Pixinsight or something else!?

[Jennifer Christine]

I had a go at pixinsight and found it too time consuming.
I use an old version of photoshop and skystacker.
My images are OK but not incredible as there is a lot of sensor noise leftover. The answer to that is more exposures and flats and bias frames as well as darks.
Plus the dither technique which is available in PHD2.
Also, pix is tolerably expensive.

[Aidi]

I think your comments are quite common with regards to PI.. I think lots of us when initially looking at it as an AP processing tool thought the same. What you have to remember, its a dedicated Astophotography processing tool not like photoshop which is a jack of all trades.

Yes it it is time consuming, but if you follow the numerous workflows available the rewards with the finished product can be amazing.. in my experience, far better than anything i could do in photoshop. There are also a ton of video tutorials on PI, so its not like you are on your own.

If you think it too expensive, then perhaps consider the likes of Startools

https://www.startools.org/

Its $50 and has a good following on here so help is at hand. If you want to find some images which have been processed in Startools, look at Hondo's images. He is a keen user of Startools and produces some very good images.

[KathyNS]

I use PI because I like the quality of the images it produces. However, I don't use more than a tiny fraction of its available processes. And the ones I do use, I typically don't adjust very far from their default settings.

The details of my work flow vary a bit depending on the needs of the image, but it tends to be consistent enough that I can predict what my favourite processes are going to do. That allows me to get good results from the dozen or so processes that I use most often. My typical processing time for a new image is 30-60 minutes.

[Altocumulus]

I suppose, like anything, the user needs to invest some time in trying to get the best out of any package. I don't like PS's subscription model, but I do have an older version of PS I can use. Luminar3 is something I'm investigating, but it lacks intuitive tools that can relate to techniques on PS.
PI seems good, but expensive in comparison to others?

[XCalRocketMan]

I use PixInsight almost exclusively. Yes, the learning curve is a bit steep, but the effort is well spent. Ranks up there as the best software tool I've purchased along with SGP.

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I tried PI and was either too busy or just couldn't get good results with the trial version. May break down and get it anyway but for now I am using Nebulosity 4.3 for processing (use sharpcap for capture). Along with PS and LR it works well for me, I use Neb first through the curves and color correction then finish in Photoshop and finally Lightroom.

M51 Neb,PS,LR Slooh 17" Planewave

[STEVE333]

Recommending an image processing software is like recommending a Doctor. What works for one person may not work for another.

I started with an older version of Photoshop and used it "successfully" for about 2 1/2 years. Many video tutorials on YouTube helped a lot. However, I always had problems getting the colors to come out correct. For that reason I tried PixInsight (PI). I've been using PI now for about 2 1/2 years and am very happy with it. I even use it for stacking, and, it completely removes all satellite and airplane trails (I was never able to get DSS to do that, maybe my fault?).

Fortunately there are a number of good PI tutorials available (links to a few below). At first i followed the tutorials exactly without changing any of the settings. I didn't know what I was doing, but, the images were starting to turn out "OK". After a week or so of blindly following the tutorials I started to make small adjustments in some of the settings to see what would happen. That was the beginning of getting more and more comfortable with PI. Now much of it is second nature.

Not saying it is right for you Christine. It just has worked for me.

PixInsight Tutorials:
Harry's Astro Shed https://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixinsi ... thome.html
Light Vortex Astronomy https://www.lightvortexastronomy.com/tutorials.html

I find Harry's video tutorials to be short and to the point, handling just one subject in each tutorial. As I remember they are in the 5-15 min range, and, easy to follow.
The Light Vortex tutorials are text based, more detailed, but still useful.

There are many others available on YouTube if you are interested.

Just FYI -

Best of success with whatever processing choice you choose.

Steve

[UlteriorModem]

Once you learn how to use the Batch pre processing script, and assemble a set of icons, that will save a lot of time.

Oh and don't forget IP4AP website. Yes it is a subscription service. But he covers nearly every aspect of PI.

https://www.ip4ap.com/

[Aidi]

I’ll second IP4AP... For learning and referencing they really are worth it.

And if you really want to get into the meat of PI, there is Adam Blocks series of. Ideas.... These not only show you the processes, but explain in details what the settings do and the expected results... But, you really need to know the basics first!

https://www.adamblockstudios.com/

Just throwing this in for others as well as the OP

[jmfloater]

I've been using PI for almost 5 years now. At first I found it difficult to use because of the way it approaches problem resolution and the processes are not all that intuitive. I used PS for a number of years and had to buy add on's such as RC Astro to assist in removing gradients but was not that successful with it. I also used Noel Carboni's (Pro Digital) Astronomy Tools to speed the process up. I still had to stack images and calibrate them in a different software. PI does all of these things in one package and the DBE process for removing gradients works miracles on my images. The learning curve is steep and at first I was using PI and PS to process images. As I learned PI I find now that I use it exclusively. The cost to me was a wash in my opinion. Stacking and calibrating software, Photoshop, Astronomy Tools, RC Astro for removing gradients all added up and I still was not completely satisfied with my result, but then I never am. It boils down to comfort level and pocket book but I know I could never go back to PS etal. IP4AP jump started my use of PI and was worth the investment.

[Stuart]

In addition to ip4ap (which I highly recommend) I also like Adam Block's tutorials at https://www.adamblockstudios.com/catego ... ndamentals
ip4ap is awesome, and I refer to it all the time (I just rewatched a tutorial today actually). Adam's are much longer, but way more in depth and he gets more "under the hood" as it were. It all depends on your learning style.

I also highly recommend the book Inside Pixinsight by Warren Keller. Version 2 is up to date with the current PI upgrades (except for the advanced subframe selector process which you're not going to use anyway if you're a beginner. ip4ap, by the way, has a tutorial on that)

I realize that it seems like it's annoying to pay for the software that's not super well documented, and then pay for tutorials, but the way I look at it is you pay hundreds or thousands of dollars on equipment, why skimp on the image processing bit? I do recommend staying away from random Youtube videos as I've seen many of them that are downright bad.

[Stuart]

I'll just give a quick Pixinsight story. I had the same nebula with two different stretches side by side. I liked the core in one and I liked the wispy bits in the other. It was a puzzle. How could I get the wispy bits on the one to the core on the other? It took me about 20 minutes of fiddling around but finally I figured out an easy way. I masked out the nebula I wanted, call it A, and then renamed the wispy nebula b. Then I did a pixelmath max (A,b) and applied to A.

My next project is removing a star halo using the GAME script. I'm almost there.

Pixinsight allows you to do LOTS of fiddlybits like that. There is no "Process here" button. Every process is a puzzle and a learning experience. Sometimes I could be done in an hour and sometimes it may take me weeks.

[madperk]

I’ve tried dss+ps, StarTools, Astro Pixel Processor and had a similar experience with PI. I ran the trial of PI and had ok results but it’s been a few years and there are probably better tutorials and documents out there when I last looked. I’ve got a real good routine documented in the articles section on astrophotophotograpy.net using dss and photoshop that gives me repeatable results. I have always had an issue with Star color using dds+ps which prompted me to look at APP.

I was very impressed with the trial of APP and paid for a 1 year subscription. What I like about app is the learning curve was not steep, It does a good job with color balance in stars and does a better job stacking when the images are not great. I still do a little bit of “finish work” with ps to accent colors the way I want them and noise reduction when I don’t shoot flats and only shoot an hour or two of images.

I’m not sold on it yet. Haven’t had a chance to do much more than reprocess a few images. Might be worth a try. The rental option for a year is less than 60 bucks.

[Stuart]

I've heard very good things about APP. I have no experience with it myself.

[Nimitz]

Whether you decide to get PI or not depends a lot on your photography goals. Yes, its more than $50 and yes there is effort in learning how to exploit all its capabilities. Some people are happy with what we call “snaps’ in the terrestrial photography ‘biz’ and at the other end of the scale others are looking to produce ‘magazine cover’ quality images. I see people on other forums post images all the time saying “I don’t use PI and I get great results “ & when you look at their images you can spot issues. The images are ‘nice’ but they are not as spectacular as they could be. Many times this because the raw data has issues and no amount of s/w wizardry fixes poor data but sometimes someone who is a PI expert reprocesses their data and the results are “wow”.

For myself being one of those photographers who learned photography using film (not AP) my interest lies in being able to produce large prints of my images which requires a different result than for just looking at digital images on a computer, IPad or phone. I also like to collect a lot of data on just a few targets instead of just 2 hrs on numerous ones. My current project is M13 with 4hrs collected so far & more planned for tonight. I expect to get at least 15 hrs, maybe more before I’ll move on to another target.

There are several programs out there where you can get good results but if your ultimate goal is to produce images of a quality that people would be interested in buying them (whether or not you actually want to sell them is irrelevant), than I think you’d be hard pressed to find anything better than PI. This is not right or wrong or good or bad, its just the way things currently are. BTW, the trial version of PI is the Full-up, all-features version so if you’re struggling with getting good results from the trial look elsewhere than the s/w.

I’m still very new to AP (7 months) and have a pretty strong PS background & own PS CS5 Extended but just recently got PI & also Adam Block’s tutorial series since I’ve realized PS won’t get me where I want to go. Don’t really care how ‘hard’ it is to learn. learning AP isn’t exactly learning to play bingo either and on cloudy nights instead of imaging I’m watching PI video tutorials ...

[Gordon]

As a personal opinion. I have seen different people do amazing images using all different kinds of software. It then becomes which software you are most familiar with and how good you are at using it to get the best results. Most times you will see that the best images are done using multiple software packages to do different processes. All programs seem to have tools that work exceptionally well doing a specific task.

Now which to start with?
Start with the free or inexpensive tools, then learn it well. Hone your learning into what seems to work and what doesn't, then progress to another tool to see if it does things easier / better than the other. This takes time and lots of trial and error. Share your images with others and ask for input. But don't fall into the trap of buying every software that is recommended. I have copies of a number of software programs that were purchased and today I don't use them at all!

Most software companies will let you try their software out. But be careful. You need raw data BEFORE you submit for the trial. I guarantee you will get clouds if you sign up for the trial thinking you will grab some data during the next few nights. (yes this is the voice of experience talking.)

It's a long road but it can be very rewarding.

And that my friends is my :twocents:

[Stuart]

I’m still very new to AP (7 months) and have a pretty strong PS background & own PS CS5 Extended but just recently got PI & also Adam Block’s tutorial series since I’ve realized PS won’t get me where I want to go. Don’t really care how ‘hard’ it is to learn. learning AP isn’t exactly learning to play bingo either and on cloudy nights instead of imaging I’m watching PI video tutorials ...

I'm a fan of Adam Block and I like his PixInsight tutorials quite a bit. You need the time to go through them but they're well worth it.