they sure aren't reading the publications. It's like that with wildlife conservation, too. And similarly, the assumption is with wildlife conservation is that the cute animals are much better funded than they really are.
My visits to NASA open houses were always about collecting cool posters of sciencey stuff that wasn't actually explained anywhere on the poster or in any kind of document that might be purchased at said open house. They weren't just enlargements of press-released photos of the latest nebula or grainy red dwarf or satellite mission, they were also advertisements for specific satellite and rover missions as well as programs highlighting their partnerships with Lockheed Martin or North American Rockwell and other defense/aerospace contractors. It's PR all the way down.
I agree that even the popular-ist pop-science publications could stand to have more informative content in them. And having factual information would be even better (SciAm I'm looking at you and your 'what if' articles masquerading as probably truths).
For those looking for more science to digest and ruminate on, that's still accessible to the layperson, I suggest subscribing to:
NASA's JWST Blog
JWST.NASA.gov for actual news (that pop-sci publications will regurgitate with absurd headlines).
WebbTelescope.org and /images for actual explanations of the pretty pictures.
For the in-depth minutiae on JWST then STSCI.edu is the place to be (and /news specifically).
Hearing this perspective makes me a bit sad, I can't help but push back on that a bit. There seems to be an attitude among commentators who are trying to be more "serious" about high-level astronomy that colour images aren't worthwhile, even that they are unscientific. Which dovetails nicely with the sometimes common public perception that the images are all fake anyway.
Sure, photometry is more automated than done by eye these days, and spectroscopy has undoubtedly taken over from visual astronomy. But the pictures are still scientifically valuable in their own right. They help to disseminate knowledge of a research target, not just to the layman, but among other astronomers as well - they sometimes show up in papers. A well-crafted image can highlight the features of an astronomical object, especially in non-visible wavelengths, much better than words can. They help the viewer to really understand what features are producing what light (hence what spectral features) and where, in a region. We're a visual species and that benefit can't be understated, I think. Colouring an image also just provides more information than a flat monochrome image does alone, it allows you to represent more information at a time about an object, and all together rather than in separate frames. And when image specialists create an image a lot of work goes into cooperating with the researchers who took the data to make sure the image is scientifically accurate - if the researchers aren't creating the image themselves!
I think people sometimes aren't aware that the "pretty pictures" have a purpose alongside, or even beyond, their PR purpose (which is no small benefit either, it garners public support for astronomy and it gets people into the science!). But I especially don't like a complete dichotomy being drawn between the two, it's way too cynical for my understanding.
Perhaps "vanity images" was too harsh a term; I didn't mean to imply that they don't have value! It wasn't clear from my comment but I'm glad NASA is putting more effort into PR images, because as you say they help greatly with funding and political will and we're short on both lately. But I still don't think I would classify re-imaging Stephan's Quintet or the Pillars of Creation as "accomplishments" per se.
The discouraging part about it for me personally is that it starts to feel like a bit of an arms race. I have worked on Roman for years and though we've only just started I&T, the public outreach is already starting to spin up and the narrative seems to be "better than Hubble, wider field than Webb." I wish each new observatory didn't have to be bigger and better and prettier in some way to keep folks interested, but that's life.