"Better looking" is subjective, we are literally talking about your favorite color. I personally prefer the other ones, MIRI looks blurry, but really, they all have their use and they all have great scientific potential.
Webb really isn’t going to be the crowd pleaser that Hubble is. And that’s okay. But I do kind of wish that was communicated better early on.
Here's the pillars of creation in infrared - https://esahubble.org/images/heic1501b/
https://esahubble.org/images/heic1501a/
I just started astrophotography a few months ago and am starting to get a very vague intuition about the imaging pipelines and what things like h-alpha filters can do to amplify certain features. But (possibly because I'll likely never do it) I had no idea how much occlusion is happening in nebulous regions.
Galaxies in infrared definitely lose a little something for me.
Look at ngc891 in visible light for example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q490345#/media/File:N891s.jpg
Here it is in a bunch of different IR wavelengths: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Images-of-NGC-891-at-var...
Quick note: The field of view of the visual spectrum image i linked above is ~4.5 arcminutes, which at the 7000ly distance to the pillars of creation mean the image spans about 9 light years from the left to the right edge. If you download the fullsize jpeg, each pixel represents about 7 billion miles, approximately the diameter of pluto's orbit. On a 96dpi monitor a star the size of our sun would be approximately 1 millionth of an inch.
I have a pet project idea that I would love to work on, but I run into the typical problems of not enough time and not enough money to pursue it while chasing other projects too. But this type of interactive viewing of objects so that you can see why they glow and what causes them to be seen is one feature of the project.
Also, the deeper you look, the more redshifted it is. So eventually, Webb is capable of seeing full visible color spectrum again, if it looks far enough back in time. :)
(Additionally, for the most deepest-field objects, they're actually significantly larger in terms of angular extent than nearer objects of the same physical size due to the fact that the ancient universe was smaller: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-...)