This is a really interesting thread, seeing someone `thinking out loud' and getting suggestions while they prepare an AIC presentation.
I like the idea of comparing ways of doing things in PI with their counterparts in PS. Perhaps RBA did that last year, I'm not sure. But if not, that might be a good way to go, IF it can be done in a way that doesn't sound too `snooty' or confrontational. Basically, if you were doing this, you'd want to somehow assure the audience that although you like PI better, you've got nothing against people using PS, and that everyone should do what they're comfortable with. No putting-down of PS. But, then you'd show some things that are hard to do in PS, and easier in PI. That way, people are already comfortable, and not feeling put-down, and suddenly they say `ah-ha! Look at how much easier it is to make this single histogram stretch, than to iterate Basic Curve + Levels!' (or whatever the example is).
One thing that might blow them away - again, assuming it wasn't a big point of RBAs last year - would be the color-noise reduction routines in LRGB combination. That spun my head around when I first did it.
Maybe some star-shrinking and star-desaturating, after applying star masks. There were some MW widefields posted recently in the Gallery, and they showed versions where the `carpet of stars' had been de-emphasized. That might grab 'em.
Dragging one image onto another image's `side border' (or whatever it's called) to make a mask is pretty handy, maybe that would look good.
