That Milky Way shot that keeps getting called 'untouched'

I keep seeing people post these Milky Way photos claiming they're straight out of camera, no edits. But I've been shooting astro for about 8 years now and I can spot the telltale signs. A real single exposure from a standard DSLR will have a greenish or orange sky glow, not that deep purple and blue. Also the stars will have some natural chromatic aberration around the edges, not perfect white points. I checked the EXIF data on one of those posts last week and it was clearly a composite with tracking. Why do people feel the need to pretend their stacked and edited images are raw captures? Has anyone else noticed this trend getting worse lately?

2 comments

2 Comments

julia84311d ago

i mean yeah some people definitely lie about their astro shots but who cares that much? "dipped in blue raspberry syrup" is funny but like, is it really ruining your day that someone fudged their exif data? people have been editing photos since photography was invented, it's not some new crime against the craft. if the shot looks cool and they're not selling it as some pure untouched thing to beginners, who loses besides your blood pressure? maybe just scroll past and save the detective work for when someone's actually hurting the hobby.

johnson.lee11d ago

Oh boy, another "untouched" Milky Way that looks like it was dipped in blue raspberry syrup. Guess my 8 years of astro were just me not knowing how to crank the saturation slider enough.