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?
I don't see rays in areas, only individual stars. In any picture *from the same scope *, you will see the same number of rays, but the same star field photographed through a different scope might have a different number. Just because they look next to each other in a picture doesn't mean they are in the same area, they could be a hundred light years deeper in space, and probably are. Distance and brightness make a difference too, and atmospheric haze in the earthbound scopes.
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?
Here's an article about getting the "starburst" effect with a camera deliberately which goes into the optics a little. They are diffraction lines. https://www.lightstalking.com/starburst-effect/ You notice his examples have many rays. The number of starburst rays on real stars depends on the internal structure of the telescope, can make 2,4,6,8 points. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11156/what-causes-horizontal-and-vertical-lines-coming-out-of-pictures-of-stars https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-do-stars-look-crosses-photographs
I don't see rays in areas, only individual stars. In any picture *from the same scope *, you will see the same number of rays, but the same star field photographed through a different scope might have a different number. Just because they look next to each other in a picture doesn't mean they are in the same area, they could be a hundred light years deeper in space, and probably are. Distance and brightness make a difference too, and atmospheric haze in the earthbound scopes.
Thanks for the additional research, fren!
No problem, now I know a new camera trick. :)