Link is down- heres'a an older related article with a photo of the sprout https:...

sp332 · on Sept 30, 2019

Yours has a much more believeable photo. Here's a mirror of the original with the weird picture everyone is talking about. https://web.archive.org/web/20190930160024/https://spectrum....

sukilot · on Sept 30, 2019

Is it acceptable that ieee.org posts an article with a faked photo?

lucideer · on Sept 30, 2019

Calling it "faked" is somewhat hyperbolic.

The article refers to it as an "image" (as opposed to a raw source photo) that it clearly states is the result of "image processing".

It's common practice in science to produce such representative images, e.g. in a lot of astronomy, space photgraphy, and things like SEMs

reaperducer · on Sept 30, 2019

it clearly states is the result of "image processing".

I see no such statement, clearly or otherwise.

It's common practice in science to produce such representative images

Maybe this is one reason why a growing number of people don't believe scientists anymore.

"Representative images" sounds like the fine print in a used car ad.

seanccox · on Sept 30, 2019

"The team behind a pioneering biological experiment sent to the lunar far side has released an image showing two green leaves grown on the moon."

"Image processing has now shown that two cotton leaves had grown—rather than just one as initially thought—in what was the first biological growth experiment on the moon."

reaperducer · on Sept 30, 2019

"Photo: Chongqing University

Two cotton leaves grown in the Chang’e-4 lander on the far side of the moon."

Photo = "Photograph"

Photo ≠ "We made this cool rendering of what we imagine something like this would look like."

errantspark · on Sept 30, 2019

Replying to the other comment on this, it's too deep for a normal reply but a hubble composite and a 3d render have very little to do with one-another outside the fact that they're both images.

avar · on Sept 30, 2019

"Photo" is used synonymously with "image" or "rendering" depending on the context, e.g. try searching for "Hubble photography" and you'll find plenty of examples of cool renderings from aggregated photographic source data.

magicalhippo · on Sept 30, 2019

Sure, Hubble images are seldom seen raw, but the resulting images are based on actual photos. This however seems to have been an outright illustration, and should have be labelled as such.

rebuilder · on Sept 30, 2019

The caption for the image on the IEEE article :

"Photo: Chongqing University

Two cotton leaves grown in the Chang’e-4 lander on the far side of the moon."

lucideer · on Sept 30, 2019

I don't maintain the IEEE site, so I guess I can't be sure, but that seems more of a CMS default label for image credits than a deliberate statement on the nature of the content.

FrojoS · on Sept 30, 2019

Spectrum has been a verily low quality publication for a long as I know it (about 10y).

superkuh · on Sept 30, 2019

ieee.org (and IEEE Xplore, etc) has gone downhill very fast recently accompaning their design downgrade to an all JS based website. I guess content follows form.

amelius · on Sept 30, 2019

> The plant relied on sunlight at the moon’s surface, but as night arrived at the lunar far side and temperatures plunged as low as -170C, its short life came to an end.