> Art is provocative

The misleading part is that readers don’t see that it’s provocative art until you carefully read the details. It’s presented like documentary evidence of what the problem looks like.

The photographer might not have intended it this way, but the writers of this post took advantage of that.

▲

bix6 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The first sentence literally says it’s a multi image composite so…

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s not the misleading part. You don’t need an explanation to see that it’s a composite.

The misleading part is where he edited out the stars by hand.

> Much of the time was spent painstakingly erasing stars, to reveal the satellites.

The photographer wasn’t misleading. He made a cool photo. The headline is misleading.

▲

happytoexplain 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's nothing misleading about removing light sources to reveal other light sources. You're speaking as though they erased all the sky's stars. The image is full of stars. This is petty.

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m quoting the article where the photographer erased the stars from the frames:

> Much of the time was spent painstakingly erasing stars, to reveal the satellites.

These aren’t my words. It’s what the article says!

The final image appears to have a frame of stars added for effect, but they are dots rather than arcs because they’re from a single exposure. The satellite trails are a composite of all of the images, with the stars removed.

	▲	bix6 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Do you understand how composite images work and why they are used?

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]