Not to spoil anything, but anybody else here finding these results quite underwelming?
If you look only at the picture, it's gonna be hard to tell versus, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#/media/File:... for the deep-field shot or https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2007/16/2099-Im... for the Carina Nebula shot.
If you read the details, the fact that JWST can resolve much dimmer light sources much more quickly than Hubble ever had a hope of should be fairly compelling from a "how much science can we do?" standpoint.
Things like looking for IR spectra of water vapor in the atmosphere of planets outside of our solar system we can't even do from earth, since our own atmosphere is not transparent at those wavelengths due to the water in it. (ditto for oxygen).
A thing they mentioned in the presentation today but mostly only in passing, was that images like that deep field image were captured with only something like a dozen hours of data collection and had better resolution and much better SNR and many more far redshift objects visible at all than an image of the same scene that took Hubble weeks of data collection to make.
None of these images really stretch the legs of the instrument either. A hot jupiter is not an interesting exoplanet. It's a taste.
What exactly were you expecting from them?
I ment more in the context of images taken by Hubble telescope - you know, all the hype. 25 years of work, 40mln hours worked, billions spent. Pictures are better than hubbles, but not by orders of magnitude, which is what I expected. That's why underwhelming.