Post Processing Software

[groberts]

I’ve been into astro photography now for about 18-months, mostly using DSLR  and then processing with DSS and an old 5.5 version of Photoshop + Gradient Exterminator plug-in.  I’ve been happy with the results so far but it’s obvious I can do better capturing the images (more on that another time) and with post processing.

I’ve just upgraded my computer (now i7, 16GB RAM, AMD dedicated 4GB graphics card etc) and am wondering about the possibility of better post processing software.  PixInsight comes to mind and I’ve spent some time reading and watching some of their videos but am not sure if it’s the way to go; it seems very complicated, not particularly intuitive + will it really improve on what I’m already doing?  Another route might be to get a control / processing package like AstroArt or Maxim DL?

Thoughts and recommendations welcomed. Thanks, Graham.

[Steve 1962]

I too started with a DSLR, DSS and PS .. but now Pixinsight is my "weapon" of choice. It's well worth taking the time to learn it - Harry Page's videos are excellent. They also do a free 45 day trial.... https://pixinsight.com/trial/

I've never used AstroArt, so can't comment on that. However, I have played with Maxim and although there are many Maxim devotees around, in my opinion, Sequence Generator Pro (for acquisition) and Pixinsight make a very convincing case at less than half the price!

Steve

[Gasman]

+1 for Astroart, v6 has just come out. AA will do everything from controlling the scope,stacking flats,bias,lights etc etc and then processing images.

+1 also for Pixinsight but be prepared for fairly steep learning curve (for me anyway)

Steve

[swag72]

In my opinion, Photoshop will do 99% of what Pixinsight will do, but in a different way.

So you can either invest many hours in pixinsight trying to learn it, or as many hours in PS trying to improve...... There is some stuff PI does very well for sure and I'm glad that I have it for the couple of minutes I use it for in processing compared to the many hours in PhotoShop.

I'd like to say that processing in Photoshop doesn't make you less of an imager...... In my opinion, but then I use largely Photoshop!!

People invest a lot of time in PI in the early days, and I mean serious hours. I've often wondered if they'd spent an equal amount of hours learning Photoshop, if their images would be any worse than their PI ones. Photoshop suffers I guess from many people dabbling with it for general stuff and then thinking they know it sufficiently well for astro work. When the images don't come out as they'd like they blame the software (hence moving to Pixinsight) rather than their own inabilities specifically in Photoshop.

Well, that's my ideas on it

[ollypenrice]

I don't see AA, Maxim etc as real post-processing packages though they do have some tools that might be useful. For me they are about guiding, calibrating and stacking. AA is particularly good at calibrating and stacking, I find.

For post processing I do most things in Photoshop (just CS3 bought legitimately on special offer) but before I take a linear stack into Ps it goes first into Pixinsight for Dynamic Background Extraction - which also creates a first class colour balance. I also run SCNR green at this stage on colour stacks. These two operations may be all I do in PI but could I manage without them? I don't think so. GradX for Ps is simply not as good as DBE in my view. (I'm very much a 'colour' imager so getting colour right is very important to me.)

After that I prefer Ps because I find the Layers approach preferable to the masks approach. In PI you carry out a processing routine with the parts you want unchanged masked out. This means getting the masks in just the right place. In Ps you globally modify the bottom layer and erase the top one where you want to see the modifications. In this method you can see just what you're doing, go back, use a partial eraser etc. So much easier in my view.

But a lot depends on how you like to work and since we do this for pleasure it's important to enjoy processing. I love my hours spent in Ps getting to know an object and a picture.

Olly

[groberts]

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming - still considering but thinking PS and PI might be needed.  

In the meantime, wondering where to get a more up-to-date version of Photoshop than my very old v5.5?  I do not want to go what I believe is the current monthly licence fee route and would prefer to own a copy + it doesn't have to be the most recent version; if you don't mind telling, where did you CS3 version Olly?

[ollypenrice]

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming - still considering but thinking PS and PI might be needed.  

In the meantime, wondering where to get a more up-to-date version of Photoshop than my very old v5.5?  I do not want to go what I believe is the current monthly licence fee route and would prefer to own a copy + it doesn't have to be the most recent version; if you don't mind telling, where did you CS3 version Olly?

I think I just found it on Amazon as a boxed CD.

Olly

[groberts]

Thanks Olly I'll take a look.  Whichever way I go PS will still be useful + though my version is OK it is very, very old.

[ollypenrice]

Thanks Olly I'll take a look.  Whichever way I go PS will still be useful + though my version is OK it is very, very old.

The main drawback is having to drop into 8 bit for many operations. That said, I think that the bonus of 16 bit is rather overstated. I once accidentally processed an image in 8 bit, went back and did it again, and found precious little to choose between them.

Olly

[r3i]

The main drawback is having to drop into 8 bit for many operations. That said, I think that the bonus of 16 bit is rather overstated. I once accidentally processed an image in 8 bit, went back and did it again, and found precious little to choose between them.

Olly

On the occasions when you have to drop down to 8 bit, does this mean you have to continue processing at 8 bit resolution or can you subsequently jump back up to 16 bit and continue?

[D4N]

The problem is that when you drop to 8bit any values that don't fit are rounded. This data fidelity is not recoverable.

/Dan

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PeterCPC]

Have a look at the latest Paintshop Pro - you can get a free trial and you might be surprised at what it can do.

Peter

[CSM]

I use Photoshop Elements 11 which I got on special offer a couple of year ago.  Taken a while to get used to it but it seems to do all the things that PS does as far as astronomy is concerned.  I am basing this on all the recommendations that Steve Richards has in his 'Making every Photon Count' book and Ian Morisons's 'Observing and Imaging the Heavens'.  Indeed at times it seems to have simpler ways of doing what they describe in PS.

[D4N]

PS elements only has 8bit per channel processing, it will let you open up 16bit files but can only process them in 8bits.

This isn't good for your data.

/Dan

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk