Photoshop Astronomy Book

[Marky1973]

Has anyone read/used the Photoshop Astronomy book that FLO are now selling?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/photoshop-astronomy-second-edition-book.html

Thought it might be a sensible companion to the PI book that I am working - best of both worlds and all that!

Just wondered if it is accessible to anyone with a modest knowledge of PS or whether I should be starting elsewhere.

Cheers

Mark

 

[r3i]

I've got a copy.  There's a lot of good, detailed stuff in it, though I found it a bit heavy going in places.  That may be because of my lowish level of expertise - I've found the Deep Sky Imaging Primer ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Deep-sky-Imaging-Primer-Charles-Bracken/dp/148180491X ) and the NewAstro Zone System ( http://www.newastro.com/zone/ ) to be more up my street, though the latter is hard to find at a reasonable price (keep an eye out on the secondhand book market).

[ChrisLX200]

Those were my thoughts too..   Both books cover their subject in some depth and the danger seems to be when one gets to be tough going swapping to the other!

ChrisH

[Marky1973]

29 minutes ago, r3i said:

I've got a copy.  There's a lot of good, detailed stuff in it, though I found it a bit heavy going in places.  That may be because of my lowish level of expertise - I've found the Deep Sky Imaging Primer ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Deep-sky-Imaging-Primer-Charles-Bracken/dp/148180491X ) and the NewAstro Zone System ( http://www.newastro.com/zone/ ) to be more up my street, though the latter is hard to find at a reasonable price (keep an eye out on the secondhand book market).

Thanks Mike - I'll have a look at the others you recommended as well.

[Marky1973]

7 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

Those were my thoughts too..   Both books cover their subject in some depth and the danger seems to be when one gets to be tough going swapping to the other!

ChrisH

Thanks Chris - presuming you just got it this morning? Doesn't look like it's been opened? ;-)

[kirkster501]

Sara Wager recommends that Photoshop book and if it is good enough for an expert such as she it is certainly good enough for me!

I have been looking for that book at a sensible price and this seems the best offer yet. Still an expensive book though and I am still thinking i should commit to PixInsight - which I  have the excellent "Inside Pixinsight" book

EDIT:  Link to the page in Sara's website:

http://www.swagastro.com/useful-books.html

 

[Marky1973]

11 minutes ago, kirkster501 said:

Sara Wager recommends that Photoshop book and if it is good enough for an expert such as she it is certainly good enough for me!

I have been looking for that book at a sensible price and this seems the best offer yet. Still an expensive book though and I am still thinking i should commit to PixInsight - which I  have the excellent "Inside Pixinsight" book

EDIT:  Link to the page in Sara's website:

http://www.swagastro.com/useful-books.html

 

Thanks Kirkster.... Sara does seem to know a thing or two about imaging... although looking at her website, I think the Lessons from the Masters book might be a (better) alternative as she does suggest she didn't find the PA book as easy to follow.

[kirkster501]

Just now, Marky1973 said:

Thanks Kirkster.... Sara does seem to know a thing or two about imaging... although looking at her website, I think the Lessons from the Masters book might be a (better) alternative as she does suggest she didn't find the PA book as easy to follow.

Your welcome.  I have the Lessons From the Masters book as well.  To be honest, that book goes slightly over my head too at my current stage of learning in processing.  LFTM is seperated into separate subject themes, each authored by a different person.  So there is Solar, Planetary, and pre-processing sections.  it is not a "start from zero and work to a completed image" workflow book.  Rather, it is a selection of best practices in various areas using various tools.  CCD stack tends to be mentioned a lot as does Maxim.  I found this rendered some of the sections redundant for me as I am not going to buy anymore processing SW - I have PS and PI and that is enough!

[Marky1973]

Good point... well made! PS and PI is enough for me at the moment, so maybe Plan A is the best! :-)

[cjdawson]

Didn't know this book existed.  Ordered from FLO, £45 doesn't sound that expensive after all, it's not the cost of the paper that's the important part here.  It's the value of the knowledge inside the book.  And I consider knowledge to be extremely valuable

[r3i]

2 hours ago, kirkster501 said:

Your welcome.  I have the Lessons From the Masters book as well.  To be honest, that book goes slightly over my head too at my current stage of learning in processing.  LFTM is seperated into separate subject themes, each authored by a different person.  So there is Solar, Planetary, and pre-processing sections.  it is not a "start from zero and work to a completed image" workflow book.  Rather, it is a selection of best practices in various areas using various tools.  CCD stack tends to be mentioned a lot as does Maxim.  I found this rendered some of the sections redundant for me as I am not going to buy anymore processing SW - I have PS and PI and that is enough!

I've got this book too, and agree with your comments.  The book is more a collection of 'essays' on specific AP techniques and appears to be an update on a earlier book ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Digital-Astrophotography-Patrick-Practical-Astronomy/dp/1852337346 ), which I also have.  Like you Steve, several chapters don't apply much to me, even some of the ones on PS which relate to new functions in CS5 and I'm only on CS3.

[ChrisLX200]

4 hours ago, Marky1973 said:

Thanks Chris - presuming you just got it this morning? Doesn't look like it's been opened? ;-)

LOL, I've had it a few weeks, but at these prices I try to take care of them

ChrisH

[Marky1973]

51 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

LOL, I've had it a few weeks, but at these prices I try to take care of them

ChrisH

I'm the same with just about any book to be honest...no spine bending if at all possible and bookmarks all the way...although I have relaxed a bit in recent years with pulp novels that I am likely to only read once....

[laudropb]

I have ''tis book and it is very good, but a bit advanced for me. I have found Photoshop CC for Dummies to be more useful at my stage of learning.

[ollypenrice]

I had Lessons from the Masters for magazine review from Astronomy Now. I thought it was excellent but it is not, as others have said, a 'start from zero' primer.

What I would say about image processing or any other learning process is this: make whatever you read your own. That is, don't 'click here' because the book says 'click here' but because you understand what that click does. And while you're about it, reflect on other ways in which an operation might achieve a similar or better result. If we all followed the same rote processes (and we certainly don't do that) then we'd all produce the same images and there would be no progress. But there is progress. Ten years ago we'd see lots of HaLRGB images which were mostly pink with big blue star haloes. They were everywhere. But now we all know that this comes from using Ha too liberally as luminance and we don't do it.

I think AP is an interesting field dominated by autodidacts in constant collaboration with each other via forums and clubs. You can't do GCSE or A level AP. There is no National Curriculum in AP. And no OFSTED. That's why it's alive.

Olly

[johnrt]

Ron Wodaski's Zone System book is also very good, I learnt a lot from it. He very firmly pushes you to look at,  and understand the images in front of you to understand the processing the image needs. I would recommend it, if you can get hold of a copy.

[kirkster501]

On 22/10/2016 at 19:49, ollypenrice said:

I had Lessons from the Masters for magazine review from Astronomy Now. I thought it was excellent but it is not, as others have said, a 'start from zero' primer.

What I would say about image processing or any other learning process is this: make whatever you read your own. That is, don't 'click here' because the book says 'click here' but because you understand what that click does. And while you're about it, reflect on other ways in which an operation might achieve a similar or better result. If we all followed the same rote processes (and we certainly don't do that) then we'd all produce the same images and there would be no progress. But there is progress. Ten years ago we'd see lots of HaLRGB images which were mostly pink with big blue star haloes. They were everywhere. But now we all know that this comes from using Ha too liberally as luminance and we don't do it.

I think AP is an interesting field dominated by autodidacts in constant collaboration with each other via forums and clubs. You can't do GCSE or A level AP. There is no National Curriculum in AP. And no OFSTED. That's why it's alive.

Olly

Agreed - if I am qualified to agree.... (a bit like a toddler who has just come off his bike stabilizers "agreeing" with Chris Froome's training strategy....!)

The more I learn about processing of astro images (and I readily concede that I have not even scratched the surface as per above), the more I am coming to understand that there is no one "way" that one goes about it.  It is more of an art in that you apply tools, techniques etc that work for you, that please you.  Sure there is a broad framework in how one goes about it such as pre-processing comes first etc.  But even in pre-processing, it can be done umpteen different ways.

Yes, it is a minefield alright and that makes it interesting.

 

[ollypenrice]

7 minutes ago, kirkster501 said:

Agreed - if I am qualified to agree.... (a bit like a toddler who has just come off his bike stabilizers "agreeing" with Chris Froome's training strategy....!)

The more I learn about processing of astro images (and I readily concede that I have not even scratched the surface as per above), the more I am coming to understand that there is no one "way" that one goes about it.  It is more of an art in that you apply tools, techniques etc that work for you, that please you.  Sure there is a broad framework in how one goes about it such as pre-processing comes first etc.  But even in pre-processing, it can be done umpteen different ways.

Yes, it is a minefield alright and that makes it interesting.

 

Yes, and it's also important to enjoy processing, and that means using the tools and methods that make you happy.

Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

Added to my wishlist.