Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Pixinsight or Adobe photoshop

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Diomedes

Diomedes

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2020
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 31 March 2020 - 04:04 PM

I had not used photoshop until two months ago when I started doing Astrophotography. I spent a ton of time learning the tools and purchased some somewhat expensive plugins. However, I feel I’m still early enough where I could make the switch to Pixinsight without much of a shock. Is pixinsight really that much better ? Would the time investment be justified ?

 

so far I only “know” how to stretch the images, color correct and run the actions on the astronomy action set tools in photoshop.  What are some good resources to learning pixinsight I noticed a lot of the material on YouTube is geared towards photoshop.


Edited by Diomedes, 31 March 2020 - 04:05 PM.


#2 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,604
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Colchester, VT

Posted 31 March 2020 - 04:06 PM

I'm in the pixinsight camp. Its purpose built for astrophotography processing. It's an amazing software and features for astro are always in dev.
  • Jim Waters, Hypoxic, Jii and 1 other like this

#3 Jim Waters

Jim Waters

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,053
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ USA

Posted 31 March 2020 - 04:14 PM

"Is PixInsight really that much better ? Would the time investment be justified ?"  Yes and Yes.  PixInsight is designed / made for astrophotography.  PS isn't. 

 

Walk through the YouTube video's and request a fully functional eval license.


  • elmiko, nimitz69 and Diomedes like this

#4 Hawkdl2

Hawkdl2

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Claremont, CA

Posted 31 March 2020 - 04:19 PM

As a long time published amateur terrestrial and studio photographer with a lot of experience with PS, I use PI. 


Edited by Hawkdl2, 31 March 2020 - 04:20 PM.

  • Astro Babak and Diomedes like this

#5 droe

droe

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Fenton, Mi

Posted 31 March 2020 - 04:25 PM

If you do different types of photography other then astrophotography I would suggest PS. If you only need it for astrophotography then PI is probably a better choice. I use PS but I use it for many other things too.


  • Diomedes likes this

#6 Becomart

Becomart

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,149
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2015

Posted 31 March 2020 - 05:15 PM

 Pixinsight is the winner but I personally feel it has 10 times the learning curve of photoshop. 


  • Diomedes likes this

#7 Gucky

Gucky

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 18 May 2015
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 31 March 2020 - 05:36 PM

Yes, PixInsight rulez :- )

 

I found these tutorials most helpful. There are Harry's or Warren's videos.


  • Diomedes likes this

#8 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,604
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Colchester, VT

Posted 31 March 2020 - 05:36 PM

Pixinsight is the winner but I personally feel it has 10 times the learning curve of photoshop.


I have been a PS user for 20 years. While I agree that PI has a steeper learning curve, to get good astro processing I found that it was less effort. Within the first week of fooling around with PI my astroimages looked much better than my efforts with PS.

There are so many beginner tutorials for PI that fast results are possible.
  • RudiVM, Diomedes and robbieg147 like this

#9 nimitz69

nimitz69

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,077
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2017
  • Loc: A barrier island 18 miles south of Cocoa Beach

Posted 31 March 2020 - 06:10 PM

I used to be a professional pet photographer so I have some reasonable PS skills .... I use PI for AP.


  • PeteM, ChrisWhite and Diomedes like this

#10 DaveB

DaveB

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,447
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 31 March 2020 - 06:36 PM

Photoshop is a little more intuitive for me, and I still use it for terrestrial photography. Nevertheless, I use PI because it is more focused on astrophotography, and I get better results using it (I'm sure that is due to my lack of advanced PS skills, not the software).


  • Diomedes likes this

#11 Madratter

Madratter

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,304
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2013

Posted 31 March 2020 - 07:57 PM

Both PI and Photoshop have learning curves to use them at anything like their full potential. People tend to forget all the Photoshop books and classes that have been created because of that learning curve. They both engender a somewhat different way about thinking about the data and how to manipulate it to get the results you want. Some people will find one or the other a more natural fit to the way they think and like to work.

 

Personally, I'm very comfortable in both and use both. I primarily work in PixInsight, but I still use Photoshop at times.

 

One big difference between the two is that PixInsight is NOT designed to allow "painting" in what you want. It is designed to bring out what is there. In Photoshop, if you want to get "creative" you can get "creative". Even if you don't want to get "creative" this difference really affects things like how you might go about creating a mask to protect the core of a galaxy.


  • RudiVM and Diomedes like this

#12 ldcarson

ldcarson

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2019

Posted 31 March 2020 - 08:21 PM

I prefer Astro pixel processor.  Very easy to use with good results.


  • bobzeq25 and Diomedes like this

#13 mikefulb

mikefulb

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,772
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2006

Posted 31 March 2020 - 09:48 PM

I can't imagine processing without BOTH.


  • dswtan, nemo129, dawziecat and 3 others like this

#14 APshooter

APshooter

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,993
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Camby, In.

Posted 31 March 2020 - 11:51 PM

 

I prefer Astro pixel processor.  Very easy to use with good results.

+1, 100%

 

 

I can't imagine processing without BOTH.

Again, +1, 100%


  • Astrola72 and Diomedes like this

#15 Birddogoby

Birddogoby

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2020

Posted 31 March 2020 - 11:53 PM

As a new imager, one thing I quickly found out when I started using the trial version of PI is that you need to have adequate computer processing power including big RAM memory!  I have a nice laptop with a 500 SSD, 16 Gigs of RAM and a I7 8th Gen core processor and PI quickly crashed it when I tried processing a large number of subs.  My son is a software engineer and he was blown away by the recommended system requirements for PI.  I'm guessing that at least part of my problem is that I'm processing huge sub files from my Nikon D850 DSLR (50 Megs each).   


  • Diomedes likes this

#16 dswtan

dswtan

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2006
  • Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Posted 01 April 2020 - 01:03 AM

I’m “intermediate” and am in the both camp - though personally I use Lightroom rather than PS, and am not a sophisticated PS user. Astro Pixel Professor was interesting and I still dip into it occasionally, it’s got a really nice recipe approach. But PI is much more powerful - overwhelming, yes, but you persist...


  • Diomedes likes this

#17 RJF-Astro

RJF-Astro

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Zeist, Netherlands

Posted 01 April 2020 - 04:20 AM

There is a big difference between just Photoshop and Photoshop with plugins and action sets. For instance the Carboni action set and AstroFlat add a lot of relevant functionality to Photoshop. You need to factor these in if you choose Photoshop.

 

I use both, because I was a heavy Photoshop user before I started AP. If i were to begin from scratch with no experience in both, I would pick PixInsight, just because it is dedicated astro software and can do pretty much anything you would want to do.


  • Diomedes likes this

#18 terry59

terry59

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,532
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 01 April 2020 - 05:39 AM

There is a big difference between just Photoshop and Photoshop with plugins and action sets. For instance the Carboni action set and AstroFlat add a lot of relevant functionality to Photoshop. You need to factor these in if you choose Photoshop.

 

I use both, because I was a heavy Photoshop user before I started AP. If i were to begin from scratch with no experience in both, I would pick PixInsight, just because it is dedicated astro software and can do pretty much anything you would want to do.

If Juan would incorporate layers into PI it would go a long way to making PI my only processing program. Since that isn't likely I'll continue to use both as they each have strengths


Edited by terry59, 01 April 2020 - 08:04 AM.

  • WebFoot and Diomedes like this

#19 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,687
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005
  • Loc: Redmond, WA, USA

Posted 01 April 2020 - 02:11 PM

I believe that it is a fallacy to feel that one must use only one software package for processing our images.

I use Pixinsight for all pre-processing, the color combine, the stretch and some other things.  I use Photoshop for a few things in the post-processing stage, also (I really like working with layers).

 

Mark


Edited by WebFoot, 01 April 2020 - 02:12 PM.

  • Diomedes likes this

#20 tcchittyjr

tcchittyjr

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Orlando, FL

Posted 01 April 2020 - 02:17 PM

I'm in the PixInsight camp. I have PS but don't use it at all. Get Warren's book:

 

https://www.amazon.c...85768575&sr=8-2

 

And sign up for his website (IP4AP.COM), as well as AdamBlockStudios.

 

TomC


  • bobzeq25 and Diomedes like this

#21 schmeah

schmeah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,690
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 01 April 2020 - 04:17 PM

I’ll be the contrarian here. I use Photoshop, albeit with several necessary plugins. I always have and always will. Despite being on these forums forever, I have never been convinced that I would see any practical improvement in my final images with Pixinsight over Photoshop. And at this stage in the game, learning a new labor intensive program makes absolutely no sense. That being said, if I were just starting out, I would probably use PI for the simple reason that you can do all stacking and calibration steps with it as well.

 

Derek


  • Joe G and Diomedes like this

#22 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,745
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 01 April 2020 - 06:45 PM

I’ll be the contrarian here. I use Photoshop, albeit with several necessary plugins. I always have and always will. Despite being on these forums forever, I have never been convinced that I would see any practical improvement in my final images with Pixinsight over Photoshop. And at this stage in the game, learning a new labor intensive program makes absolutely no sense. That being said, if I were just starting out, I would probably use PI for the simple reason that you can do all stacking and calibration steps with it as well.

 

Derek

For people just starting out I recommend Astro Pixel Processor, which also stacks and processes.  It gives fine results with much less study needed than with PI.  Beginners have more than enough to deal with, lightening the load helps.

 

And time spent with APP will not be wasted if someone later goes to PI, the interface is different, but otherwise many of the skills can transfer.

 

Some people like to touch up APP output in PS, which is fine.  But less necessary now with recent improvements in APP.


  • schmeah and Diomedes like this

#23 Diomedes

Diomedes

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2020
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 02 April 2020 - 08:20 AM

thanks guys, you given me a lot to think about. I requested a free license. 



#24 RandallK

RandallK

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,972
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Nanaimo, B. C. Canada

Posted 02 April 2020 - 02:13 PM

I have both. Photoshop came first, then when PI was released I waited awhile until I discovered I wanted something oriented specifically to calibration for astrophotography. PixInsight did this for me. But because I am more comfortable using Photoshop for my final touch-up, I find myself still reliant on this program as opposed to PI.

 

So for me, I find both Pix Insight and Photoshop the two necessary programs for processing my images.


  • nemo129 likes this

#25 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,604
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Colchester, VT

Posted 02 April 2020 - 07:32 PM

thanks guys, you given me a lot to think about. I requested a free license. 

Check out Harry's Astro Shed for some free tutorials on getting started with PI.

 

Also, I have found tutorials from LightVortexAstronomy to be invaluable.

 

Also excellent are Madratter's tutorials and David Ault's. 

 

And there are many additional resources as well as a huge user base from which to learn from. 


  • WebFoot likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics