Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

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

Not false color:

enter image description here

Both of these pictures are from NASA's (Voyager) Saturn Images 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.

share|improve this question
Lots of amateur astrophotography can be found here: – asawyer Aug 7 '14 at 13:47
What is a "real camera"? And in space, what is * – Rob Jeffries Jan 31 '15 at 8:59
@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 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 Jan 31 '15 at 23:49
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.… – ZSG Feb 1 '15 at 6:37
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 Feb 13 at 21:59

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

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

share|improve this answer

I guess, this is among the best you can find: Hubble Heritage.

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.

share|improve this answer
That's not quite true. They are composite images from multiple filters. Here's how they are actually made – Aaron Aug 8 '14 at 22:29
Yep, all Hubble pictures don't count. Nice site though. – Mazura Aug 8 '14 at 22:57
Of course, they are optimized. Yet, there is no fabrication. The images are real. – Py-ser Aug 29 '14 at 7:48

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.

share|improve this answer
Indeed. Perhaps I should of asked what probes even had real cameras on them. Mars rover, Voyager 1,2 and...? – Mazura Aug 8 '14 at 22:59
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 Sep 4 '14 at 14:19

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.