PixInsight > Gallery

Ngc 2237 and 2170

<< < (2/2)

Josh Lake:
 ;D

See you there.

Juan Conejero:

--- Quote ---I'm hesitant to discuss other software on the PI forum!
--- End quote ---

Please do not hesitate to discuss about software on this forum. I am always very interested in knowing why some users prefer other software applications instead of PixInsight. If I agree with your criticism then I'll learn ways to improve PixInsight, or ways to identify my own limitations---both are absolutely necessary. If we disagree then be prepared to engage in a discussion with me and other members of our team. Everybody benefits from discussion.

Josh Lake:
Juan, for my part, I've been working hard to make my process completely 100% Pixinsight and have succeeded over the last season. Nevertheless, when doing the 'final packaging' of an image to prepare it for the web, I still revert to Photoshop. I'll save my final PI work as a 16 bit TIFF, open it in PS, and see if there are any final tweaks to make. Most often, this is just using PS's Image Size to scale it down, Save As to make it a PNG or JPG, and/or Print to make a print of it.

Oftentimes, however, I'll also try adding two adjustment layers -- Levels and Vibrance/Saturation. I'm happy to say that the last several times I did this, I found my PI work was the 'optimal solution' and the image didn't benefit from any further histogram adjustment or saturation.

I *know* that I can do all of these things with ease in PI, and I have done all of them fairly regularly. I guess it's just a comfort level thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if, in a a few months, I just skipped any Photoshop post-processing completely. One thing that might help is some kind of Finishing process, a one-stop-shop for resizing, final minor saturation tweaks, changing format, all of that. It sounds silly to say it now since all of that is easily done with the specific processes... it's more of a comfort level feeling, I guess.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page