Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: First image using Pixinsight (The Trifid Nebula - M20)

Expand Messages
  • Michel
    Thanks for sharing Bernard, I used to use PS and have completely switched over to PI. The only time I might use PS is at the very end to make minor tweaks.
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 6, 2013
      Thanks for sharing Bernard,

      I used to use PS and have completely switched over to PI. The only time I might use PS is at the very end to make minor tweaks.

      That being said I prefer the PS version more. The processing seems less harsh. I like the fact that the nebulae is the more dominant feature in the picture and the faint details along the edges of the nebulae are more visable.

      In my view the PS processing seems more natural. But that is just my view.

      Mike


      --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bernard Miller" <bgmiller011@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      >
      >
      > Due to the monsoon here in Arizona I have not caught a photon since late
      > June. I am using that time to try and learn Pixinsight. Below is a link to
      > my first Pixinsight image. I actually used both Pixinight and Photoshop, but
      > most of the processing was done in PI.
      >
      >
      >
      > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_CLOSE.htm
      >
      >
      >
      > You can compare it to the version I did with just Photoshop here
      >
      >
      >
      > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_PS.htm
      >
      >
      >
      > For those of you that use PI, any comments or suggestions would be welcomed.
      > Sometimes it feels like you need PhD in image processing to use PI so I am
      > still learning and would appreciate any tips from the experts.
      >
      >
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      >
      >
      > Bernard
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Ron Wodaski
      I agree with your assessment. I wasn t quite sure how to describe why I have the same preference, but your words work well. It does please my eye more, the PS
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 6, 2013
        I agree with your assessment. I wasn't quite sure how to describe why I have the same preference, but your words work well. It does please my eye more, the PS version. Stars have different sized and intensities; there is more contrast range and color variation in the nebula.

        Ron Wodaski



        On Aug 6, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Michel <mperron@...> wrote:

        >
        > Thanks for sharing Bernard,
        >
        > I used to use PS and have completely switched over to PI. The only time I might use PS is at the very end to make minor tweaks.
        >
        > That being said I prefer the PS version more. The processing seems less harsh. I like the fact that the nebulae is the more dominant feature in the picture and the faint details along the edges of the nebulae are more visable.
        >
        > In my view the PS processing seems more natural. But that is just my view.
        >
        > Mike
        >
        > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bernard Miller" <bgmiller011@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi,
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Due to the monsoon here in Arizona I have not caught a photon since late
        > > June. I am using that time to try and learn Pixinsight. Below is a link to
        > > my first Pixinsight image. I actually used both Pixinight and Photoshop, but
        > > most of the processing was done in PI.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_CLOSE.htm
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > You can compare it to the version I did with just Photoshop here
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_PS.htm
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > For those of you that use PI, any comments or suggestions would be welcomed.
        > > Sometimes it feels like you need PhD in image processing to use PI so I am
        > > still learning and would appreciate any tips from the experts.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Thanks,
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Bernard
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • ian
        Hi The Pi version is better controlled in the stars , but you have lost some contrast and perhaps overcooked the Nebula compared to the photoshop version. Have
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 6, 2013
          Hi
          The Pi version is better controlled in the stars , but you have lost some contrast and perhaps overcooked the Nebula compared to the photoshop version.
          Have you tried the LHE tool on the nebula ?

          Harry

          --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bernard Miller" <bgmiller011@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi,
          >
          >
          >
          > Due to the monsoon here in Arizona I have not caught a photon since late
          > June. I am using that time to try and learn Pixinsight. Below is a link to
          > my first Pixinsight image. I actually used both Pixinight and Photoshop, but
          > most of the processing was done in PI.
          >
          >
          >
          > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_CLOSE.htm
          >
          >
          >
          > You can compare it to the version I did with just Photoshop here
          >
          >
          >
          > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_PS.htm
          >
          >
          >
          > For those of you that use PI, any comments or suggestions would be welcomed.
          > Sometimes it feels like you need PhD in image processing to use PI so I am
          > still learning and would appreciate any tips from the experts.
          >
          >
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          >
          >
          > Bernard
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • bgmiller_01
          Mike, Thanks for the feedback. Bernard
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 6, 2013
            Mike,

            Thanks for the feedback.

            Bernard

            ---- Michel <mperron@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks for sharing Bernard,
            >
            > I used to use PS and have completely switched over to PI. The only time I might use PS is at the very end to make minor tweaks.
            >
            > That being said I prefer the PS version more. The processing seems less harsh. I like the fact that the nebulae is the more dominant feature in the picture and the faint details along the edges of the nebulae are more visable.
            >
            > In my view the PS processing seems more natural. But that is just my view.
            >
            > Mike
            >
            >
            > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bernard Miller" <bgmiller011@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi,
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Due to the monsoon here in Arizona I have not caught a photon since late
            > > June. I am using that time to try and learn Pixinsight. Below is a link to
            > > my first Pixinsight image. I actually used both Pixinight and Photoshop, but
            > > most of the processing was done in PI.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_CLOSE.htm
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > You can compare it to the version I did with just Photoshop here
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > http://www.azstarman.net/M20_PS.htm
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > For those of you that use PI, any comments or suggestions would be welcomed.
            > > Sometimes it feels like you need PhD in image processing to use PI so I am
            > > still learning and would appreciate any tips from the experts.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Thanks,
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Bernard
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.