Is Photoshop the way forward???

[Beulah]

Those who are able to obtain a copy of a legacy photoshop program could also use DNG converter to enable newer RAW files to be opened in them. Convert from RAW to DNG, then open the DNG in Camera RAW to edit.

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

 

[Merlin66]

12 hours ago, Xplode said:

Astroart: Old software and really outdated, it has a very small userbase and most people seem to switch to PI after using it for a while.

I strongly disagree with this assessment!!!

AstroArt is up there with the best, it has been constantly updated and revised to meet the real needs of the amateurs.

It has a very good support forum https://www.astroart-forum.net/forum/

The lastest V7 is very good and well worth trying. http://www.msb-astroart.com/

Check out the review on CN https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/user-reviews/astroart-7-a-review-and-how-to-part-1-r3225

Fabio has looked after his user base and helped spectroscopy users by implementing additional features to make our lives easier.

I recommend and use AstroArt.

[Xplode]

7 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

I strongly disagree with this assessment!!!

AstroArt is up there with the best, it has been constantly updated and revised to meet the real needs of the amateurs.

It has a very good support forum https://www.astroart-forum.net/forum/

The lastest V7 is very good and well worth trying. http://www.msb-astroart.com/

Check out the review on CN https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/user-reviews/astroart-7-a-review-and-how-to-part-1-r3225

Fabio has looked after his user base and helped spectroscopy users by implementing additional features to make our lives easier.

I recommend and use AstroArt.

The review seems to only be for the capture part of AstroArt.
AstroArt does pretty much everything, but the problem is that it doesn't really do anything exceptionally well, at least not for regular astrophoto. 

I have actually tried AstroArt lately myself because it has some features for spectroscopy and for that it has some good features 
 

[carastro]

I use Astroart for stacking it doesn't seem to have the quirks and problems that DSS has and it's very fast.  It reads the fits header and will stretch images so you can see what you've got.

I am sure it does a whole host of other stuff which I haven't even tried.

I don't care if it's old software, so long as it does what I need. 

Carole

[ollypenrice]

22 hours ago, Xplode said:

Astroart: Old software and really outdated, it has a very small userbase and most people seem to switch to PI after using it for a while.

I never know when software is 'outdated' or it isn't. People say this about Atik's Artemis Capture. What I do know is that, sooner or later, some idiot will come along and fix what wasn't broken. Artemis capture and AstroArt work like a charm.

I use AA for stacking, calibrating and colour combining, tasks it performs predictably and at lightning speed on clear, coherent screens. It has in-built line and column repair, hot pixel filtration etc etc and, above all, it leaves you in control because it isn't constantly trying to second guess your intentions. This is the most exasperating feature of may of its rivals. I know what I want to do. Just let me do it!

Interestingly, when guests see me working on their data here using AstroArt for pre-processing, they often pull out their computers and buy it on the spot. That says something. Quite a few of them have been PI users.

Olly

PS I'm not on commission, by the way. Story of my life! 🤣

Edited March 2, 2020 by ollypenrice
Typo

[carastro]

Quote

 Artemis capture and AstroArt work like a charm.

Here here!

Quote

Interestingly, when guests see me working on their data here using AstroArt for pre-processing, they often pull out their computers and buy it on the spot. That says something. 

I'm one of them.

Carole 

[Xplode]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I never know when software is 'outdated' or it isn't. People say this about Atik's Artemis Capture. What I do know is that, sooner or later, some idiot will come along and fix what wasn't broken. Artemis capture and AstroArt work like a charm.

I use AA for stacking, calibrating and colour combining, tasks it performs predictably and at lightning speed on clear, coherent screens. It has in-built line and column repair, hot pixel filtration etc etc and, above all, it leaves you in control because it isn't constantly trying to second guess your intentions. This is the most exasperating feature of may of its rivals. I know what I want to do. Just let me do it!

Interestingly, when guests see me working on their data here using AstroArt for pre-processing, they often pull out their computers and buy it on the spot. That says something. Quite a few of them have been PI users.

Olly

PS I'm not on commission, by the way. Story of my life! 🤣

Something can be called outdated when something newer comes along which is much better.
It's not about fixing what's not broken, but about innovation to make it easier to use and have more features.
Personally i have have started registering and stacking most images in APP instead of PI because it's easier to use for Local Normalization and it does a better job at sorting the images from quality. (another improvements when using LN is that i often see very little improvement from DBE because the images are almost perfect without gradients to begin with)
I've had several datasets that i got a lot more out of with Local Normalization, images with gradiends, thin clouds etc don't always have to be removed from the stack and so they will help the SNR.
Before starting using LN i had to throw out 30/55 subs from a M31 dataset to get a usable image because of gradients, with LN i could use all of them and got a much better SNR.

Some people like to stick with what have worked for them in the past and some people like to follow innovation, personally i like to follow innovation to help me get better results and get everything to work better and easier.

[ollypenrice]

8 minutes ago, Xplode said:

Something can be called outdated when something newer comes along which is much better.
It's not about fixing what's not broken, but about innovation to make it easier to use and have more features.
Personally i have have started registering and stacking most images in APP instead of PI because it's easier to use for Local Normalization and it does a better job at sorting the images from quality. (another improvements when using LN is that i often see very little improvement from DBE because the images are almost perfect without gradients to begin with)
I've had several datasets that i got a lot more out of with Local Normalization, images with gradiends, thin clouds etc don't always have to be removed from the stack and so they will help the SNR.
Before starting using LN i had to throw out 30/55 subs from a M31 dataset to get a usable image because of gradients, with LN i could use all of them and got a much better SNR.

Some people like to stick with what have worked for them in the past and some people like to follow innovation, personally i like to follow innovation to help me get better results and get everything to work better and easier.

But what I find is that the so-called innovations are often compulsive changes without being improvements. However, AstroArt has, as Ken said, been regularly updated. There was, for example, a spectacular improvement in the Sigma reject algorithm between, I think,V 4 and V5. On the other hand the change in Trichromy management between 5 and 6 has caused me to leave V5 on my hard drive for that function.

Olly

Edited March 2, 2020 by ollypenrice
typo

[Xsubmariner]

 I would avoid eBay for software, most is pirated and you will find PS will block you. Should you find and acquire a genuine older version you will have a devils job getting PS to accept and register your copy.  Monthly PS is very expensive  in the long term.  Given you will be new to AP, might I suggest Nebulosity 4.0 is a very good value capture and post processing package. I found it was excellent for the beginner and will enable you to compile images quickly using simple functions. There are great tutorials online that will take you through the complete process.

While I use Pixinsight now, I still use Nebulosity if I want to compile a quick image. At this stage I would keep it simple otherwise you will get disheartened. Good luck with your choice.  

Edited March 2, 2020 by Xsubmariner
Auto correct yuk

[don4l]

Another vote for the Gimp.

You can try it for free, and if you like it, you've saved yourself some money.  As far as I can tell, it is very similar to Photoshop.  I have used many PS tutorials and hardly notice that I am using a different package.

[ollypenrice]

13 minutes ago, Xsubmariner said:

 I would avoid eBay for software, most is pirated and you will find PS will block you. Should you find and acquire a genuine older version you will have a devils job getting PS to accept and register your copy.  

Mine's legit but why would I want to register it?  (Genuine question.) I felt no need to give Adobe any information about me.

Olly

[Frank the Troll]

16 minutes ago, Xsubmariner said:

 I would avoid eBay for software, most is pirated and you will find PS will block you. Should you find and acquire a genuine older version you will have a devils job getting PS to accept and register your copy.  Monthly PS is very expensive  in the long term.  Given you will be new to AP, might I suggest Nebulosity 4.0 is a very good value capture and post processing package. I found it was excellent for the beginner and will enable you to compile images quickly using simple functions. There are great tutorials online that will take you through the complete process.

While I use Pixinsight now, I still use Nebulosity if I want to compile a quick image. At this stage I would keep it simple otherwise you will get disheartened. Good luck with your choice.  

I'm in a lucky position, in that I am able if I wanted, too get a student/teacher licence, which is currently just £95. but will be trying out Gimp first for a basic grounding

[Frank the Troll]

5 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Mine's legit but why would I want to register it?  (Genuine question.) I felt no need to give Adobe any information about me.

Olly

Simple answer, Updates, but like you I am adverse in giving anyone info about my details, which is why I use a junk mail box, setup up to delete at the server end, so I dont get to see any junk unwanted mail

[ollypenrice]

46 minutes ago, Frank the Troll said:

Simple answer, Updates, but like you I am adverse in giving anyone info about my details, which is why I use a junk mail box, setup up to delete at the server end, so I dont get to see any junk unwanted mail

Exactly. I simply don't need any updates. I've seen only one thing from the latest Ps that I might like and I can continue to do without it. I don't suppose it was ever offered as an update anyway.

Olly

[Simon Dunsmore]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies, that really opened up a lively debate, loads to think about and research further. 

Love this forum! 

[Simon Dunsmore]

Hi Folks, 

One more question. I see you can buy Adobe Elements and Premier on eBay for around £10 or Elements 6 for the same price. Excuse my ignorance, but will this software be suitable? 

 

Thanks 

Simon 

[Frank the Troll]

26 minutes ago, Simon Dunsmore said:

Hi Folks, 

One more question. I see you can buy Adobe Elements and Premier on eBay for around £10 or Elements 6 for the same price. Excuse my ignorance, but will this software be suitable? 

 

Thanks 

Simon 

At that price I would read throught he decription  its, likely a rip off boot leg copy

[Buzzard75]

I started with Photoshop CC and still have it. I've moved on to doing all (most) of my heavy processing in PixInsight though. It's just a much more powerful piece of software for editing astro photos and has tools specifically designed for that purpose. Photoshop is a bit more artistic in its use, in my opinion, and is good for putting final touches on things and is exactly what I use it for. Those last minute little details.

[carastro]

Quote

I see you can buy Adobe Elements and Premier on eBay for around £10 or Elements 6 for the same price. Excuse my ignorance, but will this software be suitable? 

I know some-one who used PS Elements and it did for a while, but he later got the full version.

Carole