>>3987245>arent all the colours in astrophotography fake? except for the planetsI'm just telling you that the Moon doesn't have any additional colors to see no matter how much magnification you throw at it. You're going to get white, gray and dark gray. Astrophotography is a different story.
Astrophotography often involves composite images taken through filters for specific wavelengths in order to filter out the noise. This renders "false" colors for each specific wavelength, which are usually composited with other images in order to create an image that often, not always, approximates natural colors. Images of the planets are also often taken this way by space-based telescopes in order to see deeper into thick, gaseous atmospheres. The image that the telescope sees with each filter may be black and white, but then an approximate color is assigned, given how that wavelength would look to the human eye.
>>3987253>is the fake light just doppler shifted? because if were just correcting it then i think its an ok thing to do, but if its like taking IR and UV photos then its a bit ingenuionStars put out light in a huge variety of wavelengths, and those wavelengths correspond to the elemental composition of that star, mostly hydrogen and helium, but also heavier elements in small amounts. In fact, the exact wavelengths present can imply the presence of certain elements and even allow astronomers to determine the temperature, and therefore the size and age, of a given star. See pic related for some explanation.
The filters are designed to target wavelengths from specific elements, in order to filter out extraneous light and show details not otherwise visible in the otherwise blinding "white" light from the broad spectrum of natural wavelengths present. Keep in mind, that "disingenuous" is not a factor in astronomy, where the objective is to study the stars, not to produce art in some specific, genuine way that only you agree with.
