Hi all,

Phil Plait's got a new article up on Slate with a gorgeous composite image of the martian North Pole, courtesy Mars Express.

After sharing it around, I got into a conversation with a friend who posited that the "watercolour" look of the image came from averaging so many overlapping frames, thus removing a lot of high-frequency noise. My own intuitive answer was that we're actually seeing the difference between the dusty and uneven martian ground, and the wind-polished ice above it. I figured I knew of some folks who might have more to say on the subject...

Thoughts? Counter-arguments? Either way, it's just one amazing image.

Hello and welcome. As a member who also does some watercolour painting I thought I should respond. It is a great composite image, no doubt about that, but I don't see why it would be described as watercolour-like. Maybe your friend has some particular artist's work in mind that I'm not familiar with. It just looks photographic to me, with all the limitations and advantages that entails.

Ah, you're probably right -- something along the lines of "like an abstract painting" would have been closer to what I had in mind. Whichever way you slice it, though, it's still some pretty stunning terrain.

Thanks for the welcome