Should I Buy PS and if so, which version?

[mldee (Mike)]

I'm thinking about venturing into the uncharted waters of using Photoshop, as it appears to be an eventual skillset needed anyway. Presently, my limited astro fiddling has been in freeware programs, mainly Gimp and Paintshop Pro v7. I use Registax 5 and the latest Nebulosity. Perhaps this bunch may be sufficient for my initial QHY8 and Ha adventures?

The easy Nebs and DSO's are my main targets.

How old a PS version is useable for the normal Astro functions and are there any gotcha's, version plugins etc, I should look out for? I'll probably intitially take a closer look at availability on Ebay.

As a relative beginner, I have zero knowledge of the more sophisticated PS CS2/3/4 version functions.

All advice welcome

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by mldee

I'm thinking about venturing into the uncharted waters of using Photoshop, as it appears to be an eventual skillset needed anyway. Presently, my limited astro fiddling has been in freeware programs, mainly Gimp and Paintshop Pro v7. I use Registax 5 and the latest Nebulosity. Perhaps this bunch may be sufficient for my initial QHY8 and Ha adventures?

The easy Nebs and DSO's are my main targets.

How old a PS version is useable for the normal Astro functions and are there any gotcha's, version plugins etc, I should look out for? I'll probably intitially take a closer look at availability on Ebay.

As a relative beginner, I have zero knowledge of the more sophisticated PS CS2/3/4 version functions.

All advice welcome

Yes - PS is the standard in photo processing/editing. There are a number of actions including free ones to complement existing functions. You can't go wrong by getting a licence. I wouldn't get an old version off eBay though. Software licence are non transferable.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Hold off for CS5. The things that CS5 can do will blow your mind away.

H

[mldee (Mike)]

Thanks Marc and H, just a small but important additional piece of advice I'm looking for;

As a beginner, can Gimp etc fulfill the basic functions needed to get started in Ha + OSC? I'd rather spend more time getting a good grasp of the processing basics, then move on to the more sophisticated techniques that PS would provide.

I guess what I'm intimating is that, although I realise PS is the obvious end game, I'm hesitant to outlay what I consider to be pretty big bucks for it until I've convinced myself that my basic astro needs cannot be met by Gimp etc.

Will such programs do the basic entry job or am I wasting my time and should jump straight into buying PS?

[kinetic (Steve)]

Mike,

this is a great thread and one I'm interested in following too.
I'd also be interested in hearing responses not only from PS advocates
but people who have tried PS as well as things like PSP and GIMP
and 'all of the rest' extensively. Maybe just to get a perspective such as:
'PS can do layers much better than PSP'
'PS does histogram adjustment better than Gimp' etc etc etc....
I dunno....it's these types of insights that might be helpful.
Apologies for jumping on the thread Mike...

Steve

[Octane (Humayun)]

Forget all the processing stuff, our greatest concern is that Photoshop can handle 16-bit (and, 32-bit) files. The GIMP can only deal with 8-bits.

If you were working with simple JPGs, then, 8-bits would be fine. What we often deal with in our game is enormous dynamic range (think of fine detail) and 8-bits just doesn't cut it.

Just my opinion.

H

[mldee (Mike)]

Originally Posted by Octane

Forget all the processing stuff, our greatest concern is that Photoshop can handle 16-bit (and, 32-bit) files. The GIMP can only deal with 8-bits.

If you were working with simple JPGs, then, 8-bits would be fine. What we often deal with in our game is enormous dynamic range (think of fine detail) and 8-bits just doesn't cut it.

Just my opinion.

H

Aha! That's the sort of info that's invaluable.

Steve - No sweat on jumping in, please feel free.

Thanks Humayan.

[Octane (Humayun)]

No worries, Mike.

There's countless other reasons you'd want to use Photoshop (colour management is an important one) and just the sheer number of tools that are available at your disposal.

I've noticed nowadays that people are starting to process their images entirely in astrophotographic packages (PixInsight comes to mind) and don't even need to go to Photoshop. That might be the way of the future...

H

[Chillie (Henry)]

Originally Posted by Octane

Hold off for CS5. The things that CS5 can do will blow your mind away.

H

Here are a couple of links for CS5 as taken from http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21439

countdown web page

A sneak preview can be seen on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPCWPH1AuXw

[Baptista (Baptista)]

Hi Mldee!

I have downloaded the CS3 and astronomy tools. Good combination.

Greeting

[kinetic (Steve)]

Mike, all,

I've tried to download a 30 day full trial so far of CS4,

Every attempt so far gets a 200k downloader/installer of the
larger ~500-800Mb file but nothing happens when I run it.
It was from the Adobe site and also a mirror reputable software
site.
Can anyone recommend a version or download site that gives
me a play with simple layering tyechniques in 16bit files.
It doesn't have to be the latest version.
Masks, deconvolves etc that Ken Crawford describes on his site.
That sort of stuff.....
cheers,

Sorry for the OT post again Mike

[RobF (Rob)]

I think PixInsight is going to become a real force to reckon with once they bring out full image calibration routines - coming very soon supposedly. Will give it the capability to do serious calibration, alignment, stacking AND very powerful processing for which it already has a great reputation (background gradient correction, contrast tools, control of large dynamic range to show fine details in brighter parts of images).

[mldee (Mike)]

Originally Posted by Octane

No worries, Mike.

There's countless other reasons you'd want to use Photoshop (colour management is an important one) and just the sheer number of tools that are available at your disposal.

I've noticed nowadays that people are starting to process their images entirely in astrophotographic packages (PixInsight comes to mind) and don't even need to go to Photoshop. That might be the way of the future...

H

Thanks everyone for the great insights and suggestions.

In the past, I've seen references here on IIS to Iris. If I'm correct, it may have been you, Humayan. During my recent googling on it, I saw suggestions it will also handle 16-bit FITS files, etc. Any comments on the program? (Just mentioning it because it's free and small, but obviously comes into the 'gets what you pays for' category.

[cfranks (Charles)]

Originally Posted by RobF

I think PixInsight is going to become a real force to reckon with once they bring out full image calibration routines - coming very soon supposedly. Will give it the capability to do serious calibration, alignment, stacking AND very powerful processing for which it already has a great reputation (background gradient correction, contrast tools, control of large dynamic range to show fine details in brighter parts of images).

+1. I haven't used PS since I bought PixInsight.

Charles

[Octane (Humayun)]

Mike,

IRIS is an incredibly powerful program. All the background gradient extraction stuff, etc., that's done in PixInsight can be done in IRIS using the subsky command.

All you have to do is look at the command reference that's available on Christain Buil's site to see what it can do. Astounding.

Yep, it handles 16-bit FITS files no problem. I will let you know how I go when I start using it to process my CCD images.

It can also be used to build mosaics, and, stacking of images taken from different focal lengths. I've also used it to take a screenshots from Starry Night Pro Plus and combine it with my finalised image to detail the nebulae, stars, galaxies, etc.,:

load image1
load image2
coregister2 image stack 2
add_max stack 2
savepsd2 final

No need to spend a couple of hundred dollars on a copy of Registar. IRIS does it all for free.

If you have a look at my for sale thread in the camera section, you can see examples of images I've taken with the 40D and processed with IRIS.

H

[mldee (Mike)]

Thanks H, it sounds like an excellent program for the less experienced amongst us, as it gives lots of power, but still lets us spend our money at this stage of the hobby on 'scopes and things'. Not much fun being cool with PS while you still can't take a decent quality photo!

Sounds like it's got a hefty learning curve, but hey, that's applicable to all well-featured programs, including PS.

Thanks again for the advice.

[jman17]

Hi,

I am looking into maybe buying Photoshop or Lightroom as final processing after putting my images into Deep Sky Stacker and Star Tools and am wondering if this would be a good choice? Would DSS/Star Tools be able to do pretty much everything either of these could do anyway or could having one of Photoshop or Lightroom as well help the final images? If so which would be better?

Thanks,
jman17

[bojan]

jmn17,
if you are Canon user, you already have DPP - it can handle Tiff from DSS, and curves are all you need to do.

Also, IRIS and AstroJ are good alternatives... all free.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by jman17

Hi,

I am looking into maybe buying Photoshop or Lightroom as final processing after putting my images into Deep Sky Stacker and Star Tools and am wondering if this would be a good choice? Would DSS/Star Tools be able to do pretty much everything either of these could do anyway or could having one of Photoshop or Lightroom as well help the final images? If so which would be better?

Thanks,
jman17

Can't buy PS anymore but you can hire it.

[Merlin66 (Ken)]

PaintShopPro now has all the features of PS and can run the plug-ins.
Well worth checking out.