1.20
...
·
 |
|---|
| (deleted) |
9.89
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
The short answer is No. I guess you are some way off before you're close to mastering the basic processing in PI otherwise that nebula wouldn't look the way it does. So, before putting even more meat on the grill, try to get the basic procedure right and move on from there.
|
1.20
Topic starter...
·
|
|---|
| (deleted) |
8.34
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: That would be my assessment as well. That is not to say that Photoshop is not useful. There are a few things that require better real-time user interaction that PS does better and there are a few plugins that are useful that are not available in any form in PI. I take maybe 80% of my images into PS (mostly at the very end) for some added tweaking. PS can also be useful in making or tweaking masks that can then be taken back into PI as a .tiff. But you need to get better at PI before worrying about that level of tweaking. |
1.20
Topic starter...
·
|
|---|
| (deleted) |
|
9.89
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Can you elaborate please? Thanks There is (a lot of) work to be done, in both background control/flatness/color, overall color balancing, stars color (instead of lack thereof), image size, stretching and operation of curves at all levels. And I wouldn't start right off on SHO before having a firm grasp on how to produce a good RGB image, to start with. Get few hundred hours under your belt of imaging time on few subjects and more importantly keep your image scale down, as it isn't doing you any favor at present. |
5.76
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I am a graphic artist and take the opposite path. I calibrate and stack in astro programs but stretch and finish in PS. It has to do with familiarity and muscle memory that comes with "10,000 hours." And, as Bill says above, it's hard to replace the "real-time user interaction" that PS provides in nursing an image into the zone. Pix and PS each have their super powers as well as a lot of overlap. But it is probably wise to finish within Pix to the best of your ability in order to avoid Adobe subscription fees. This endeavor will also increase your knowledge of the application. Then you can decide whether to add other software tools. |
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
As already said, it seems you need some more training in Pixinsight. Check out Adam Block's tutorials. I think this will improve your skills to the level that is needed  https://www.adamblockstudios.com/ |
2.15
...
·
|
|---|
As mentioned before, best is to go over multiple tutorials. I would like just to add that one of very strong approaches for PixInsight is using masks (color mask, range mask, …). So if you'd like just to do some quick changes with colors, I think this would probably be the right approach. Check some tutorials about mask online. |
5.72
...
·
|
|---|
Dave Rust: I always finish in Ps, but then I am a terrestrial photographer that has various Adobe products and I am quite familiar with them. For me certain colour tweaks are so much easier and intuitive for me in Ps than PI. I basically see it as PI doing the heavy lifting and Ps just the final polish. |
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
You've shown courage to post your pic and ask for people to pick it apart so I'm sure your process will get better. I would focus on careful stretching techniques that preserve the curves and a closer tracking of PI's calibration results as you move through the processing. After revealing the nuances of data that you worked hard to collect, there are some more taste dependent curve tweaks that may or may not be a good idea at the end. Mostly though, watch clipped values in the histogram, be mindful of global color shifts that show up in background sky color and try to retain the original graceful curves of that first stretch as you push and pull color / contrast values. Maybe most of all, after you take initial inspiration from someone's glittery astro pic, try to focus on your own image and let it tell you how far it wants to go. Sometimes a particular image doesn't want to be pushed hard. Best of luck.
|
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
Gilmour Dickson:Dave Rust: I'm in a similar boat having access to the range of adobe products free because of work and have so far continued to use Photoshop for my post-processing. I find the manual curve stretching I can do and other operations get me a great result. I've also bought a number of plugins for Photoshop and continue to use them. I wonder how long until I switch to PI? |
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
Like some others here I come from a photographic background and can't imagine not taking an almost finished image into a photo processing program to fine tune so that I get exactly what I want. If you already own Photoshop or have access then good on ya. Otherwise, I wouldn't spend the money. GIMP is a very capable layer based editor that is similar to PS so a short learning curve if you come from that world. My favorite is Affinity Photo 2. It's not free but it's pretty cheap and starts with a 6 month trial.
|
