Yes, because a saturated pixel might be 101% full scale, but it might also be a hundred million percent and you have no way to know. The same reason that a camera might substitute zebra stripes or a bright colour for a blown highlight in a preview as opposed to just making it white.
When using a coronagraph, it's possible that that value is all over the place (diffraction around edges, noise, etc) but you know any data "under" the coronagraph is bogus and you know which pixels are covered, because you know how the device was made, so you can mark them as bogus yourself.
The actual value in the data isn't black (0,0,0), it'll be some obviously special value that won't otherwise happen, because black is a valid value.
I suppose the idea that not-misleading data trumps aesthetically-pleasing data continues then to the press release image, even though a solid white central spot would look more familiar to people who have accidentally included the sun in a photo.
When using a coronagraph, it's possible that that value is all over the place (diffraction around edges, noise, etc) but you know any data "under" the coronagraph is bogus and you know which pixels are covered, because you know how the device was made, so you can mark them as bogus yourself.
The actual value in the data isn't black (0,0,0), it'll be some obviously special value that won't otherwise happen, because black is a valid value.
I suppose the idea that not-misleading data trumps aesthetically-pleasing data continues then to the press release image, even though a solid white central spot would look more familiar to people who have accidentally included the sun in a photo.