best astronomical image processing software

[Pete Presland]

at the moment i use mostly DSS, GIMP and the windows based software for my processing.there seems to be so many around from photoshop (very expensive) to AIP4WIN some very expensive, some free, what do the more "seasoned" imagers prefer on here?

[Yidoboy]

I'm far from a 'seasoned' imager so my input will be mostly irrelevant I guess

I use Sharpcap for the AVI, PIPP to centre the image, then Registax and GIMP to finish it off.

[Sam]

PixInsight is pretty good and not too expensive.

[jjongmans]

PixInsight and good old Photoshop

[pete_l]

I use my trusty old version of PS CS3, but only because I have it from an earlier life. It's actually massively over-featured for astro work, though the ability to use "actions" (like macros in wormprocessing) to perform some astronomical functions make it handy. I find that with careful sub-imaging and when properly stacked, there shouldn't be too much processing needed.

I usually just do gradient removal, dynamic range stretching/clipping and a little noise reduction. So almost any package that can work with 16bit images and has those features should do. After that, the decider is which one has the easiest layout and least clunky operating modes - PS *definitely* wins in that department,

Have you considered AstroArt?

[r3i]

I use Nebulosity for the stacking then into PS CS3.

Yes, new versions of PS are expensive but earlier, legal versions do crop up on Amazon from time to time so worth keeping an eye out for.

[RikM]

Photoshop CS3 for me as well. I picked it up from Amazon for about £130. There are some great plugins like HLVG and Noel's actions which make life easier.

[ollypenrice]

I stack and calibrate in AstroArt, do some linear corrections in Pixinsight (colour calibration, green noise reduction, dynamic background extraction) and then I get the hell outta there because I can't make head nor tail of most of it and I dislike the 'Pixinsight look,' though plenty of people love it. I then go into CS3. I also do a lot of aligning, combining and resizing in Registar though the PI mosaic tools are probably best of all.

The difference between a full processing in PI and Ps is that in PI it is all mathematically done whereas Ps is more like working in an art medium with brushes. This is how I personally enjoy working. The selection tools and, above all, Layers are the Ps trump cards.

If you look at a new image and can say straight away (as you often can) 'Pixinsight' then I think that sounds a warning. I think you should see the object first. A combination of PI and Ps is certainly my favourite.

Olly

[Jessun]

+1 for Olly's workflow. (Remarkably different results though :grin: )

I think it's worth cherry picking some features of each program to your own liking. The preprocessing in AstroArt is hard to beat in its simplicity and speed. Layers in PS or similar 'traditional' software is hard to live without, and PI is made exclusively for astrophotography, so it's a given that it will be great - if only you can understand it...

On a shoestring budget I'd get AA, then a PS version that does levels, curves and layers. (PS since it's useful to know anyways - something like the cheaper Paintshop Pro will do most tricks too)

[JohnC64]

I do my capture, stacking and initial processing in Nebulosity, and then generally tweak up in Gimp. I would prefer Photoshop as its 16bit but Gimp gets you most of the way on a budget.

I dont think that there is a perfect workflow that will deal with every astro-image that you want to process. I try different techniques and software and see what works best. As Olly says its like working in an art medium. I like to create an image that is pleasing to me. The images that we generate when we stretch, curves levels etc are artificial and we can't see them with our eyes naturally. So if you like the look of it then thats what counts in my book

Cheers John

[Pete Presland]

I'm far from a 'seasoned' imager so my input will be mostly irrelevant I guess

absolutely not, all input is most welcome!

[Pete Presland]

thanks for all the sugestions. there certainly does seem to be a few favourites that get mentioned regularly, Pixinsight, astroart, and photoshop.a 2nd hand photoshop3 looks like the cheapest option.

i am reasonably happy with gimp, but i do think it can only take my images so far. i saw on here the other day what a difference Pixinsight's dynamic background extraction made to a M42 images, very impressive

[Russe]

Does anyone use sharpcap for DSO's?

[Pete Presland]

not used it myself, but it looks like it would work.

i use the eos remote capture to download images straight to the PC and then stack and process in DSS