Do I need to add either GIMP or Photoshop for post color processing??

Pleiades Astrophoto PixInsight Processing SHO Deep Sky
12 replies•469 views
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hey Folks....

So as I make a very slow process of learning PixInsight, and all of the various ways to process my image after stacking.. I find myself geting fustrated at trying to get my images to look as I would like them....

So far I've just been using CurveTransformation, HistogramTransformation and ScreenTransferFunction to bring out teh colors in my images... I thiink I already know the answer to my question... But I'm going to ask anyways... I won't say is it required... but to bring my images to the next level... I'm guessing I'll need to add either GIMP or Photoshop to my work flow..

I may be biting off more that I should be at this point... but I've started to mess with combining Ha/O3 and S2/O3 into an SHO image... I'm finding out that if I want to bring out the color channel in one area with PI, that genrally brings out that color channel in other areas of the image as well where I may not want them....

Would it be easier to manipulate the areas i want to manipulate in a GIMP program as opposed to trying to do it in PI?? Thus far I've hesitated to add another graphics program befor i've fully got a handle on PI, but it seems like I may need to learn PI as well as either GIMP or Photoshop in parallel...

Here is what I've been able to produce so far with just PI, but the thing is I don't think I could re-produce this work from the combined LRGB image, it's not bad, but it looks rather plain to me.. as opposed to what I see else where....
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
The short answer is No. I guess you are some way off before you're close to mastering the basic processing in PI otherwise that nebula wouldn't look the way it does. So, before putting even more meat on the grill, try to get the basic procedure right and move on from there.
[deleted]
[deleted]
andrea tasselli:
try to get the basic procedure right and move on from there.

Can you elaborate please? Thanks
Bill McLaughlin avatar
Bill McLaughlin avatar
andrea tasselli:
The short answer is No. I guess you are some way off before you're close to mastering the basic processing in PI otherwise that nebula wouldn't look the way it does. So, before putting even more meat on the grill, try to get the basic procedure right and move on from there.


That would be my assessment as well.  That is not to say that Photoshop is not useful. There are a few things that require better real-time user interaction that PS does better and there are a few plugins that are useful that are not available in any form in PI.  I take maybe 80% of my images into PS (mostly at the very end) for some added tweaking. PS can also be useful in making or tweaking masks that can then be taken back into PI as a .tiff.

But you need to get better at PI before worrying  about that level of tweaking.
Helpful
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ok, thanks guys… I go back to square one and start over from there
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
Can you elaborate please? Thanks


There is (a lot of) work to be done, in both background control/flatness/color, overall color balancing, stars color (instead of lack thereof), image size, stretching and operation of curves at all levels. And I wouldn't start right off on SHO before having a firm grasp on how to produce a good RGB image, to start with. Get few hundred hours under your belt of imaging time on few subjects and more importantly keep your image scale down, as it isn't doing you any favor at present.
Dave Rust avatar
Dave Rust avatar
I am a graphic artist and take the opposite path. I calibrate and stack in astro programs but stretch and finish in PS. It has to do with familiarity and muscle memory that comes with  "10,000 hours." And, as Bill says above, it's hard to replace the "real-time user interaction" that PS provides in nursing an image into the zone. Pix and PS each have their super powers as well as a lot of overlap.

But it is probably wise to finish within Pix to the best of your ability in order to avoid Adobe subscription fees. This endeavor will also increase your knowledge of the application. Then you can decide whether to add other software tools.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Respectful
AMOS_Observatory avatar
AMOS_Observatory avatar
As already said, it seems you need some more training in Pixinsight. 

Check out Adam Block's tutorials. I think this will improve your skills to the level that is needed  

https://www.adamblockstudios.com/
Jure Menart avatar
Jure Menart avatar
As mentioned before, best is to go over multiple tutorials.

I would like just to add that one of very strong approaches for PixInsight is using masks (color mask, range mask, …). So if you'd like just to do some quick changes with colors, I think this would probably be the right approach. Check some tutorials about mask online.
Gilmour Dickson avatar
Gilmour Dickson avatar
Dave Rust:
I am a graphic artist and take the opposite path. I calibrate and stack in astro programs but stretch and finish in PS. It has to do with familiarity and muscle memory that comes with  "10,000 hours." And, as Bill says above, it's hard to replace the "real-time user interaction" that PS provides in nursing an image into the zone. Pix and PS each have their super powers as well as a lot of overlap.

But it is probably wise to finish within Pix to the best of your ability in order to avoid Adobe subscription fees. This endeavor will also increase your knowledge of the application. Then you can decide whether to add other software tools.

I always finish in Ps, but then I am a terrestrial photographer that has various Adobe products and I am quite familiar with them.  For me certain colour tweaks are so much easier and intuitive for me in Ps than PI.  I basically see it as PI doing the heavy lifting and Ps just the final polish.
starpixels avatar
starpixels avatar
You've shown courage to post your pic and ask for people to pick it apart so I'm sure your process will get better.  I would focus on careful stretching techniques that preserve the curves and a closer tracking of PI's calibration results as you move through the processing. After revealing the nuances of data that you worked hard to collect, there are some more taste dependent curve tweaks that may or may not be a good idea at the end. Mostly though, watch clipped values in the histogram, be mindful of global color shifts that show up in background sky color and try to retain the original graceful curves of that first stretch as you push and pull color / contrast values. Maybe most of all, after you take initial inspiration from someone's glittery astro pic, try to focus on your own image and let it tell you how far it wants to go. Sometimes a particular image doesn't want to be pushed hard. Best of luck.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Karl Perera avatar
Karl Perera avatar
Gilmour Dickson:
Dave Rust:
I am a graphic artist and take the opposite path. I calibrate and stack in astro programs but stretch and finish in PS. It has to do with familiarity and muscle memory that comes with  "10,000 hours." And, as Bill says above, it's hard to replace the "real-time user interaction" that PS provides in nursing an image into the zone. Pix and PS each have their super powers as well as a lot of overlap.

But it is probably wise to finish within Pix to the best of your ability in order to avoid Adobe subscription fees. This endeavor will also increase your knowledge of the application. Then you can decide whether to add other software tools.

I always finish in Ps, but then I am a terrestrial photographer that has various Adobe products and I am quite familiar with them.  For me certain colour tweaks are so much easier and intuitive for me in Ps than PI.  I basically see it as PI doing the heavy lifting and Ps just the final polish.

I'm in a similar boat having access to the range of adobe products free because of work and have so far continued to use Photoshop for my post-processing.

I find the manual curve stretching I can do and other operations get me a great result. I've also bought a number of plugins for Photoshop and continue to use them. I wonder how long until I switch to PI?
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar
Like some others here I come from a photographic background and can't imagine not taking an almost finished image into a photo processing program to fine tune so that I get exactly what I want. If you already own Photoshop or have access then good on ya. Otherwise, I wouldn't spend the money. GIMP is a very capable layer based editor that is similar to PS so a short learning curve if you come from that world. My favorite is Affinity Photo 2. It's not free but it's pretty cheap and starts with a 6 month trial.
Helpful
Related discussions
Rescue mission: stacking of NGC 5128
I'm at my wits' end and would like to ask for some help to save the data from a session imaging NGC 5128 that I thought would be an absolutely stunning image. I'm new to big telescopes, stacking and post-processing. I have Celestron 9.25 ...
Both posts describe frustration with the post-processing and technical aspects of astrophotography after capturing raw image data.
May 11, 2024
New to or Considering Astrophotography/astronomy?
I had posted this with a new image I’d uploaded as a change from the “typical” review of my processing steps/acquisition. A friend/commentor suggested I post in a forum, so this is the result. This is VERY subjective and based entirely on my experien...
Both posts discuss the learning curve and challenges involved in mastering astrophotography image processing techniques.
Jul 31, 2025