Which image processing software

[Philip Benson]

I enjoy imaging but I still enjoy visual observing as well.   For image capture I use SGP and up to now all my processing was done with Maxim DL and Photoshop.   Having heard much about PixInsight I am deliberating whether to give it a try.

So my question for discussion then is which is the best processing software....  Photoshop or PixInsight? In the style of Harry Hill I suppose there is only one way to find out....  FIGHT!

[PeterCPC]

You will get many opinions - the answer is Both! PI does some things that PS doesn't and visa versa. Why not try PI before you buy.

Peter

[Philip Benson]

That's what I was hoping for Peter!   More opinions the better :-)

[Steve 1962]

I use PI and PS, but I reckon that 95% of my processing is done in PI with only a few minor tweeks at the end in PS - so here's another vote for doing a free trial of PI from me.......and make sure you watch Harry Page's PI videos - it's a bit of a learning curve but worth it.

Steve

[swag72]

PI has a trial period.... give it a go and see what you think. Harrys tutorials are good to get you going ..... http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixinsight/pixinsight video html/Pixinsighthome.html

 

[JohnC64]

As people have said above, both are good.  Pixinsight has 45 days evaluation, you just need to request a code. As well as Harry's videos, there is also a book by Warren Keller that describes everything and has some suggested processing workflows .

Cheers John

[Gina]

+1 for giving PixInsight a try.  Also try Light Vortex Astromomy tutorials.  Both Harry Page's tutorials and these are excellent and Harry is a member here   I am a convert to PI and haven't used Photoshop for a while.  It's possible that I might in the future if I find something I want to do that PI can't handle.  Both PixInsight and Photoshop have steep learning curves for astro processing so don't give up on PI too soon.  It took me more than the 45 days trial period to get the hang of PI but my poor old brain is nowhere as good as it used to be   But that was just about enough to see that PI suited my way of thinking

[Philip Benson]

Well there seems to be a lot of support for PI so far which is what I was expecting.   Seems to me that PI is a bit more automated compared with PS?

[Gina]

It can be or alternatively it allows great control over what you're doing so the best of both worlds   There are plenty of members here using PI so no shortage of advice

[RichLD]

After the usual calibration, registration and stacking processes, I tend to use PI for reducing noise and removing gradients at the linear stage (which it truly excels at). After the image goes non-linear, it's into PS for various layering, masking, sharpening, dodging, burning, star control etc etc.

As has been said many times before, both applications have their strengths and are a necessary part of my workflow. 

HTH

Rich 

[ollypenrice]

Again, both.

Olly

[johnrt]

Both.

[harry page]

2 hours ago, Philip Benson said:

Well there seems to be a lot of support for PI so far which is what I was expecting.   Seems to me that PI is a bit more automated compared with PS?

HI

As a Pi fan I can not a unbiased opinion , but both can take a lot of learning ( part of the fun )

more and more people when starting are tending to use PI rather than photoshop and can master the basics within a few hours of looking at my vids

but a word I could not use in any package is " Automated " and PI is very hands on and gives the user lots of options  , One reason why we so many version

of the same object. 

As said try the trial and see how you get on

Regards

Harry

[alan4908]

I seem to collect post processing software like some people collect telescopes    

My experience

Photoshop -  I started with this and still use this for 80% of my post processing. I regard this as the core of my post processing software.  

Pixinsight - I've found that this does certain functions much better than any alternative I can find, the most notable examples being DBE, SCNR and colour calibration.  So I would say that I use this this for 15% of my post processing time.  

My remaining 5% of post processing time is split between several other software packages: 

CCDstack - in my opinion, this has the best image rejection facilities (you can see which parts of a subframe are going to be rejected) and has good stacking and subframe calibration abilities - however, to use this effectively you really need to watch the tutorial video by Adam Block. 

Registar - in my opinion, the best image stacking software available, it will attempt to stack virtually anything with amazing precision and also compensate for optical distortions.

CCDInspector: an excellent piece of software for examining individual subframes, I use this to decide which subframes I'm going to put into the stack. It's also useful for diagnosing problems with your system eg camera tilt, curvature etc

MaximDL: -I  don't use the post processing facilities anymore but I still use it for image acquisition, in conjunction with ACP.

So, the short answer to your question is:  I would definitely recommend giving Pixinsight a try but expect to use it in conjunction with Photoshop.

Alan