
Scientific Errors in Nat Geo Milky Way Photos - spzx
https://petapixel.com/2019/05/10/scientific-errors-in-those-nat-geo-milky-way-photos/
======
todd8
Reminds me a bit of the photo manipulation on Nat Geo cover photo of Egyptian
pyramids.[1]

[1] [https://medium.com/engl462/visual-deceptions-national-
geogra...](https://medium.com/engl462/visual-deceptions-national-geographic-
and-the-pyramids-of-giza-3fee6d448d0d)

~~~
PorterDuff
lol. You beat me to it, although I was going to be snarkier.

The funny thing is that even cropping can be an editorial decision. All media
lies to a certain extent.

~~~
EForEndeavour
> The funny thing is that even cropping can be an editorial decision. All
> media lies to a certain extent.

Don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good." It's technically true that all
media lies to a certain extent, but painstakingly modifying the actual content
of a photograph such that no physical device could ever capture the result is
obviously way worse than just cropping the image.

------
leereeves
> For starters, in real life, there is visible light pollution in several
> directions around the forest and none of this is visible here on the
> horizon.

It seems like in many of the pictures, including the one above this quote, the
horizon is much lighter than the sky above. Isn't that light pollution?

> You can perhaps recognize...the bright star Vega and Polaris, which would be
> located above the frame.

How do we recognize those? The arrow to "Polaris" is pointing out of the
picture. And how was the bright dot in the picture identified as "Vega"?

~~~
GraemeL
Vega is pointed out because in relation to the galaxy in the picture it allows
the author to locate where Polaris should be (above the frame). Polaris being
above the frame is a problem because it is never above the horizon where the
photograph is supposed to have been taken.

~~~
leereeves
I get that, but if that bright dot isn't Vega, then the argument falls apart.
How do we know it's Vega?

~~~
michelpp
From the article "The night sky offers an unlimited source of markers (e.g.
stars, constellations, Milky Way, etc.) that never lie about the time of year
and location in the world you shot a night sky picture from."

The key word is unlimited. Vega is correctly identified by the many stars
around it that are in turn correctly identified by the many professional
astronomers and astro-photographers discussing these very pictures. The photo
mentions polaris to point out the absurdity of the north star being in the sky
of a picture taken in the southern hemisphere.

~~~
leereeves
That's an argument from authority without even establishing the authority in
question.

Evidence, please.

Edit: Well, that's a lot of downvotes. So you all see the pattern? Why not
point it out?

Or are you merely accepting this blog post without question?

~~~
teraflop
Are you actually in doubt that the star in question is Vega, or do you believe
that the author knows what they're talking about but just think it would be an
amusing thing to start an argument over? I'm hoping it's the former.

Here is a photo of the so-called "summer triangle" consisting of the bright
stars Vega, Altair and Deneb: [https://astrobackyard.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/the-sum...](https://astrobackyard.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/the-summer-triangle-asterism.jpg)

And here is an animation showing that same photo, roughly superimposed on the
photo in question:
[https://i.imgur.com/MM37zt3.gif](https://i.imgur.com/MM37zt3.gif) (EDIT:
Imgur seems to be redirecting to a badly converted version of this animation,
try copy-and-pasting the link into the address bar.)

Even without being able to identify individual matching stars, you can clearly
see that the shape of the stars and dust lanes in the Milky Way are the same.

~~~
leereeves
Thanks for that, that's helpful. That's pretty damning evidence, and I can't
find anything that might look similar from Namibia in Stellarium.

Since you mentioned my motives, I'll address that: I'm just tired of the
Internet falsely accusing people and want to see more evidence before the
pitchforks come out.

But in this case, I'm convinced.

~~~
teraflop
Fair enough. For my part, I'm tired of the internet (and HN in particular)
being quick to dismiss the opinions of actual experts in any given field for
superficial reasons. Your original comment that started this thread strikes me
as a good example of the so-called "middlebrow dismissal":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224)

Yes, one shouldn't blindly accept the words of an authority. That doesn't mean
it's a good idea to constantly demand that those authorities constantly back
up every little thing they say, even on topics about which they are more
knowledgeable than you are. That gets irritating really fast (which I suspect
is why you got downvoted), and more importantly, it tends to derail more
interesting and productive discussions.

~~~
leereeves
Usually I wouldn't even comment on an article about astronomy, but this was a
public accusation of fraud. I see questioning such posts as a moral
obligation.

What's the bigger risk: annoying a few people with persistent calls for
evidence, or letting a false accusation spread for fear of annoying people?

~~~
hannasanarion
The "false accusation" is trivial to verify. The stars never change, not on
the scale of human lifetimes anyway. All you had to do is look up a chart and
you could prove it for yourself.

~~~
leereeves
It's not trivial if you don't know what to look for, and I obviously didn't.

~~~
inflatableDodo
The sky at night. Is quite big and appears fairly regularly, you can't miss
it.

------
holografix
“I’m not blaming the intern but it’s completely their fault”. Is her basic
response, pretty shocking behaviour for a professional. Also, would t NatGeo
demand the RAW files for any photo submitted? Or did they conveniently trust
the photographers completely?

~~~
mehrdadn
It's not a great one, but I think I can understand her response... I feel like
she's between a rock and a hard place here. If you're accused of blatant
dishonesty for someone else's work and demanded an explanation... would you
make it appear as if you yourself were dishonest when you weren't, without
mentioning someone else was involved? Wouldn't that itself be dishonest (and
I'd argue unfair)? It's much easier when the company is the target, when you
can just blame it on an error and move on, but I can't think of a much better
response honestly when your name is the one personally on the hook, which it
appears to have been here. What would you say instead?

~~~
CriticalCathed
I would apologize for putting my name on the work of an intern. Either they're
lying and they were fully aware of the work being fabricated, or they were so
uninvolved with the processing of the photographs that they had no idea they
were faked.

~~~
mehrdadn
> I would apologize for putting my name on the work of an intern.

How is that any better than what she already wrote? Or in fact how is that
even an apology? It seems way worse and far more willing to blame the intern
than what she has right now.

------
wayanon
Would be a cool site or app if you could upload star images and it would give
you locations/dates when that view was possible - or if the image was
completely bogus.

------
swixmix
I've taken 30 second exposures of stars at night but they were too blurry for
my liking. The earth never stopped rotating and I didn't have the gear to
correct for the rotation. There's no way to get an accurate panorama on a
moving subject unless all exposures are at the same time.

(Fifteen second exposures worked best for me.)

~~~
mchristen
A good rule of thumb is (focal length / 500) to figure out your maximum
exposure time before having blurry stars.

To get around a 20-30s exposure you're looking at somewhere between 14-24mm
focal length, ideally with the largest aperture you can afford.

------
IAmGraydon
The way she mentions her father's death and then goes on to blatantly blame
the image on a nameless intern while claiming she's not blaming it on her is
just cringe inducing. This is a grown adult making childish moves. When you
screw up, you stop digging, come clean and deal with it.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> When you screw up, you stop digging, come clean and deal with it.

This doesn't seem to be true. Are you saying this always produces the best
outcomes, or that you wish more people would hurt themselves for your benefit?

~~~
inflatableDodo
Is often true. Also 'you wish more people would hurt themselves for your
benefit?' is a rather unusual and somewhat fanatically zero sum way to
describe someone's advice not to double down on a lie when caught out by
competent experts.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> a rather unusual and somewhat fanatically zero sum way to describe

I'm not seeing where "zero-sum" applies. Zero-sum, intuitively enough,
describes a system in which gains and losses sum to zero. That is almost
certainly not the case here.

But it's still true that what you're hoping for is a gain to you and a loss to
the fraudster. Somebody losing doesn't mean they lost an amount equal to some
other party's gain.

