Photoshop or Pixinsight

[JohnnyD333]

Hello once again,

Just ordered a trial version of Pix, havent tried it yet but Im wondering what everyone feels is best for AP. I can get a discount on Photoshop but Pixinsight has a free trial so Ill give it a go. Any preferences out there. Thanks

JD

[Photosbykev]

For astrophotography PixInsight is far more capable than PS in dragging out all the possible detail in a stack of images. Beware the learning curve is almost vertical Harry Page's tutorials are almost complusory viewing. http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixinsighthome.html

For general photography PixInsight is useless.

[JohnnyD333]

Thanks Photo, it would be strictly for AP, I use gimp for all the other photography. Appreciate the link.

[ollypenrice]

Personally I simply can't do everything in just one or the other, though that arises from lack of experience in Pix, perhaps. You get diehard advocates for both, some asserting a huge advantage of one over the other. In my view PI has some great tools but so does Photoshop and, while Ps is complex, the interface is less obscure. I can imagine the day when I use only PI but it is a long way off at the moment. But where I can understand it - it's brilliant!

Olly

[Catanonia]

I would agree with Olly here. I use PI quite a lot now and is perfect for getting out the astro components of a picture. Once you have the astro processing done, photoshop is perfect for the finalization into the final picture to be imaged.

So I say both, PI for the astro component and PS for the presentation and finalisation.

If you had only one choice and the cost was the same, i would got for PS all the time as it has many uses outside astro and is more than capable with the right plugins.