The same CR2 files, light, darks, bias and flats, stacked in DSS and IRIS.
Object: Westerlund 1
First photo-DSS: size 142 kB
32 bits DSS converted with HDR curves and adjusted level, noise, sharp and curve in Photoshop CS3
Second photo-IRIS: size 137 kB
Some adjustment done in IRIS and others like noise, curve and level in Photoshop. I didn't apply sharp in it.
I didn't see much difference between the results. Work with IRIS is more hard and difficult, because you make step by step all the process. I haven't much experience with IRIS, yet. Maybe other people get better result.
Hi Jorge, Nice shot.
I don't know Iris at all so I am afraid I am of no help there. I have to admit though , out of the two of them I prefer the first one. In saying that from your comments it sounds a bit like pixinsight where you calibrate, star align, stack etc through different processes rather than drop all your files in and let the software do it's thing. From my experience with PI, once I learned what all the different settings did, (and I'm still learning that by the way), in each of the steps, I found you have far more flexibility doing it step by step. I guess what I am saying is don't give up on Iris yet, I'm sure you will get there, and the transition will be well worth it.
You are right Rex. It seems to be similar to PI, at least in the way of process. Both are hard and complex.
From IRIS I want the photometry ressources. But to well use it, you must know something of what is IRIS and how it works, theirs commands ... Therefore I am reading all the tutorial and repeat their examples.
