|
An interesting question. Image processing is a difficult art and even doing it for many years it can still pose regular challenges.
Not every image works out. As Rick said a lot of small things done well add up to a good image. Also given the variable nature of sky, cloud, wind, fog and technical issues these all pose barriers to getting all the raw ingredients. I've always had the opinion with photography in general that you need to take lots of images as some are simply not that great.I find that is true of astrophotography as well. Some images really come together well and others are a pain and will never amount to much. The skills we learn are an attempt to get that keeper rate higher and higher.
I have noticed though that when you get excellent data image processing falls in your lap. Its when things are not 100% ideal that we have problems that need to be solved.
So concentrate on the basics first to capture as close to ideal data as possible.
Then work out your image processing workflow. It tends to be the much the same image after image.
But little things cause issues like a not perfect alignment of images, or the red subs being more bloated than the other colours giving red rings around stars and so it goes on.
Having said that there are tricks you develop along the way to bring life and vitality to an image. Keeping it more luminous, brightish without
too bright and exposing a lot of noise.
There is no reason to not get a pop from Pixinsight but it seems in my limited use of PI that its great for the basic put together of an image but colour processing tweaks is where it seems to be weakest and where Photoshop is so strong.
Perhaps use the strengths of the various softwares to your advantage.
Greg.
|