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

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]