Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Nova2000

Book for learning processing in Photoshop

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone

Not sure if this is the right place to open this topic .

I was wondering on which photography editing software to buy (pixinsight/Photoshop) and because I can use Photoshop and lightroom to edit other images as well I decided to go for it .I've been using DSS and gimp and want to upgrade.

I know some basics in photoshop.but want to learn more .

Are there any good books /tutorials from which I can learn the correct way to process astrophotos?

Cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nik Szymanek has articles in Astronomy Now called Imaging Masterclass. He's just started a series using Affinity Photo, but has covered Gimp and Photoshop in previous series, IIRC. If you can get hold of back copies that may help.

Ian

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YouTube has lots of really informative videos on astro image processing in a number of programs including Photoshop. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stargazer33 said:

YouTube has lots of really informative videos on astro image processing in a number of programs including Photoshop. 

+1 I'll second that, learnt my basic PS astro processing from youtube tutorials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend Steve's 'Dark Art' book. There are indeed some first class Photoshop video tutorials out there but there are also plenty of examples of utter gibberish in which ambitious beginners thrash around murdering their data without the slightest clue what they are really doing to it.

A really simple rule to follow in learning image processing is, 'Don't, ever, do anything you don't understand.' It isn't about clicking, it's about understanding.

Olly

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree about Steve's books and would also recommend The Deep-Sky Imaging Primer by Charles Bracken which gives tons of excellent background and, to Olly's point, really helps with understanding rather than just following recipes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Blocks PS tutorials are very good if somewhat expensive, he's moved on to PI now.

Dave

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Adam Blocks PS tutorials are very good if somewhat expensive, he's moved on to PI now.

Dave

Yes, Adam Block and Warren Keller can certainly be trusted, as can Robert Gendler. The book Lessons from the Masters is helpful once you've found your feet.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learnt much of my processing in Photoshop by buying a DVD Disc from Adam Block.  I think he does Pixinsight now.

I also learnt some more processing from Olly and elsewhere, and so I felt it was my turn to give something back and have made a series of video tutorials on You tube.

Here is a link to my website which gives all the You Tube tutorial links:

https://sites.google.com/site/caroleastroimaging/home/video-tutorials

Carole 

Edited by carastro
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of Charles Bracken's book. If you're set on Photoshop, see if you can pick up a copy of the first edition of The Deep-Sky Imaging Primer, the (current) 2nd Edition does include a fair bit of info on Photoshop processing but concentrates more on PixInsight. 1st Ed. was heavier on PS, or so he says (I only have 2nd Ed.).

I would heartily recommend that you do your linear processing in something other than Photoshop, though. I'm not even sure how you'd accomplish calibration with dark and flat frames in PS, for example. There are gradient-removal plugins, but really you'll get better images if you use a dedicated astro package to do calibration and integration at least. PS only has mean and median stacking, for example. the more-sophisticated algorithms in DSS, Astro Pixel Processor, Siril, or PixInsight will make better use of your sub-exposures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, rickwayne said:

 

I would heartily recommend that you do your linear processing in something other than Photoshop, though. I'm not even sure how you'd accomplish calibration with dark and flat frames in PS, for example. There are gradient-removal plugins, but really you'll get better images if you use a dedicated astro package to do calibration and integration at least. PS only has mean and median stacking, for example. the more-sophisticated algorithms in DSS, Astro Pixel Processor, Siril, or PixInsight will make better use of your sub-exposures.

Hi .yes I use DSS for stacking :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

PS only has mean and median stacking

PS is not a stacking programme, it's a post processing programme.  It has neither Mean nor median stacking. 

Carole 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can put all your calibrated subs into PS as layers and stack them but not worth the effort.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You can put all your calibrated subs into PS as layers and stack them

I have stacked, stacks in photoshop when the data is from different scopes and cameras - as you say in layers, but the images need to be registered first which Photoshop doesn't do, stacking raw subs means they need converting to Tiff first and registering before you can stack them manually, a very laborious way of doing stacking and it certainly doesn't have a mean or Median stacking option. 

Carole 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rickwayne said:

I'm a big fan of Charles Bracken's book. If you're set on Photoshop, see if you can pick up a copy of the first edition of The Deep-Sky Imaging Primer, the (current) 2nd Edition does include a fair bit of info on Photoshop processing but concentrates more on PixInsight. 1st Ed. was heavier on PS, or so he says (I only have 2nd Ed.).

I would heartily recommend that you do your linear processing in something other than Photoshop, though. I'm not even sure how you'd accomplish calibration with dark and flat frames in PS, for example. There are gradient-removal plugins, but really you'll get better images if you use a dedicated astro package to do calibration and integration at least. PS only has mean and median stacking, for example. the more-sophisticated algorithms in DSS, Astro Pixel Processor, Siril, or PixInsight will make better use of your sub-exposures.

I have the first edition and as you say that covers Photoshop in its processing sections...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rickwayne said:

.

I would heartily recommend that you do your linear processing in something other than Photoshop, though. 

Hi.

I am a newbie when it comes to some terms ,what do you mean by linear processing? The levels and curves part ?

(I am very newbie :))

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry! Linear processing is what you do before "stretching", aka contrast enhancement. Usually you wind up with better results if you do as much work as possible on the image before that happens. Calibration is using special frames like darks (for subtracting the thermal signal the sensor records even when there's no light), bias (for subtracting the signal the camera adds to even the shortest-possible exposure), and flats (recording your optical train's and sensor's imperfections such as vignetting, dust, or funky pixels). Then there's integration, aka stacking, averaging a bunch of sub-exposures to yield a smooth, noise-free (hah!) image. Light pollution usually casts some kind of gradient across the image, which should be removed, along with any overall color cast.

Then the next step would be stretching, or mapping the very narrow range of values that represent what you want to see in the final image (e.g., the tones in a nebula) onto the full range of values in that image. For example, the whole range of values from the darkest to the brightest parts of a nebula might only span a few hundred numbers in the calibrated, stacked image, but you want that to range from near-black to almost-white. That's the levels and curves part.

Then comes more tweaking. You might apply extra stretching to particular bits, for example. Or do noise reduction. Or digital sharpening.

Edited by rickwayne
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2020 at 08:36, The Admiral said:

Nik Szymanek has articles in Astronomy Now called Imaging Masterclass. He's just started a series using Affinity Photo,

Ian

If anyone has these mags, drop me a pm please

Cheers

Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.