Tulip - Have I lost my way? You decide......

[Stub Mandrel]

10 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Nope, a mistake. It seems right with a 'y' though. I may well be losing it.

 

I did wonder if it was the etymology of the word, but no, it is a conflation. See the following, a favourite website of mine:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=satire

Sorry for going OT so far...

[ollypenrice]

4 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I did wonder if it was the etymology of the word, but no, it is a conflation. See the following, a favourite website of mine:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=satire

Sorry for going OT so far...

Anyway, never mind all that. I was only taking the pysse...

Ollye.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, gnomus said:

I must say that I struggle to see what the difference is in creating a mask in PI then runnng one of their adjustments, and making an adjustment in PS and masking out the areas where one does or doesn't want that adjustment applied.  

Let us concern ourselves with more serious matters - should one open a boiled egg at the pointy end or the fat end?

My only basis for thinking there might be a difference is Sara W. once said that changes to the soap bubble near NGC 6888 (bringing it out etc) would be easy to perform using layers in PS.  She said this after I indicated that I was having trouble isolating the soap bubble for processing.  So--either I am unable to use the PI tools (highly probable) or the PS tools are better at some things.  I know not.

[johnrt]

15 minutes ago, Rodd said:

My only basis for thinking there might be a difference is Sara W. once said that changes to the soap bubble near NGC 6888 (bringing it out etc) would be easy to perform using layers in PS.  She said this after I indicated that I was having trouble isolating the soap bubble for processing.  So--either I am unable to use the PI tools (highly probable) or the PS tools are better at some things.  I know not.

The "tools", "filters" or "processes" in PS & Pixinsight are not so different, they for the most part the same, they seek to achieve the same ends, what differs is the ability to control and apply those tools selectively where *you* want them and where the *image needs* them, not where the software applies them.

Masks / layers, no difference between them, other than the ease of which the user can craft them to suit the needs of the image. Pixinsight masks - like throwing goose entrails out on to the floor and deciphering the mess, and PS layers, opacity and brushes - literally at your finger tips.

I am no fundamentalist, PI gets me to about 75% of my processing completed, then PS takes over for the parts where I need control!

[Rodd]

44 minutes ago, johnrt said:

The "tools", "filters" or "processes" in PS & Pixinsight are not so different, they for the most part the same, they seek to achieve the same ends, what differs is the ability to control and apply those tools selectively where *you* want them and where the *image needs* them, not where the software applies them.

Masks / layers, no difference between them, other than the ease of which the user can craft them to suit the needs of the image. Pixinsight masks - like throwing goose entrails out on to the floor and deciphering the mess, and PS layers, opacity and brushes - literally at your finger tips.

I am no fundamentalist, PI gets me to about 75% of my processing completed, then PS takes over for the parts where I need control!

Is GIMP like PS--ever try it?  I did, and the learning curve was right up there with PI.

[johnrt]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Is GIMP like PS--ever try it?  I did, and the learning curve was right up there with PI.

No sorry, never used GIMP.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, johnrt said:

 

 Pixinsight masks - like throwing goose entrails out on to the floor and deciphering the mess, and PS layers, opacity and brushes - literally at your finger tips.

 

Possibly the best single sentence ever posted on social media!

Lowest of low bows from me...

Olly

[gnomus]

6 hours ago, Rodd said:

Is GIMP like PS--ever try it?  I did, and the learning curve was right up there with PI.

I've not tried GIMP.  The 'learning curve' with PI is steeper than it needs to be and certainly much steeper than with PS.  'Atrous wavelet transformation' - what does that mean?  I need to keep a 'cheat sheet' close by when using PI to remind me what starting settings I should be using for the various processes.  I don't need to do this with PS.  

The sackcloth-and-ashes approach of PI reminds me of these old DOS-based programs that we used to have to wrestle with.  There is perhaps no better example than the method for 'blending' in PI.  I need to have two images and then add these together in different proportions using something they have called Pixel Math?!?!?  In PS I use an opacity slider - I can immediately see the results of various different 'Pixel Math' combinations.  

Incidentally, I quite like PI.  But I don't ascribe to the view that it is somehow more virtuous to arrive at one's destination by taking a more difficult route than is necessary.  If I were going to climb Everest I would take oxygen.  At my level of AP, I am still struggling to get up modestly sized hills - this is probably why most of my AP efforts to date have been described as a load of hillocks (at least that is what I think I heard).