Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

RT or GIMP for editing?


Recommended Posts

Hi all, very new to viewing and AP and I’m sure this has been discussed in great detail but after some advice.

I have initially downloaded GIMP to process my images and RT to allow the RAW file to be used in GIMP, however after playing around in both last night I found GIMP really tricky to use.

I noticed that RT offers a wide array of processing tools and was wondering if;

a) does anyone purely use RT rather GIMP as well?

b) is it worth persevering with and learning GIMP

I am using a Canon 800d for imaging. 

Edited by MessierMatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean by RT or FT, but folk use a variety of processing tools for astrophotography, and they all have learning curves. Often you might stack in one piece of software, stretch in another, and finish in another. Often they have free trials to allow you to try things out. Have a look at StarTools, Siril, and Affinity Photo. Those are reasonably priced or free. I've not used Gimp, but I guess it's similar to Affinity and Photoshop.

Ian

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

I use DSS for initial stacking, I then use SIRIL for 1st stretches and colour calibration , the resulting file is then opened in GIMP for final tweaks.

All are free to use and some fantastic You Tube videos to help.

I have found all 3 programs to require a little learning curve and at the end of the day its about your perception of what you like for your astrophotgraphy, so you do as much or as little as you feel.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could also look at Affinity Photo. Although not free it's not expensive and pretty damn good. The latest version also has some AP specific tools.

Although I have been a die-hard PI refusenik, the latest tools from Richard Croman have changed my mind. Might be worth having a go with the trials which are free.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just over a year into AP and I also use a Canon 800d. I assume by RT you mean Raw Therapee? It's not something I use personally, I use Canon's own DPP software to check each raw file for clouds, star trailing, etc, before stacking. I did initially start out using only GIMP to process but I quickly found Siril was capable of producing better images and quicker.

I now stack and process in Siril. I then also use GIMP for fine tuning and layers (i.e. if using Starnet for separate star processing) and lately AstroDeNoisePY. These are all free to use software.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Admiral said:

Not sure what you mean by RT or FT, but folk use a variety of processing tools for astrophotography, and they all have learning curves. Often you might stack in one piece of software, stretch in another, and finish in another. Often they have free trials to allow you to try things out. Have a look at StarTools, Siril, and Affinity Photo. Those are reasonably priced or free. I've not used Gimp, but I guess it's similar to Affinity and Photoshop.

Ian

Apologies @The Admiral RT is RawTherapee

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • MessierMatt changed the title to RT or GIMP for editing?
8 hours ago, nickarp2000 said:

Hi

I use DSS for initial stacking, I then use SIRIL for 1st stretches and colour calibration , the resulting file is then opened in GIMP for final tweaks.

All are free to use and some fantastic You Tube videos to help.

I have found all 3 programs to require a little learning curve and at the end of the day its about your perception of what you like for your astrophotgraphy, so you do as much or as little as you feel.

Nick

Thanks for this. I will look at your suggestions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MessierMatt said:

Thanks for this. I will look at your suggestions. 

I use Siril and I love the features that have been introduced recently. You can use it for stacking + initial post processing. You will need PS/ Gimp to do the final touch ups (mainly when you need to use layers). So highly recommend it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to mortgage your soul to Adobe for PS, Affinity Photo will do everything you need, plus it's more AP orientated, and is more user friendly than GIMP.

AP is so different to ordinary photography as to need more specific tools. Terrestrial photographers talk about "Expose to the right" while we are trying to dig out detail from the shadows.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/03/2023 at 06:45, MessierMatt said:

use RT rather GIMP

Hi

If you like the feel and the non-destructive approach of RT, you'll almost certainly like the mask-rather-than-layer approach of DT. 

Cheers

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, alacant said:

Hi

If you like the feel and the non-destructive approach of RT, you'll almost certainly like the mask-rather-than-layer approach of DT. 

Cheers

@alacantThanks for this. I have been trialling DSS and then some post processing in RT initially.  I’m trying to keep my process simple to start with as there is definitely a lot to learn! I had a Google of DT…could you share more info of this? Sorry! Still really new to this! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The learning curve in any editing suite ends in the perfect image. That means that the learning curve in any editing suite rises to the infinitely steep, ie vertical, and if anybody does ever reach the top, how will we know?

I would advise you to start with a given software, learn to exploit it, get the most you can out of it, and then reflect upon what more you would like. Ask on the forum which package will offer you that extra feature. Try it. Move on. The world of image processing is enormous, which is good because it will keep you entertained for a lifetime.

I can tell you what I use: APP for pre-processing (done, these days, by my collaborator Paul Kummer) then Pixinsight for three operations, then Photoshop for the hundreds of operations which remain. That's just me. The alternatives are not necessarily better or worse,  just different. One thing, though: if anyone tells you Photoshop is done for, that is because they don't understand it.

Olly

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIMP is similar to PS too, so absolutely no harm in trying it, if you do migrate to PS later you'll be better prepared. I use both as one can do some things better than the other.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/03/2023 at 06:45, MessierMatt said:

b) is it worth persevering with and learning GIMP

Absolutely. There are many apps and programs geared against astrophotography, each with it's own strenghts and weaknesses. Many of them claimes to take you all the way, from a folder of subs to finished image. That may be so, but the result will improve dramatically if you master a pure image manipilation program for the finishing touches. One example: Gradients. Untill now I've used Siril's 'Background Extraction' with mixed results. The tool has improved, but it steals details and it adds noise, no mather how I tweak and turn. This week I've spent some cloudy nights on old data, and learned to do a super-smooth gradient removal in Gimp. In short, it uses the gradient tool on an overlayed layer. I finetune the effect with the transparency slider, and merge down once it's perfect. In this way I can deal with different gradients one after another, without altering a single pixel, other than the luminence value. I consider Gimp a more mature and pro application than it's competitors, the menus and dialog boxes are designed in such a way that you as a user gets insight in what's going on on the technical (and mathematical) level. Maybe overwhelming for the novice, but be persistent! Gimp is a castle with many hidden rooms; you just have to learn to recognize the frames and handles...... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MessierMatt

I think DT is dark table 🤫 

I've used RT before, i can't compare it to other RAW developers as I've not tried them. One thing I found with RT is the noise reduction seems a bit inconsistent, or it maybe a lack of practice, although I've had good results with it. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.