[removed]

Like, in picture quality, or the actual objects?

Not OP but the actual shapes & peninsulas.

I'm assuming they mean if there's been any movement.

Because JWST "sees" using different wavelengths, it images dust differently. Dust that can be seen in the Hubble photo may be too small to be seen by the longer wavelength used by JWST.

If you put them side by side, you will see patches of dust that are not there in the newer photos.

Thank you for the education

Actually I was perhaps naïvely thinking about stars formation. U/diogenes_shadow explanation about the different wavelengths "seen" by Hubble and Webb was appreciated

What about the earliest images vs the latest images in the same wavelengths? Can any movement or differences be seen?

If you’re looking for movement in deep sky objects, pictures of the Crab Nebula do show it slightly expanding over the decades. This was first noticed by observers in 1921.

The object is an expanding cloud of debris from a supernova that was seen to explode in 1054 AD. A more recent one (SN1987a) has shown dramatic changes over the last 35 years, with more to come.

Later images may be the result of more recent advances in image processing filters applied.

I'm sure the scientists are adjusting the flow to get the most striking results.

As always you can go back and pull the raw data and check the tags to see how the image collection and processing changed.

Also, nothing is static. Everything is in motion. The pillars of creation are clouds, and like clouds here on earth, they change. These are just on the scale of light years, so change at the macro level takes time. Still, I would expect noticeable change in the decades between when Hubble's original shot was taken, and JWST.

I saw a video by someone who works in the field explaining that the difference is how they capture the images. Hubble captures visible light while JWST uses infrared which can see through the dust.

[removed]

While they are moving, I can't imagine the Pillars would have moved enough to notice, since the clouds are light years long.

But if you want to see actual movement of astronomical objects, look for the stars at the center of our galaxy. Over the course of years of observation since the late 1990's, you can see stars swing around the central black hole, Sag A*. Here's a link: https://youtu.be/TF8THY5spmo

That is the natural prediction of these things, but I believe OP was looking for some specific, graphable differences to support the idea that these things in distant space do actually exist and evolve dynamically. The alternative implies that these distant constructs are either static projections, or somehow exist outside of our bubble of time.

While the thing you said about change at the macro level is spot-on, good science means we must use data to support these understandings, or else we must reject them entirely.

True, it can also see through the dust to view what’s behind it. It sees in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

A science magazine explained some years ago how the Pillars don't actually look like they do in the picture. The several different methods of taking the pictures are merged into one and the chemical elements are given colors by the editor's/scientists' decision. As an example there most common elements could be colored red, blue and yellow. With these edits to the material received from the cameras, the end product looks like someone took a picture with their cell phone camera. You just might not see it in the space yourself if you were there.