Pixinsight and PS - why both?

[kirkster501]

^^^^

Some folks just use PI I notice. But some use both. What's the consensus, pros and cons of each pls? I am using shall we say, ahem, a "less than legal" version of CS3 at the moment. I am not comfortable with that fact.

Steve

[Tim]

In a word, layers.

I use both on most images.

I think PI will get there in the end as a fantastic standalone dedicated product, and I will support it all the way. But layer blending is essential to me and I use it very heavily.

[johnrt]

Yes, layer blending with high pass filter and selective colour are what Pixinsight can't do for me, PI for pretty much everything else.

[Bukko]

Same again, Layers and the final cosmetics - blemishes and the few hot pixels missed in PI.

So expensive for using 2% of PS's features...

Gordon.

[kirkster501]

GIMP to get the layers features perhaps? All I ever do is layers and curves in PS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swag72]

I use PI for pre processing, calibration, stacking, aligning and colour combination. I then use DBE to get rid of unwanted gradients and SCNR to shift any green. Then it's into Photoshop for me, where I can use layers and make a pretty picture. I may pop back into PI for some Local Histogram something or another. For me the layers and Hi Pass sharpening will keep me with Photoshop and the DBE and calibration etc will keep me with PI

Also Narrowband - There's nothing like the Selective Colour tool in PI. For me that will keep me in Photoshop rather than PI for NB images.

[earth titan]

Having just started using PI, I think you need both PI and PS. PS does layers, as others have said and these are vital.

PI does have killer noise reduction routines though, which PS doesn't.

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

[Jessun]

I think you use the bits that you understand

So I capture in Nebulosity, calibrate and stack in Astro Art, work on background and colour calibration in PixInsight and finish off in Photoshop with the odd PI revisit.

It may just show how thick I am, but I don't see a problem with cherry picking, apart from the cash flying away ...

/Jesper

[kirkster501]

I sometimes wonder though with all this processing, is it cheating? I mean, it's like turning a plain looking lady ( or bloke) into a Cover model by excessive work on the picture. How much processing if the image is " too much " ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sam]

I sometimes wonder though with all this processing, is it cheating? I mean, it's like turning a plain looking lady ( or bloke) into a Cover model by excessive work on the picture. How much processing if the image is " too much " ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a very good question and one which will open a massive range of opinions. I guess my own opinion falls somewhere near yours. I'm more a fan of minimal processing and are more than happy with the options that PI gives. In my own images I only use the image wide functions like curves and histogram. Those more artistically inclined create beautiful images and use the full range of enhancements that PI and PS provide. I'm not artistically inclined and I'm likely to stuff an image up if I do too much tweaking, so for me, it's best that I don't do much with the image all.

[fwm891]

GIMP to get the layers features perhaps? All I ever do is layers and curves in PS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GIMP is only 8 bit I think, you really need 16 bit depth (or more)

[Gonzo]

GIMP is only 8 bit I think, you really need 16 bit depth (or more)

http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#c16bit

we just need to be patient

[Scott]

I sometimes wonder though with all this processing, is it cheating? I mean, it's like turning a plain looking lady ( or bloke) into a Cover model by excessive work on the picture. How much processing if the image is " too much " ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that as long as you are only working with the data you've captured then it's fine. otherwise, where do we draw the line? no filters? no stacking? wet film only? If you are comfortable with your image and don't pretend its something it's not, then go for it.

[earth titan]

1368303836[/url'>' post='1931571']

I sometimes wonder though with all this processing, is it cheating? I mean, it's like turning a plain looking lady ( or bloke) into a Cover model by excessive work on the picture. How much processing if the image is " too much " ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I found myself asking that question th other day. But then I came to the conclusion that as long as you don't add stuff, all the proccessing only overcomes the deficiencies of atmospherics, optics etc..

[ollypenrice]

I sometimes wonder though with all this processing, is it cheating? I mean, it's like turning a plain looking lady ( or bloke) into a Cover model by excessive work on the picture. How much processing if the image is " too much " ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This question may be based on a false assumption. The false assumption is that a piece of technology measuring light intensity at different wavelengths (a digital camera) is somehow going to produce 'the truth.' This isn't so. It is just going to make measurements of light intensity across a small flat surface. This will be used to make a picture. All pictures are full of lies, too. They are 2D for a start, when their subjects are not. We also need to learn to 'read' picures. (Communities living 'primitive' lives do not necessarily recognize 2D images of things familiar to them. However, they do learn to do so quickly.)

Note, make a picture. In the days of film we relied on hidden chemists behind the scenes making emulsions which responded to different wavelengths of light in particular ways. We now rely on, and partly control, other technologies. Our pictures are made, but are made with real information.

I think of raw data as information buried, partly, in misinformation arising from the imperfections of the system. I feel like an archaeologist, dusting away the mess, exctracting gems and then trying to assemble them faithfully but creatively. I also see myself as an artist, not a scientist. For me an image is over processed when it looks processed. I think that an image is 'right' when your mind goes straight to the object in the picture.

Pixinsight, I feel, tempts people to over process. SO often I look at an astrophopto and the first thing I see is Pixinsight. Not the object.

Like Sara and Tim I need PI for some routines and love it, but I want to touch and shape my pictures as I work on them and PI works by remote control through mathematics. I want to use my eyes and my hands. The genius of Photoshop is that it has created an interface analogous with traditional ways of picture making.

Olly

[RikM]

I don't use PI (yet) but I do use plenty of other applications and pick the best bits from each. Capture, guiding, calibration and stacking with Maxim, colour alignment with Registar, colour combining and DDP stretching in Maxim again, CCDSharp for deconvolution, then Photoshop to make it look pretty. I use Gradient Xterminator and Hasta La Vista Green! plugins in place of PI's DBE and SCNR.

I am sure my workflow is far more complicated than it needs to be, but I lack the skill to make is simpler. I paint a bit (watercolour and oils) and so Photoshop just feels familiar. You pick up a brush [tool] and paint on the layer where you want to make the adjustment. Layers and masks give the option of making the adjustment exactly where and how strongly I want.

[Gonzo]

I've installed PI last night on my Mac mini, seems to be a complex software, but hey it's part of the fun...

As for "is it cheating all that processing?" mmmm yes and no, but as long as nothing is added or changed it's fine.

I can't afford a license for PS, I will stick to Gimp for the final touches:)

I'm not quite yet there, by the time I understand curves and all the other bits, Gimp 3 will be out with 16bits support

[Tim]

I must admit that I still use the high pass filter in PS, but the wavelet tool and multi scale processing option, along with the deconvolution routines are probably a lot more powerful, just not as easy to use.

As for what is real, all the pro photographers I know spend just as long tweaking their 'normal' photos as we do with astro. As long as nothing fake is added, I'm happy to work with whatever is contained within the stacked data, even if it isn't immediately visible.

[Scott]

I've installed PI last night on my Mac mini, seems to be a complex software, but hey it's part of the fun...

As for "is it cheating all that processing?" mmmm yes and no, but as long as nothing is added or changed it's fine.

I can't afford a license for PS, I will stick to Gimp for the final touches:)

I'm not quite yet there, by the time I understand curves and all the other bits, Gimp 3 will be out with 16bits support

Hi Gonzo, I was just wondering if the free offer of ps 2 was still available (if indeed you're interested)

[Gonzo]

I've used Photoshop a long time ago, I think I'll stick with Gimp for the time being (the 16bit support will be in 3.0).

[Gib007]

In my experience with deep space imaging, I have not needed layers a single time as PixInsight seems to do everything I need to produce fantastic end results. Mind you, the developers of PixInsight are coding in support for layers so it will be a feature there soon enough as well, I guess rendering Photoshop less useful overall if you already own PixInsight.

[fwm891]

In my experience with deep space imaging, I have not needed layers a single time as PixInsight seems to do everything I need to produce fantastic end results. Mind you, the developers of PixInsight are coding in support for layers so it will be a feature there soon enough as well, I guess rendering Photoshop less useful overall if you already own PixInsight.

Once you start using layers you will never go back, even simple duplication and blending....

[Gib007]

Once you start using layers you will never go back, even simple duplication and blending....

Surely if the hardware works perfectly, the imaging is done properly and the software processing techniques are applied all over the image (including using masks for careful selection), the images are more scientifically accurate (rather than aiming for artistically pleasing through artificial blending/layering). I don't see astrophotography as much of an art, rather a scientific endeavor for perfection. Apparently the lead developers of PixInsight have the same opinions!

There's always PixelMath if you want to go crazy anyway.

[Gina]

Surely if the hardware works perfectly, the imaging is done properly and the software processing techniques are applied all over the image (including using masks for careful selection), the images are more scientifically accurate (rather than aiming for artistically pleasing through artificial blending/layering). I don't see astrophotography as much of an art, rather a scientific endeavor for perfection. Apparently the lead developers of PixInsight have the same opinions!

There's always PixelMath if you want to go crazy anyway.

That's the point - the hardware doesn't work perfectly - nor does the sky! You have to use many techniques to bring out the real data from the distortions of hardware and particularly the atmosphere. I very much like the analogy with archeaology - removing the crud to expose the artefacts I think of image processing as part science and part art. I guess that ties in with my own aspirations. I'm a scientist/engineer by training/career but also a watercolour artist as a hobby. My art is more photographic than impressionist though probably more Constable then Canaletto. My astroprocessing could be described more as Canaletto. ie. as precise as possible with best possible detail.

IMO there are two schools of astro processing as far as colour is concerned - getting close to perceived reality and making a pretty picture from the data by changing the colour mapping (false colour) as in the Hubble Palette. Although I originally preferred "natural" I have come to like both. I like lots of colour. And when it comes down to it this is all personal choice Don't get uptight about things - just enjoy it

[RikM]

Surely if the hardware works perfectly, the imaging is done properly and the software processing techniques are applied all over the image (including using masks for careful selection), the images are more scientifically accurate (rather than aiming for artistically pleasing through artificial blending/layering). I don't see astrophotography as much of an art, rather a scientific endeavor for perfection. Apparently the lead developers of PixInsight have the same opinions!

There's always PixelMath if you want to go crazy anyway.

If you are using masks, you are using layers although you may not think of it that way.