PS - do you use actions? Which ones?

[troypiggo]

For your processing, if you use Photoshop, I'm interested in whether you use your own actions, Carboni's Astro Tools (http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/Astronomy_Tools_For_Full_Version.ht ml), or just do it all manually. I expect a lot will use Carboni's so have included a couple of options for that one in the poll.

[Octane]

Manually.

I take great pride in understanding how to use Photoshop. It's a complex beast with a million ways to skin a cat.

Using other people's actions takes a lot away for me in the overall routine of processing an image. I don't care if others actions make life easier. For me, it seems to be a cheat, as it were. And, I learn nothing from it.

H

[dugnsuz]

H - mildly(!) disagree with the "cheat" comment.
You can examine the various steps of an action to see how it works.
I've found them helpful in my stumbling path through processing.

But, as I progress I find I use them less and find more power in PS.

Totally agree with you in that one needs to know what's going on rather than the relying on the 'magic' of actions.

Looking back to assess which ones I would use the most - I often try the "Make Stars Smaller" action but find that it over-uses the minimum filter so I end up with that "string of snot" look to the stars _ Yuk.
As I mainly image with Canon lenses I find CA introduced when I use my 1.4x extender and so I might try the "Reduce Large Blue/Violet Halos" action - which works well but tends to suck the colour out of stars too.

Perhaps someone can advise me how I can 'Fade' an action's effects like you can for Levels, Curves, Filters etc?

Doug

[jjjnettie]

I used to love playing with the actions when I first got them. But like Doug said, as time goes by, and ones photo shop skills increase, you do use them less and less. Now the only one I really use now is the space noise reduction.

[multiweb]

Same here as some people mentioned previously. I now tend to do this manually. Actions to me are good for work to batch process and do simple tasks on a lot of pictures (like products in an e-commerce website, cropping, cutting resizing, etc...) For astro processing I bought a lot of them including carboni's set which is very good but over time you find yourself reverse engineering them and picking bits n' pieces, techniques and apply/blending them manually.

[jjjnettie]

In the actions menu, scroll down and click on "as layer on top" and press play.
You can then fade that layer within the layers palette.

[troypiggo]

G'day guys. Don't completely disagree with anything said above. Totally agree with it being necessary to understand how to use PS, and I know enough (now) to be able to do everything manually that I've achieved so far.

But once that understanding is achieved, I'm not a sucker for punishment. If I find I'm doing the same things over and over, why not record an action to achieve the same thing?

My reason for asking about Carboni's was that they seem to be the most prolific, and just curious on how much use they actually get.

[Octane]

Simple truth: can't be bothered making actions. : P

H

[dugnsuz]

Thanks jjj - will try that out
Ta!
Doug:thumbsup:

[RB]

I have never liked using Carboni's actions, nor any one else's for that matter.
Prefer to do things manually and keep full control.
I do have some of my own actions that I use but these are for repetitive tasks only.

[mswhin63]

Even if I was to purchace Photoshop I dont believe I would use action tools too, to understand the individual processes is great for learning and acheivement.
On the other hand those that wish to do fast imaging may benefit from it.
I am think of taking a course on Photshop might get me a student version lower price hopefully :)

[Geoff45]

My thoughts exactly. if you use someone else's actions you always have the thought that you could do it better yourself. The thing is that every image is a different ball game and trying to use a "one size fits all" approach is always going to be a bit of a compromise.
Geoff

[RB]

Also I'd like to add that I really dislike the fake Star Diffraction Spikes feature when I see it used in astro shots.
It looks fake and some go overboard.

I image with a refractor and if I get the urge to have spikes in my image, I'd much rather use fishing line than an action in post processing.

It's a personal taste.

:)

[multiweb]

Have you used starspike pro (http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/StarSpikes.html)for PS? I got the plugin a while ago and it has so many settings you can do this real subtle and blend it in. It's really good and practical. I have used it in a couple of shots I did with the ED80 on open clusters. Of course like any plugins if it's overused and right in your face it can turn ugly real quick like a:xmas:

[RB]

G'day Marc,

No I haven't seen 'starspike pro' and it sounds great with it's customisation, but it's just me, I feel as though I'm adding elements (pixels) that aren't really there.
I just don't like adding diff spikes in PP like that and seldom do I use fishing line either but there are targets that do come up nicely in a refractor with the use of "moderate" fishing line use, the Pleaides is one I like to use this method on.

Just me I guess. :D

[multiweb]

:lol: I always get too much diffraction spikes and halos on these. I need a anti-starspike pro. :)

[RB]

:D

For the Pleaides you need to cheat with subtlety, and for that you turn to the horse racing world as an example and use fine cotton.

:lol:

[jase]

I've used them in the past with varying degrees of success. They all work, but in most cases the result was not what I was looking for. I found myself doing certain functions manually or producing my own. The weird thing is however that I've created actions that I've only used once for a specific imaging project and never used again. I don't see it as cheating in anyway. Many don't know when to apply a certain action, nor what to look out for as a result of applying an action so they do so at their own risk. Given you spend a hard time collecting the data, making it come alive through processing is key. You're typically judged by the end result (the pretty picture), not what it took to get there (PS actions for example).

[troypiggo]

Thanks so much for the feedback/thoughts everyone. Interesting read. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised at (some of) the replies. I expected at the very least that there'd be more creating their own actions. Seems to be a lot of repetitive tasks in astro-processing well suited to actions. I understand every image and collected data are different, so need different treatment, hence manual for some steps. But there are so many steps in astro-processing that are the same. I guess also I figure that astro-imagers are, by necessity, a little more PS-savvy and for that reason alone would record their own actions.

BTW I got a hold of "Peter's Astro Actions" recently. Hate them. Carboni's are non-destructive in that they don't destroy any existing layers you have below them, and you can have the resulting layer on top to blink the effect of the action. Peter's Actions are very destructive, flattening your image, or some rely on the Background layer name, so if you've already done some layers etc they all get ignored and the action sometimes balks. You'd need to edit/add some steps in Peter's Actions to get them to the level of Carboni's non-destructive style.

BTW2 I got them more to take apart and see the methodology than to use as they are.

[Octane]

You inspired me to create an action to automate the size reduction, run sharpening routines and colour profiling for the web.

I should have done it ages ago. : P

H

[troypiggo]

You're most welcome :D