I don't know how many beautiful space backgrounds I did NOT buy because of this error. Please, PAs, remember - a planet is massive! No way stars can shine through these masses, but again and again, I see pictures made with brushes where the starfields behind appear on that space where the dark side of the planet has to be.

But those are not stars it's space debris orbiting the planet seen in the far background, lighting up as it enters the atmosphere. Most of these backgrounds are being used in sci-fi fantasy images anyways. Some are quite spectacular. Alternatively, if you like that background and you'd like to purchase it you can ask the vendor if they got a version without the "stars" I'm pretty sure they'll remove it for you in Photoshop as it's in their interest to make their buyer happy.

or 10 mins with the clone stamp tool and bobs your uncle

@TwiztidKidd : If that really is space debris, the planets are uninhabitable, too many meteors devastating the surface. Besides, the same error is in pictures which don't show a planet surface, but show planets as seen from a spaceship. I happen to have a solid university education in physics, so, trust me, these pictures show the impossible. And, @FrankT , I can clone some stars out. Not the main problem. But I have neither time nor inclination to do that. I just switched to free NASA pictures.

Also, if the surface of the planet is lit, you won t see any stars anyway...... (see NASA photos....)

It's called artistic license. Not every image has to be scientifically accurate.

That's right, or we would not have any fantasy book covers. But ... and that's a very big BUT : SF-Fans like their stuff to be as scientific as possible. And I doubt there is much need for imaginary strange planets in space beside SF.

Space to me. ?‍? ⭐ ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Personally, I never worry about realism when I render out scifi. If I did, I wouldn't render scifi.

And every pilot in space is a hot, 20-something girl with an "impractical" spacesuit that's cut to her navel. :-)