Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Why buy (or rent) Photoshop CC????


Recommended Posts

Following from discussions on another thread.....

For astronomical processing why buy Photoshop CC????

What can it do that other dedicated astro imaging programs can't do - just as well??

The prices for software like Maxim, Imagingplus, AstroArt etc. surely include sufficient pre and post processing capabilities??

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it attracts a lot of folks (including myself) because so many others already use it and therefore there's lots of online help to be had.  Also plenty of astro related plug-ins are available for it - though admittedly a lot of these are to provide functionality that the likes of PixInsight have already built-in.

However, I certainly would not have got it without coming across an old CS3 version at an almost reasonable price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it essential. The kind of tools available in AstroArt are primitive global things. I find layers essential. Pixinsight works by masking, which I don't like because I can never get enough control over the mask. So, for me, the joy of Photoshop comes from its layers, selection tools and the eraser. This is where I do all the cosmetic finishing of an image and its an environment which suits my way of thinking and which I enjoy using because I can see what I'm doing. I find that working with the all numerical PI interface feels like mending a mechanical watch in gloves. I haven't tried Images Plus.

An old copy of CS3 is all you need and they come up at reasonable prices.

Another plus is that it is so widely used that imagers can easily share techniques. Ps is a lingua franca, really.

I think Adobe are greedy but I like Photoshop. In fact I love it!

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to post
Share on other sites

Olly,

What about PaintShopPro for layers, selection tools and eraser - tenth of the price and probably just as functional....

Why don't the "professional" astro imaging programs offer the same capacity???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Olly,

What about PaintShopPro for layers, selection tools and eraser - tenth of the price and probably just as functional....

Why don't the "professional" astro imaging programs offer the same capacity???

Paintshop Pro is a very basic photo editing program. It competes with Adobe Lightroom.

PhotoShop CC is in a completely different leage with a vast superior toolset. Much more Advanced.

It's like comparing Microsoft Paint to Corel Painter X3. MS Paint is free and Corel Painter X3 costs 400 dollars.

Edited by GuillermoBarrancos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Olly,

What about PaintShopPro for layers, selection tools and eraser - tenth of the price and probably just as functional....

Why don't the "professional" astro imaging programs offer the same capacity???

I don't know, Ken, I haven't tried it. I can't comment beyond that.

Olly

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the old CS3 version as it was reasonably priced (for an Adobe product!!) and does everything I require for astro-photography with some great free plugins available too. As others have already mentioned above, it's the layers and 16 bit file handling that does it for me but I see no need for upgrading past CS3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.