Give Ron his due - our posts do go 'against the grain' as virtually ALL of the members on that Group are dyed-in-the-wool PS and CCD-xxx and Maxim-xxx users.
What I will say though is that, recently, I have been (privately) FAR more critical of the image quality coming from his group members - especially in terms of the 'dim areas' of their images, which do just seem to be 'full' of 'noise'. This is the first time I have stated this 'publicly', simply because my own efforts would not suggest that I am suitably qualified to judge the efforts of others. However, with 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder', I am somewhat surprised by their results, given the skills that some of these guys have, and the quality of equipment that they are working with.
Perhaps incorrectly, I have started to attribute this specific problem to their processing methods - and tend to assoicate their images (unfairly?) with the restrictions imposed by PS.
In any case, I hold ALL of the guys on that Group in very high esteem, they are some of the 'top names' on the astro-imaging world, and they have been 'at it' a LONG time. And that means that they had no choice BUT to start with PhotoShop. Of course, some of them have been 'at it' for so long that they DID, in fact, 'write the book' ! And, I actually have every one of Ron's books, and Don Waid's video tutorials, and the methods that they describe are ALL perfectly valid.
My self-imposed task is to understand their methods well enough to be able to see how to replicate them in the world of PixInsight, rather than PhotoShop - given that we do not have 'Layers', the 'Lasso' tool, or the ability to 'paint-in' or 'feather' a mask that we can create. However, what I do find, time after time, is that 'some' of their methods are just not needed in PI - because Juan has already provided us with tools that are infinitely more powerful, and flexible, than the 'work-around' methods that are needed in the non-astro-specific environment of PS.
My biggest problem is that I never have 'good enough' data to work with (relying on a 'simple' DSI camera under the moisture-laden skies of Scotland at almost 60 degrees North) - and the inclination to 'work on' somebody else's (superior quality) data is never that great (unfortunately). So, I tend to concentrate on one tiny little aspect of PI, worrying it like a dog with a bone, until it starts to make sense to me - in the hope that I can pass on that understanding to just ONE other PI user, all the time secure in the knowledge that, like all PI users, we are really 'at the frontier' with this technology.
So, it is often difficult NOT to get over-emotional when trying to convince a staunch PS user to 'come on over to the dark side'. We are probably all the same. But we should exercise restraint on Ron's Group - most of the regular contributors already know of the existance of PI. Some have tried it. Some even see the 'good points' that PI can offer them. But most are actually managing perfectly fine without PI in their arsenal.
And we have no right to 'force' them to change. I, now, will try to simply 'make folks aware' of PI, perhaps enlightening them to some new facility that Juan has implemented, perhaps announcing new marketing changes (the great new 45-day trial period, and free upgrades for the foreseeable future), perhaps trying to explain a PS process in terms of PI steps.
Quite rightly, Ron SHOULD have the right to 'veto' ALL of 'our' posts - his group is NOT a free-for-all marketing forum. What I think he would be quite happy to encourage is 'objective comparison' between ALL imaging software, so a simple statement that "PI is better than PS" has no merit (either there, OR here!). What IS needed is someone to actually try a process, using PI versus some other package, and to then make qualitative and substanciable statements thereafter.
And remember, there WILL be areas where other software packages are FAR superior to PixInsight - that is the simple nature of the beast. It is up to US to learn of these instances, to analyse the problem, and to help Juan (et al) to decide if, and how, PI can be adapted to resolve the issue.
And, certainly, the more 'converts' PixInsight inherits, the better - because they have an understanding of the 'other methods' that some of 'us' will never have - and it is THEIR knowledge and experience that will help the continuing development of PI.
So, don't 'hassle' the likes of Ron's Group - they don't need us - we need them
Cheers,
