As the Artemis II spacecraft made its way around the moon, NASA released new photos of Earth that left some social media users grumbling about how the blue planet had aged in 54 years. Above video: This is the path of Artemis II”The visible shifts in cloud patterns, ocean coloration and land degradation reflect rising global temperatures, biodiversity loss and environmental stress,” one user wrote, sharing side-by-side images of the Artemis II images and one taken during the Apollo 17 flight in 1972.NASA released the juxtaposed Earth photos in its own April 3 X post, with the simple caption “1972 ➡️2026 Apollo 17 ➡️ Artemis II.” The 1972 mission was the last time humans set foot on the moon.The colors in the recent photo are noticeably more muted — the blues more gray, the whites less crisp — than they appear in the 1972 image.Other social media commenters offered explanations that turned out to be more aligned with the facts: The differences were because of camera quality and lighting, they said.NASA spokesperson Lauren Low told PolitiFact that one of the reasons Earth appears duller is because the new photo was taken at night, with only moonlight lighting the planet. The 1972 photo was taken in direct sunlight. The two images were also processed differently, she said. This story was originally published on PolitiFact. Read it here.NASA uses data collected from space to measure signs of climate change, such as land and ice coverage. But the color difference in these images “is not caused by climate change,” Low said in an email. The 1972 photo was taken with a film camera and the 2026 photo was made with a digital camera. Modern digital cameras tend to be more color-accurate and less stylized, making photos appear “less vivid straight out of camera,” said Matt Kendall, an Alabama-based photographer. “Film — especially what was used during the Apollo missions — naturally boosts saturation and contrast, which makes images appear more vibrant right out of the camera,” Kendall said. “It also has a different response to light, often emphasizing blues and warm tones in a way that feels more ‘punchy.’”
As the Artemis II spacecraft made its way around the moon, NASA released new photos of Earth that left some social media users grumbling about how the blue planet had aged in 54 years.
Above video: This is the path of Artemis II
“The visible shifts in cloud patterns, ocean coloration and land degradation reflect rising global temperatures, biodiversity loss and environmental stress,” one user wrote, sharing side-by-side images of the Artemis II images and one taken during the Apollo 17 flight in 1972.
NASA released the juxtaposed Earth photos in its own April 3 X post, with the simple caption “1972 ➡️2026 Apollo 17 ➡️ Artemis II.” The 1972 mission was the last time humans set foot on the moon.
The colors in the recent photo are noticeably more muted — the blues more gray, the whites less crisp — than they appear in the 1972 image.
Other social media commenters offered explanations that turned out to be more aligned with the facts: The differences were because of camera quality and lighting, they said.
NASA spokesperson Lauren Low told PolitiFact that one of the reasons Earth appears duller is because the new photo was taken at night, with only moonlight lighting the planet. The 1972 photo was taken in direct sunlight. The two images were also processed differently, she said.
This story was originally published on PolitiFact. Read it here.
NASA uses data collected from space to measure signs of climate change, such as land and ice coverage. But the color difference in these images “is not caused by climate change,” Low said in an email.
The 1972 photo was taken with a film camera and the 2026 photo was made with a digital camera.
Modern digital cameras tend to be more color-accurate and less stylized, making photos appear “less vivid straight out of camera,” said Matt Kendall, an Alabama-based photographer.
“Film — especially what was used during the Apollo missions — naturally boosts saturation and contrast, which makes images appear more vibrant right out of the camera,” Kendall said. “It also has a different response to light, often emphasizing blues and warm tones in a way that feels more ‘punchy.’”
