I think you two are talkig about different things.

You're saying that Hubble isn't exactly a big traditional camera, and "sees" visual data differently and in a wider range. That data is then converted into images that we can see and appreciate.

The original commentator is talking about images displayed in the same visible spectrum that human eyes detect. From your perspective, that would be altering the images because Hubble doesn't "see" like we do, and it would be a loss of information. But from his perspective, the published images are altered because they don't represent what a human eye could see if it were somehow as good as Hubble.