It may not be the most beautiful picture ever taken, and it may not be the most significant, but it surely is the most astonishing.
Oh, and to answer the inevitable question: the list referenced at the bottom of the post never got written. Sigh. The dustbin of history is littered with so many of my intentions....
Mike
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
That's a very good choice for best picture, but I do think the "pale blue dot" picture is probably at least as astonishing and (for me) a much more affecting image.
Both of them, also, probably mark the high-point of humanity's engineering skills: as we choose to spend a decreasing amount of effort exploring the universe around us and a rapidly increasing amount playing with computers which we like to pretend is not just wasting time, though we know it is.
Posted by: Tim Bradshaw | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 09:00 AM
I think "Pale Blue Dot" gains much of it's awe not from the photograph itself, but from the incredibly moving writing that Carl Sagan used in describing it. It brings a tear to my eye every time I read it.
Posted by: Mikey | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 11:05 AM
Nope!
Posted by: Neil The Wheel | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 11:17 AM
The lens cap alone would probably fetch more than those rare Nikon lens shades that pop up on the black market from time to time.
If "Hubble 3D" shows up at an Imax theater near you, don't miss it.
Posted by: Chuck Albertson | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 12:05 PM
Lots of noise in the dark areas, next time use a full frame. ;)
Posted by: Rui Silva | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 12:06 PM
This has been a thought provoking exercise and much appreciated. I was around for this the first time, but time is an amazing thing and I see it so much differently now. Its been fun getting to know you. Thanks.
Posted by: Barb Smith | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 12:42 PM
Mike,
Just when was the "deep field" photo that you posted taken? Or, since apparently it's a high-tech composite of hundreds of exposures made over a relatively long period of time — a million-second exposure used to be about 278 hours — perhaps the question is: between when and when were the hundreds exposures taken, or, alternatively, when was the composite image finished or released? — Just curious (I found the post somewhat confusing in this regard, though of course I'm more often confused than not anymore, no matter what about).
Richard Howe
Posted by: Richard Howe | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 04:44 PM
The Hubble has 16 megapixels at the moment. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/SM4/main/WFC3_FS_HTML.html
It's not about the (very expensive) camera, it's what you do with it :)
Posted by: Kelvin | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 05:23 PM
Finding hints of things never accomplished and forgotten about is always a good sign that one day perhaps you could once again return to that task and add it to the done pile.
Seize the opportunity, don't mourn the failure.
Posted by: Jayson Merryfield | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 06:03 PM
Fornax is above Orion from down here, encompassing the zenith even!
Posted by: James | Sunday, 07 August 2011 at 08:33 PM
Richard - Lots of detail on how the image was taken on Wikipedia, here.
Posted by: David Bostedo | Monday, 08 August 2011 at 01:17 PM
Still one of my favorite posts, Mike, maybe The Favorite. We live in an age of wonders, and we forget it too often.
Posted by: Francisco Cubas | Tuesday, 09 August 2011 at 01:10 PM