Are James Webb Space Telescope images really so colorful?

Against a dark backdrop of space, speckled with bright dots representing hundreds of galaxies, a giant reddish splotch at the center depicts an active region of star formation.
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope has captured a tightly bound pair of actively forming stars, known as Herbig-Haro 46/47, in high-resolution near-infrared light. Look for them at the center of the red diffraction spikes, appearing as an orange-white splotch. (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA. Image Processing: Joseph DePasquale (STScI))

NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is known for looking deep into the universe with an unprecedented level precision and sensitivity. But its images aren't only scientifically useful — they're also beautiful.

From the blues and golds of the breathtaking Southern Ring Nebula to the pinks, oranges and purples of the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant, James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images render the universe in brilliant color. The images the orbital observatory produces are often so stunning, you might find yourself asking: Do these cosmic objects really look that colorful? And what would these celestial wonders look like if we could view them with our unaided eyes, instead of on a screen?

As it turns out, scientists aren't exactly sure. "The quickest answer is, we don't know," said Alyssa Pagan, a science visuals developer at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and a member of the team that helps make JWST images so colorful. But despite the uncertainty, one thing is certain: Your own eyes wouldn't see the universe like this.

If you were somehow able to look directly at these objects with your own eyes, you might see something that resembles the images from telescopes that see the universe visual light, like the Hubble Space Telescope, Pagan said.

But even that comparison isn't quite right, since Hubble is much larger and more sensitive than the human eye, so it can take in much more light. Also, visual-light telescopes might capture different features of an object than an infrared telescope would, even when focused on the same target.

JWST is an infrared telescope, meaning it sees the universe in wavelengths of light that are longer than that of red light, which has the longest wavelength we can detect with our eyes.

How are colors chosen for JWST images?

So how exactly are the colors for the JWST's spectacular images chosen?

The telescope's targets are first observed through several filters that are attached to the telescope. Each filter can "see" in specific ranges of wavelengths of infrared light. JWST's Near Infrared Camera, the telescope's main camera, has six filters, all of which capture slightly different wavelenghts of light. Combining these images into a composite allows Pagan and Joe DePasquale, another science visual developer at the STScI for JWST, to create the full-color images.

When Pagan and DePasquale first receive the images, they appear in black and white. The colors are added to the image later, as the data from the various filters are translated into the spectrum of visible light, Pagan explained. The longest wavelengths appear red, while the shorter wavelengths are blue or purple.

"We are using that relationship with wavelengths and the color of light, and we're just applying that to the infrared," Pagan said.

Once each color has been added to the image, it might go through some additional alterations. Sometimes, the original colors can make an image look faded or dusty, and the colors are made more vivid to give it a sharper quality. The colors might also be shifted to emphasize certain hard-to-spot features.

Pagan and DePasquale also work with researchers to make sure the images are scientifically accurate, particularly if they are presented alongside a particular scientific finding, Pagan said. Though the color images don't provide specific scientific data, they can help illustrate certain findings.

Sometimes they also can help scientists see areas they might want to research, Pagan said. For instance, the most distant objects in JWST's first deep-field view — which appear red because light traveling such a distance had been stretched out — presented targets for research on the early universe when these objects would have existed as they appeared in the deep-field image.

Are JWST images 'real'?

The colors in JWST's images may not be "real," but don't get the wrong idea — the colors aren't meant to trick you, and they aren't chosen simply to make these objects look gorgeous.

Instead, the images are intended to communicate as clearly as possible what JWST can see — and what our eyes can't.

You can see some of the differences between images from visual-light and infrared telescopes by comparing images of the iconic Pillars of Creation taken by JWST and Hubble, seen below.

The iconic Pillars of Creation. The Hubble Space Telescope's view on the left, the new James Webb Space Telescope photo on the right. (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI; Joseph DePasquale (STScI), Anton M. Koekemoer (STScI), Alyssa Pagan (STScI).)

While large portions of the pillars appear dark red in the Hubble image, the JWST image depicts most of the formation in golden and orange tones. This means that the visual light emitted by the pillars is longer wavelength (red) but a bit closer to the middle of the spectrum of infrared light depicted in the image.

Much of the hazy material that surrounds the pillars in the Hubble image, and even some of the materials of the pillars themselves, is also absent from the JWST image, meaning this portion of gas and dust is transparent in infrared. The JWST image also highlights more areas of star formation in red, which are obscured by thick clouds of gas and dust in the Hubble image.

By adding these colors to the images, scientists help the public appreciate the James Webb Space Telescope and its contributions to astronomy. "We're just trying to enhance things to make it more scientifically digestible and also engaging," Pagan said.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Rebecca Sohn
Contributing Writer

Rebecca Sohn is a freelance science writer. She writes about a variety of science, health and environmental topics, and is particularly interested in how science impacts people's lives. She has been an intern at CalMatters and STAT, as well as a science fellow at Mashable. Rebecca, a native of the Boston area, studied English literature and minored in music at Skidmore College in Upstate New York and later studied science journalism at New York University. 

  • ChrisA
    "We don't know"? Of course we do. If you were to fly out in space and look close up with just you own eyes looking ut a window. All you would see is empty black space. The gas density is so close to a vacuum that there is so little "stuff' you would not see it.

    Telescopes are dramatically larger then human eyes and can collect millions of times more light. It is not just their size but that Telescope can take very long exposures and add up the light that faal on them for hours.

    So you would see blackness, but these high instruments can see the small amount of light in that darkness.

    Then if you look through a small telescope from your backyard, almost everything looks white. Human color vision only works in daylight brightness, faith objects, look colorless.

    It is even worse with JWST because it is looking in a range of "colors" that we can not see at all. So the data has to be translated up to what the eyes can see. Our eyes see infrared as "blackness".

    "We don't know" is a very bad answer. We'd see nothing at all.

    The better question is about Mars. It is red and orange but the eye adapts and after a few hours the color would fade and look more neutral. Just like our eyes adapt to light at sunset and we see it as less red than it really is.
    Reply
  • Spacelizard
    ChrisA said:
    "We don't know"? Of course we do. If you were to fly out in space and look close up with just you own eyes looking ut a window. All you would see is empty black space. The gas density is so close to a vacuum that there is so little "stuff' you would not see it.

    Telescopes are dramatically larger then human eyes and can collect millions of times more light. It is not just their size but that Telescope can take very long exposures and add up the light that faal on them for hours.

    So you would see blackness, but these high instruments can see the small amount of light in that darkness.

    Then if you look through a small telescope from your backyard, almost everything looks white. Human color vision only works in daylight brightness, faith objects, look colorless.

    It is even worse with JWST because it is looking in a range of "colors" that we can not see at all. So the data has to be translated up to what the eyes can see. Our eyes see infrared as "blackness".

    "We don't know" is a very bad answer. We'd see nothing at all.

    The better question is about Mars. It is red and orange but the eye adapts and after a few hours the color would fade and look more neutral. Just like our eyes adapt to light at sunset and we see it as less red than it really is.
    Off topic. But will JWST ever be capable of direct imaging of Earth size, rocky exoplanets ? Not just giant gas planets like Jupiter as it was done before. At the beginning they said it was possible, but now they are quiet about it. Was that all just hype ?

    Same with (ESO) Extremely Large Telescope in Chile, planned for 2028 opening. They said that it will be theoretically possible, but what is an actual chance that we will actually see direct images of Earth size, rocky exoplanets during our lives ?
    Reply
  • motie
    Spacelizard said:
    Off topic. But will JWST ever be capable of direct imaging of Earth size, rocky exoplanets ? Not just giant gas planets like Jupiter as it was done before. At the beginning they said it was possible, but now they are quiet about it. Was that all just hype ?

    Same with (ESO) Extremely Large Telescope in Chile, planned for 2028 opening. They said that it will be theoretically possible, but what is an actual chance that we will actually see direct images of Earth size, rocky exoplanets during our lives ?
    I believe the angular resolution of JWST is roughly 0.05 arc-second. 0.05arc-sec = 1.3889e-5deg. Then tan(0.05arc-sec) = 2.424e-7. What if an object is X miles away from JWST? The smallest feature that JWST can see is X * 2.424e-7.

    What if an object is one light-year away? That's 5.88e12 miles. JWST resolution is 2.424e-7 * 5.88e12mi = 1.4e6mi = 1.4 million miles. So even a star will be one pixel. Keep in mind that one lightyear is really close in astronomy.

    What if an object is one million light-years away? JWST resolution is 1.4e12mi = 1.4 trillion miles.

    If my math is wrong, please let me know. I am not an astronomy pro.

    The other big problem is that planets are usually in orbit around suns, which are vastly brighter than the planets. So telescopes and cameras have a tough time seeing the planet, since it is so close to the sun. Most planets are within the same pixel as their sun. So you "see" the planet by observing the slight change in the sun's brightness as the planet traverses the sun's image.
    Reply
  • Spacelizard
    motie said:
    I believe the angular resolution of JWST is roughly 0.05 arc-second. 0.05arc-sec = 1.3889e-5deg. Then tan(0.05arc-sec) = 2.424e-7. What if an object is X miles away from JWST? The smallest feature that JWST can see is X * 2.424e-7.

    What if an object is one light-year away? That's 5.88e12 miles. JWST resolution is 2.424e-7 * 5.88e12mi = 1.4e6mi = 1.4 million miles. So even a star will be one pixel. Keep in mind that one lightyear is really close in astronomy.

    What if an object is one million light-years away? JWST resolution is 1.4e12mi = 1.4 trillion miles. So a galaxy will be one pixel.

    If my math is wrong, please let me know. I am not an astronomy pro.

    The other big problem is that planets are usually in orbit around suns, which are vastly brighter than the planets. So telescopes and cameras have a tough time seeing the planet, since it is so close to the sun. Most planets are within the same pixel as their sun. So you "see" the planet by observing the slight change in the sun's brightness as the planet traverses the sun's image.
    How much better will be the angular resolution of the (ESO) Extremely Large Telescope in Chile, planned for 2028 opening, compared to JWST ? Will it be able to make direct images of Earth size, rocky exoplanets with better resolution than one pixel at least with closest exoplanets 4 light-years away ? They said it will be at least theoretically possible. But they said that also about JWST.
    Reply
  • contrarian
    Direct imaging of stars is the best we can hope for, unless it is a really large planet, and close by. We will require an enormous telescope to resolve planets.

    Below is a link to resolved stars. Gives one the impression that it is not a cake walk even for stars. There are a number of interesting resolutions in this list. Spending some time on this list is worth the effort.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_with_resolved_images
    Reply
  • Spacelizard
    contrarian said:
    Direct imaging of stars is the best we can hope for, unless it is a really large planet, and close by. We will require an enormous telescope to resolve planets.

    Below is a link to resolved stars. Gives one the impression that it is not a cake walk even for stars. There are a number of interesting resolutions in this list. Spending some time on this list is worth the effort.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_with_resolved_images
    But I remember from the article about (ESO) Extremely Large Telescope in Chile (planned for 2028 opening), they claimed that direct images of closest Earth-sized, rocky exoplanets 4 light years away can be theoretically possible. And from these images (even if they will be just 1 pixel images) they could theoretically see changing seasons of the year and shapes of the continents. Are you saying that even with ESO 1 pixel images of closest Earth-sized, rocky exoplanets 4 light years away are beyond our reach ? How big Telescope would you need to achieve it ?
    Reply
  • motie
    Spacelizard said:
    But I remember from the article about (ESO) Extremely Large Telescope in Chile (planned for 2028 opening), they claimed that direct images of closest Earth-sized, rocky exoplanets 4 light years away can be theoretically possible. And from these images (even if they will be just 1 pixel images) they could theoretically see changing seasons of the year and shapes of the continents. Are you saying that even with ESO 1 pixel images of closest Earth-sized, rocky exoplanets 4 light years away are beyond our reach ? How big Telescope would you need to achieve it ?
    Even with one pixel, you can do spectroscopic analysis of the light. Let's say water is blue and soil is gray. You can resolve those colors and figure out which color is dominant. What if soil is covered with snow in winter? The gray gets replaced by white.

    Most astronomical images seen by the public are artist's representations. But that isn't often pointed out. So the average person thinks we can see fine details on distant planets. If you showed them the actual images, public support for space-related science would probably take a big hit.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    In my outside opinion, we are not trying to get a detailed image. Too far for it. We are trying to get high res molecular signals. Spots in the visible spectrum. We are searching for organic molecules, or good indicators of life. We need enough of collected light flux, to break and split apart, for these detections. Larger proportions. To fine thinner things.

    Finding signs of life is the race today. But even if they find it, it will be like entanglement…...NO communication possible. No application. It won’t matter cept it’s there. But I’m sure many are willing to spend their careers on it. And that’s fine. Many fields in space.

    The real cosmic questions will be answered, or at least teased, with distance/time detection. And that will take time. Time to collect, not just area to collect. Repeated intermittent directional integration. Of the dark spots.

    Powerful long distance detectors. For fundamental research.

    Just from what I have read. And self assemble.
    Reply
  • ChrisA
    Spacelizard said:
    Off topic. But will JWST ever be capable of direct imaging of Earth size, rocky exoplanets ? Not just giant gas planets like Jupiter as it was done before. At the beginning they said it was possible, but now they are quiet about it. Was that all just hype ?

    Same with (ESO) Extremely Large Telescope in Chile, planned for 2028 opening. They said that it will be theoretically possible, but what is an actual chance that we will actually see direct images of Earth size, rocky exoplanets during our lives ?


    No. Any earth-link planet would be so close to its star that it would be drowned out with glare. You need a "coronagraph". to block the star's light. But even then, JWST lacks the resolution to directly image a planet.

    That said, Yes JWST could in theory observe an Earth-like planet using spectrometry. If the circles the star such that from our point of view it passes both in front and behind the star, JWST could see the spectrum change and deduct some of the gasses in the atmosphere.

    Even with a more powerful telescope, we'd learn a lot more using spectrometry than direct imaging.
    Reply
  • ChrisA
    motie said:
    Even with one pixel, you can do spectroscopic analysis of the light. Let's say water is blue and soil is gray. You can resolve those colors and figure out which color is dominant. What if soil is covered with snow in winter? The gray gets replaced by white.

    Most astronomical images seen by the public are artist's representations. But that isn't often pointed out. So the average person thinks we can see fine details on distant planets. If you showed them the actual images, public support for space-related science would probably take a big hit.
    To detect life by directly imaging it, You need a telescope hundreds of thousands or perhaps hundreds of millions of miles wide. It would need to be larger than the Earth. and closer to the size of the Solar System. In theory, this is possible but in practice, it will be centuries before we do that.

    Of course, it would not be a single telescope but a large number of telescopes in orbit and all of their light is combined coherently. In theory, there is no limit to the size but we must leave it for those living in the next millennia. (maybe in 3025?)

    Here is an example of such a telescope that is smaller but uses the same idea: https://www.mtwilson.edu/chara/Now imagine those six domes not on a single mountain but in orbit around the Sun. (At least they would not need to build vacuum tubes.). There are a million way-hard problems to solve to make that work, it will not be in our lifetime but someday we could be continents on an exoplanet.

    That said, I can imagine a Chara-like array on Moon the someday. You would land the smaller domes around the perimeter of a large crater.
    Reply