What astronomy / astrophotography software do you use?

I use the following software: 
Planetary imaging-SharpCap (updated), processing-Autostakkert, Registax, WaveSharp, AstroSurface
DSO imaging-NINA, processing-DSS, Siril, Fitswork,Maxim, AstroSurface
I tried PI, but my laptop was too old for this advanced software
Clear skies!

I also tried Panorama Stitcher Mini from the App Store.

Here's a panorama I created from images I took years ago. These are combined images I took using a Vixen Polarie mount and a 24 mm lens.


Here's another stitch of the same area taken at 50 mm using my semi-tracked method (camera piggybacked on AZ-mounted telescope, periodically adjusted using eyepiece for aiming). I was testing the feasibility of taking Milky Way photos using this method and it was successful.


If I use this software more often, I may upgrade to the full version.

@Steven Fanutti

Claudio Tenreiro:

Adel Kildeev:
tried PI, but my laptop was too old for this advanced software

I have PI license however, the last version will not run on my computer anymore...so, either I move into SIRIL or I must buy a new computer...more likely the first option .

***Sorry to hear  I tried Siril for stacking and got weird results -thousands of damaged pixels, probably, I was wrong and mix something up or it was a problem with bad flats or darks… I should try again with new lights, darks and flats. DSS is not bad but has no brain at all, refuse to callibrate the same camera and scope images, very primitive and outdated software.

Adel Kildeev (Starminer68)

Claudio Tenreiro:

Adel Kildeev:
tried PI, but my laptop was too old for this advanced software

I have PI license however, the last version will not run on my computer anymore...so, either I move into SIRIL or I must buy a new computer...more likely the first option .

***Sorry to hear  I tried Siril for stacking and got weird results -thousands of damaged pixels, probably, I was wrong and mix something up or it was a problem with bad flats or darks… I should try again with new lights, darks and flats. DSS is not bad but has no brain at all, refuse to callibrate the same camera and scope images, very primitive and outdated software.

With Siril, I sometimes get a newspaper-like texture when zoomed in that limits the amount of processing that I can do.

Hello, my weapons of choice are:

Session planning: Telescopius.Com, my own spreadsheets in Airtable and Excel
Image acquisition: Sharpcap for polar alignment, PHD2, APT
Stacking and processing: GraXpert for background extraction, Siril
Postprocessing: Luminar 4, Affinity Photo (just to host NoiseXterminator plugin at the moment)

Sergei

For planning, I use Stellarium and my own knowledge on DSO's out at the given time of year, Astrospheric and my local weather sites for weather

I use the ASIAir Plus system for acquisition 

My processing of the data currently is:
Deep Sky Stacker followed by Photoshop with the plugins Star Xterminator, Gradient Xterminator and Noise Xterminator from RC Astro.

In December of last year I did a trial of PixInsight and I did find it so much more powerful than photoshop on the few targets I was able to do with it.  I also used it with the Blur Xterminator trial.  Sadly, these are expired and I don't have the funds to buy the licenses… yet..  but soon haha.

I capture and stack using ASIAir Plus.
Edit FIT files using Pixinsight, Lightroom and Photoshop.

Here is my basic workflow: https://youtu.be/X6qKb6wcsSQ?si=QW3Dk2SNPn0p4X3Z

Doing more lately with PI, including using GraXpert when needed and doing better with calibration frames.

Here are some examples that I did purely in GIMP using manual stacking and editing. I took the original photos about a decade ago using a telephoto zoom lens on a Vixen Polarie. I was attempting to capture the Veil Nebula, but only captured a trace of it. I didn't use any special filters at the time and I was about a year into astrophotography.

Here's a single unprocessed image. It's not much to look at:


Here's the result after stacking and some basic editing:


And here's the final edit that I just completed, with "new" noise reduction techniques that I learned. I didn't take any flat or dark images at the time and the vignetting is quite obvious:


Here's the same area reprocessed, taken with a larger telephoto lens on a fixed mount. I found that untracked astrophotography greatly reduced vignetting because the sky glow gets distributed more evenly across the image. I also learned that although short exposures don't really bring out faint deep sky objects, they are excellent for bringing out star colours:


Here's a technique that I learned in GIMP for noise reduction. Make use of the Gaussian blur feature. Here's generally how to do it:

(1) If your image has layers, flatten the image. This will be your Background layer.
(2) Duplicate the Background layer and apply a modest blur (Size X, Size Y ~0.75). Call this layer "Star Blur" and place it above the Background layer. Set the opacity to 100%.
(3) Duplicate the Background layer again and set it as the top layer. This time, apply a very strong blur (Size X, Size Y ~255). Call this layer "Sky Glow Blur) and set the opacity to 50%.
(4) Flatten the image and apply your brightness, contrast, etc. adjustments.

Also save every version as a new file so that if you make a mistake, you can go back without necessarily having to start over. I export my files in JPG, PNG, TIF and PSD formats in addition to saving the XCF files. That way, if I decide to switch software, I can switch over easily.

I applied this exact technique to an old image of Dubhe where I was privileged to have my heavy telephoto lens piggyback mounted on a tracked telescope. This was also done purely in GIMP, ISO 3200, 10 x 30s exposures:



So that's where my photo processing is at present. Although manually stacking can be tedious and time consuming, it gives you full control over processing. I wanted a processing method that I could always rely on in case automatic stacking fails.

@Steven Fanutti

Here's Mars reprocessed using the process I mentioned above. The final version is a little softer, but I prefer it that way for on screen viewing. 255 images stacked at ISO 6400, 150 mm, exposure time only about 2s each.

Mars

Adel Kildeev:
Interesting and usefull information…. Or to use cooled mono camera with narrowband filters, having good master darks and flats… and great results without complicated manipulations with background settings…. Just an idea 🥸

Thanks @Adel Kildeev . I use a Canon EOS Rebel T3 DSLR on a camera tripod, fixed mount for everything now. Unlike many users, I am not using specialized astrophotography gear with the exception of a solar filter and a reticle eyepiece. The images I posted earlier were originally taken when I knew a lot less about astrophotography. I didn't even take dark frames back then. I do so now and it saves me from having to manually remove hot pixels. I went through many of my old photos trying to optimize and rescue photos that were taken in less than ideal conditions. But I get your point, take images as well as possible at the telescope and do it right to minimize processing later. That applies to a camera + tripod setup as well.

Steven Fanutti:
Here are some examples that I did purely in GIMP using manual stacking and editing. I took the original photos about a decade ago using a telephoto zoom lens on a Vixen Polarie. I was attempting to capture the Veil Nebula, but only captured a trace of it. I didn't use any special filters at the time and I was about a year into astrophotography.

Here's a single unprocessed image. It's not much to look at:


Here's the result after stacking and some basic editing:


And here's the final edit that I just completed, with "new" noise reduction techniques that I learned. I didn't take any flat or dark images at the time and the vignetting is quite obvious:


Here's the same area reprocessed, taken with a larger telephoto lens on a fixed mount. I found that untracked astrophotography greatly reduced vignetting because the sky glow gets distributed more evenly across the image. I also learned that although short exposures don't really bring out faint deep sky objects, they are excellent for bringing out star colours:


Here's a technique that I learned in GIMP for noise reduction. Make use of the Gaussian blur feature. Here's generally how to do it:

(1) If your image has layers, flatten the image. This will be your Background layer.
(2) Duplicate the Background layer and apply a modest blur (Size X, Size Y ~0.75). Call this layer "Star Blur" and place it above the Background layer. Set the opacity to 100%.
(3) Duplicate the Background layer again and set it as the top layer. This time, apply a very strong blur (Size X, Size Y ~255). Call this layer "Sky Glow Blur) and set the opacity to 50%.
(4) Flatten the image and apply your brightness, contrast, etc. adjustments.

Also save every version as a new file so that if you make a mistake, you can go back without necessarily having to start over. I export my files in JPG, PNG, TIF and PSD formats in addition to saving the XCF files. That way, if I decide to switch software, I can switch over easily.

I applied this exact technique to an old image of Dubhe where I was privileged to have my heavy telephoto lens piggyback mounted on a tracked telescope. This was also done purely in GIMP, ISO 3200, 10 x 30s exposures:



So that's where my photo processing is at present. Although manually stacking can be tedious and time consuming, it gives you full control over processing. I wanted a processing method that I could always rely on in case automatic stacking fails.

@Steven Fanutti

*** It's possible to adjust stacking settings in a program like Siril, and PixInsight. I'm not familiar with the latter, but I know it's possible. Additionally, it seems like your images could do with a better stretching method. I'd suggest looking into something like GHST (Generalized Hyperbolic Stretch Transformations) and perhaps background neutralization.  ***

@Steven Fanutti The background is definitely looking improved in the second one. Nice job! Also, if you do see any nebulosity in your images, I'd recommend using Starnet++ to separate the stars and the nebulosity out. You mentioned that you shot the veil nebula, and if you were to separate both and recompose the layers in a program like Siril or photoshop, it would allow you to stretch the nebula without making the stars gross. 

Not sure if you mentioned that in your workflow, so just pointing it out. 

Clear skies, 

Chandra

Thanks to everyone for responding. Much of the software mentioned I never heard of before. Good to know about alternatives if I decide to switch software.