Islands in Infinity Galaxies 3-D Derek Ward-Thompson (Author), Brian May (Editor), J-P Metsävainio (Illustrator). From https://shop.londonstereo.com/
When I abandoned my Forum post announcing the release of this book, and also finding another post on the Forums about the release back in 2025, with no responses, I concluded that the interest was low. I had expected at least one person to respond that they had purchased, or otherwise seen the book, and could comment on it. Well just a few days ago, as a birthday gift, my wife got me a copy, so I guess I will be the first to make comment.
Coming from a group of professional astronomers and a clearly creative astrophotographer/illustrator, I had a guarded, but positive expectation. I incorrectly expected that I would receive a book that was primarily stereo-pair images. This is far from the fact and the book has considerable narrative and history on the primary topic of galaxies. Second, my fear is that the 3-D results would not really work, and as a stickler for the correctness of data, I felt that even if the results looked good, they would be too factually speculative. In that respect, there is some truth on this second point for this otherwise very entertaining and well produced volume. Why my doubts? Well, I believe that most who participate here on AstroBin are well aware that all objects recorded for any of these distant objects cannot be done so in any manner that could reproduce the 3-D impression that our eyes do for terrestrial objects that are restricted to fairly close objects. As stated by J-P Metsavainio (the person responsible for the 3-D work), the two cameras would have to be separated by thousands of light years, and much more for the more distant object. My doubts arose from my knowing that these stereo pairs are all synthetic. That said, the authors dedicate a section at the end as to what the process was that allowed for 3-D representations. Yes this is synthetic, but I trust J-P when he states that there was a lot of research to gather as much of the available scientific data related to distance as possible to bolster the algorithms that generated the images. As I know, from often doing a lot of research on the images I produce, distance measurements are not always easy to come by. Nor are they available at the fine scales necessary to infallibly structure a full galaxy with all its internal elements. Failing complete distance knowledge, J-P points to some of the other clues that he uses to deduce distances, linear order, etc. For example, dark clouds are dark and appear relatively star-free because they reside in front of the more distant star clouds. So there is no doubt that there is artistic creativity that goes into this.
If the 3-D images are the draw for people to buy this book, I think this is a wonderful deception to get people to learn more about our Universe and the galaxies that are the building blocks for the structure that is now being fleshed out in astrophysics. If there were only one book that someone might read to learn everything about what a galaxy represents, what types of galaxies there are, how they are structured, how they interact, and how they fit into the cosmic web that is the Universe, this one would be a good one to recommend. If that sparks further interest, then yes, by all means continue to move on to more specific and scientifically deeper texts. While I recognize that there is little here that I have not read before, I am glad as parent, who is probably going to have to wait for grandkids for some time, that I will have something that I can give to the kids when they visit, and then outright give to any one of which decide they want to pursue this stuff further.
As for the 3-D images, I find them to be quite entertaining for this astrophotographer, amateur astronomer and would-have-preferred-to-be-an-astronomer. I find them to cover the full spectrum from -outstanding and very likely good representations of reality- to -underwhelming and not able to really convey a 3-D perspective. The latter is rare, but there is varying degrees as to how this process works here. This is my opinion as restricted to the 3-D effect. Most images of objects are selected among the finest images of each object that is available, with some exceptions and all are very familiar to anyone who has done astrophotography for even a year. I want to be clear here that my having done astrophotography for a decent number of years, but having been a participant as an amateur for decades, I have a bias towards my expectations at to what many of these images should look like in 3-D. Even though I know that I do not have any special ability to “see” how these should be, my biases are deep seated. No matter, all of the images offer some joy in viewing. I am also critical photographically, and I would certainly have chosen certain other photos through which to convert to 3-D. In particular the choice made for M31. I am not that fond of deeply oversaturated images of M31, this having nothing to do with boosing HII regions. The few that seem to drop the ball are ones that offer a decent level of 3-D perception through 80% of the object, only to have the top layer of structure look flat, as if the object was pushed up under a glass table. Or sliced into to course layers. Example: NGC 4945 on page 104. Did they just run out of time to complete the process? M31 on page 88 has an unexpected geometry from the 3-D image. The disk appears to be paper thin, and the forward edge of the disk appears to be strongly turned under. The central bulge appears smaller than I would have expected. This is interesting. I have no basis to state that this cannot be correct. I will have to file this info in my mind to see if any more info comes along to change my mind. 3-D representations of the large galaxy clusters should be revisited, with better photos. Yes, the 3-D probably reflects a decent reality to actual galaxy placement, but the smallish galaxies each look flat with only a few exceptions. They should do a volume of all the galaxy clusters and superclusters with data that comes from the Rubin/LSST. These, I feel were fields just too stressful for their process. There are many wonderfull examples too numerous to list. Example is the linear presentation of the Milky Way on page 46. Also, NGC 3718 on page 121, for this photogenic small galaxy and for the beautiful and colorful small galaxy nearby spacially behind the primary galaxy. I love the interating/colliding galaxy examples. I particularly like the few images of emission nebulae. I wish I was aware of the publication of the 2020 release of Cosmic Clouds 3-D: Where Stars Are Born, from the same group (some different authors).
Lastly, I want to visit one of the processing choices that the illustrator and authors made in the presentations for this Galaxy book. It is a point that I have been making here on AstroBin for a good number of years, and a certain number of my images of galaxies and galaxy clusters. If you have the book or get the book, I refer you to pages 173 and half way down page 174. It is the reasoning and necessity of removing the stars that belong to the Milky Way from these galaxy images. I will not say that this group of professional astronomers came to that necessary conclusion makes me right for doing so, but I at least feel for the first time that my reasoning is not crazy. I also feel comforted that the process that J-P broadly outlines appears to be exactly how I do my ExtraGalactic Traveler’s View images and am thrilled that he even pointed out how the perspective one sees of these objects would remain exactly the same if one were to travel just outside the boundary of the Milky Way with only one exception; no stars mucking up the view or the understanding of the greater Universe beyond! My similar images get a decent amount and ratio of “Likes” here on AB. I even get nice comments from friends here. However, I always catch an overtone of these likes and comments as being “polite” acknowledgement. Never have any of my postings of such images ever sparked a conversation of how doing starless is good or bad. Or how to try to understand what doing so means. It is like there is something taboo going on. In personal interactions, the comments are this is something that really should not be done…