Yes. I remember the article that came with the poster. They, Johns Hopkins and NaSa were working on the Hubble at that time and claimed the picture was from the Large Space Telescope from the ground hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies.
"...hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies."
Yes exactly money laundering. But for what? Dumbs perhaps, dark projects. I remember them saying one mirror for the Hubble cost 200 million USD. In the 80s, Right.
I got the name from the slideshow and searched for posters of the same name. It did seem like Webb couldn't be the source, too new. The girl is blocking a lot of it in that picture which doesn't help--one field of stars looks much like another. I remember Omni magazine fondly from the Golden age of popular science. Lots of old Omnis for sale on eBay including 1983. The June issue cover is the Horsehead Nebula with Stonehenge at the bottom and I think that image has been widely used, clearly not the same. In fact a number of their covers were rendered as posters, e.g.
https://www.dpvintageposters.com/posters/american-literary/twentieth-century/omni-magazine-original-vintage-literary-poster-march-1983_1017
But we are looking for stars only, not the other stuff. Hubble pictures are common as dirt, but it was put up in 1990, so it couldn't be the source in 1983. At that time Astronomy Magazine had the best photos and were the source for other magazines. Search "astronomy stars photos 1983" and you will see why we needed Hubble and Webb. Big objects, faint starfields. One widely disseminated one that is possible is a globular cluster, M13 Hercules, if the girl is in front of the cluster and we only see the stars around it.
The colors look "right" for the age and photo deterioration--that is, there has been a shift to magenta, which you can see in the girl as well as the stars. In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact.
"In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact."
The thing about this, though, is that the mirrors on modern telescopes are supposed to be near perfect. They have to be in order to minimize distortion. If it's a camera artifact, then why don't all of the brighter areas show at least some minimal ray effects. It's either all or nothing. How can this be?
Yes! I used to have this poster on my wall as a kid. It came from an Omni Magazine centerfold around 1983. 😉
Are you serious?
Yes. I remember the article that came with the poster. They, Johns Hopkins and NaSa were working on the Hubble at that time and claimed the picture was from the Large Space Telescope from the ground hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies.
Two wolfs reminiscing of the past
Howls
Webb and Hubble telescope Decodes
https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2022/01/06/great-awakening-fake-deaths-james-webb-scope-brady-material/#james-webb-telescope
"...hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies."
Translation: This lead to more money laundering.
Yes exactly money laundering. But for what? Dumbs perhaps, dark projects. I remember them saying one mirror for the Hubble cost 200 million USD. In the 80s, Right.
Nevermind. Someone found the photo. You're right -- it IS an old photo! Unbelievable!
I found an archive of Omni magazine. Any chance you can find it? I've been unsuccessful so far:
https://archive.org/details/OMNI197908/OMNI_1983_12/page/n83/mode/2up
I'm not sure I was very young then but I did find this on pinterest all of the Omni covers interesting reads some of them.
https://www.pinterest.com/curatedbyyvette/omnivore-the-art-of-omni-magazine/
Here you go. It is called "Webb's first deep field." https://www.etsy.com/listing/1267468749/webbs-first-deep-field-poster-james-webb
Obvious time lapse smearing of many of the pink objects.
u/WeekoWolf
Aghh! This isn't an old photo. After further review, the etsy photo is from the new telescope, supposedly. This same vendor is selling another poster:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1266997655/james-webb-space-telescope-poster-cosmic?click_key=fb090d0747eb7a8340bb809ee0798cb59e351b67%3A1266997655&click_sum=59e7956e&ref=related-1&pro=1&frs=1
"🚀July 12, 2022 poster of the first images of the james webb space telescope."ðŸ”
The question then becomes, how did they get posters so quickly if the photos were just released??
To me, this particular photo looks like an artist's rendering. It doesn't look real.
I got the name from the slideshow and searched for posters of the same name. It did seem like Webb couldn't be the source, too new. The girl is blocking a lot of it in that picture which doesn't help--one field of stars looks much like another. I remember Omni magazine fondly from the Golden age of popular science. Lots of old Omnis for sale on eBay including 1983. The June issue cover is the Horsehead Nebula with Stonehenge at the bottom and I think that image has been widely used, clearly not the same. In fact a number of their covers were rendered as posters, e.g. https://www.dpvintageposters.com/posters/american-literary/twentieth-century/omni-magazine-original-vintage-literary-poster-march-1983_1017
But we are looking for stars only, not the other stuff. Hubble pictures are common as dirt, but it was put up in 1990, so it couldn't be the source in 1983. At that time Astronomy Magazine had the best photos and were the source for other magazines. Search "astronomy stars photos 1983" and you will see why we needed Hubble and Webb. Big objects, faint starfields. One widely disseminated one that is possible is a globular cluster, M13 Hercules, if the girl is in front of the cluster and we only see the stars around it.
The colors look "right" for the age and photo deterioration--that is, there has been a shift to magenta, which you can see in the girl as well as the stars. In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact.
"In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact."
The thing about this, though, is that the mirrors on modern telescopes are supposed to be near perfect. They have to be in order to minimize distortion. If it's a camera artifact, then why don't all of the brighter areas show at least some minimal ray effects. It's either all or nothing. How can this be?
Ho Lee Fook! it IS the same photo! We are being taken for a ride.
Excellent work, fren!
Here you go. It is called "Webb's first deep field." https://www.etsy.com/listing/1267468749/webbs-first-deep-field-poster-james-webb
Obvious time lapse smearing of many of the pink objects.
Getting a 429 error now on your link fren.