Pixinsight v photoshop - Forums

It’s probably been asked thousands of times but I’m asking for peoples thoughts. I currently use notes to work with photoshop, and have a nightmare remembering how to navigate through it. This is usually not like me because I’m from a technical background and can usually remember stuff no problem.

I think photoshop is just one of those software packages I’m just not feeling. Does anyone know if pixinsight is easier to navigate?

i have zero issues with any other software I use. Just this 🙄

any other thoughts, pro’s or con’s greatly appreciated

Ricky

PixInsight - easy?

I am currently making my second attempt to learn PI. With video tutorials from 2021 and the book "Inside PixInsight". And at every step I stumble constantly, although I have experience with other programs like AstroPixelProcessor, StarTool etc., because with PI the appearance of the tools changes constantly. PixInsight is anything but easy, at least at first. I hope that the effort will pay off at some point.

But this is my personal experience. You can just try it yourself. You can request a free trial and experiment with it for about a month and a half. Then you'll see if you like the program.

I believe your question cannot be answered. Certainly, the user interface concept of PI is quite different compared to other tools.

If it is easier depends on the way of your thinking. E.g. if you’re a software developer it may be easier for you to understand the abstract underlying concept behind PI.
However, my statement holds for everything. If something is „intuitive“, we intend to say: „we‘ve met a similar pattern in the past and know how to apply it to the new problem/tool“.

In my opinion, the „issue“ is that there’s no native introduction or tutorial and besides getting PI, you need to look for third-party material to get going from which you don’t know if it’s on the level you‘d need it.

That‘s my impression about it. I‘ve been starting to use PI recently. Personally I feel that I am quickly getting a good grip on it but I attribute it a lot to what I‘ve said before: personal background experience.

Björn

PS is a waste on AP alone and on one hand is too simplistic and on the other, way too complicated. PI is what you want (albeit Siril comes close second in my opinion) as there are plenty of tutorials to get you through. In fact, if you stick to the preferred path is easy enough: calibrate, stack and post-process it. Easy as 1-2-3.

Hi Ricky,

I am a big fan of Pixinsight and I've been using it since I began astrophotography. It's difficult to say if it is "easier". I hear a lot the idea that pixinsight is complicated or "unfriendly", but these remarks are usually made by people coming from Photoshop or already used to Photoshop for other types of photography or image adjustment. I was in your position at first, I did not master either of them. I find Pixinsight very easy to navigate now, while I am still struggling with some advanced aspects in Photoshop and practically use it only for slight retouches. Pixinsight offers a much higher and especially quantified control over what you are doing; you cannot do that in Photoshop (so a lot is eyeballing). I would recommend Pixinsight for astrophotography because it was especially created for it and is very powerful. You can do everything from A to Z. Photoshop has an advantage with some masking techniques and especially localized correction of defects, working with layers and adjusting transparencies in order to decrease an effect. But of course you can obtain very good results with Photoshop as a lot of experts on astrobin are proving it. Just give it a try, it has a more scientific approach to it, so the feeling of being "easier" will depend on your background.

Clear skies,

Bogdan

Olaf Fritsche:
PixInsight - easy?

I am currently making my second attempt to learn PI. With video tutorials from 2021 and the book "Inside PixInsight". And at every step I stumble constantly, although I have experience with other programs like AstroPixelProcessor, StarTool etc., because with PI the appearance of the tools changes constantly. PixInsight is anything but easy, at least at first. I hope that the effort will pay off at some point.

But this is my personal experience. You can just try it yourself. You can request a free trial and experiment with it for about a month and a half. Then you'll see if you like the program.

Maybe I didn’t explain myself enough. I prefer shell interfaces and the likes. I just struggle to navigate photoshop 🤣

Björn Arnold:
I believe your question cannot be answered. Certainly, the user interface concept of PI is quite different compared to other tools.

If it is easier depends on the way of your thinking. E.g. if you’re a software developer it may be easier for you to understand the abstract underlying concept behind PI.
However, my statement holds for everything. If something is „intuitive“, we intend to say: „we‘ve met a similar pattern in the past and know how to apply it to the new problem/tool“.

In my opinion, the „issue“ is that there’s no native introduction or tutorial and besides getting PI, you need to look for third-party material to get going from which you don’t know if it’s on the level you‘d need it.

That‘s my impression about it. I‘ve been starting to use PI recently. Personally I feel that I am quickly getting a good grip on it but I attribute it a lot to what I‘ve said before: personal background experience.

Björn

Thanks Bjorn, this is helpful. I’m drawn to pixinsight for this reason. Photoshop has a user interface that allows anyone to at least try and use it. My experience with more technical software is that I take it in better as I understand better what it’s doing.

andrea tasselli:
PS is a waste on AP alone and on one hand is too simplistic and on the other, way too complicated. PI is what you want (albeit Siril comes close second in my opinion) as there are plenty of tutorials to get you through. In fact, if you stick to the preferred path is easy enough: calibrate, stack and post-process it. Easy as 1-2-3.

This was my thoughts. Pix insight at least take astrophotography into consideration where as PS is more using general tools to get similar results

Bogdan Borz:
Hi Ricky,

I am a big fan of Pixinsight and I've been using it since I began astrophotography. It's difficult to say if it is "easier". I hear a lot the idea that pixinsight is complicated or "unfriendly", but these remarks are usually made by people coming from Photoshop or already used to Photoshop for other types of photography or image adjustment. I was in your position at first, I did not master either of them. I find Pixinsight very easy to navigate now, while I am still struggling with some advanced aspects in Photoshop and practically use it only for slight retouches. Pixinsight offers a much higher and especially quantified control over what you are doing; you cannot do that in Photoshop (so a lot is eyeballing). I would recommend Pixinsight for astrophotography because it was especially created for it and is very powerful. You can do everything from A to Z. Photoshop has an advantage with some masking techniques and especially localized correction of defects, working with layers and adjusting transparencies in order to decrease an effect. But of course you can obtain very good results with Photoshop as a lot of experts on astrobin are proving it. Just give it a try, it has a more scientific approach to it, so the feeling of being "easier" will depend on your background.

Clear skies,

Bogdan

Bogdan

I believe you are of similar mind to me. I prefer complicated! I take it in better. As someone mentioned above photoshops friendly interface makes it harder to learn.

to me because the interface in PS is easy I think this is where I struggle to take it in.

if something is complicated I concentrate better and learn

Ricky

I've been using PixInsight for several months and I found it a bit confusing a first, but I watched a lot of free Youtube videos and with practice it is really making sense. There are quite a few video series that start you off at the beginning and guide you along the many steps that are needed to process your images.
I don't use Photoshop, but I do have Lightroom. When I first stared using PixInsight I used Lightroom quite a bit to increase contrast and color saturation etc, but as I get better at using PI I'm using Lightroom less and less.
I have found that some of the better beginner video series are by "Cuiv the lazy geek", "Amy Astro", "Elf of Lothlorien", etc etc

Example -

Full OSC workflow with PixInsight - over 2 hours ELF of Lothlorien
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvuMrHEWaS8
Timestamps of the processing steps:
0:02:55 my folder structure
— pre processing:
0:06:31 calibrate flats
0:15:47 integrate flats
0:21:13 calibrate lights
0:29:37 cosmetic correction
0:37:23 debayer
0:43:45 star alignment
1:00:11 subframe selector script
1:03:38 integrate lights
— post processing:
1:13:35 crop
1:16:04 uneven background correction
1:21:19 why I skip deconvolution this time
1:22:48 background neutralization
1:25:08 Color Calibration and SCNR
1:29:13 linear denoise / how to create a luminance mask
1:43:17 stretch using arcsinh and HT
— enhance / glam up:
1:53:05 local histogram equalization
1:58:10 saturation and contrast
2:02:30 unsharp mask
2:05:53 crop and resample
2:09:15 save: file types
— next video preview:
2:11:07 L-OSC-Ha metamorphosis

I hope this helps,
Monty

Hello Ricky,
I fully understand your frustration, Ricky. Personally, I use both PixInsight and PS. I purchased Warren Keller's first PI book, Inside PixInsight, and it has been a tremendous help in understanding the program. My one complaint with it is that in some places, the workflow is not chronological; to fully understand a particular process, you must constantly flip around the book, sometimes many chapters ahead, then back to original section, to get a 'straight line' understanding - very frustrating. I ended up taking 'workflow notes', and arranging them accordingly. While PI does have most of the same functions as PS, in many ways, PS is much easier to operate. As a result, I do 80% of the image processing in PI, then do all the final work, particularly color blending, etc. in PS

PI is definitely, worth the investment, for me, anyway, and as I learn and get used to all its abilities, perhaps I'll give up PS altogether. But for now, having them both to use makes processing much easier than either one alone. It is a continual learning experience, but every result gets better and more satisfying.

- - Steve

Hi Ricky,
I just started PI last week and it has made a tremendous improvement in my images. It wasn't as difficult as I expected. Once you get the hang of drag and drop it becomes second nature. You can start out simple and work your way into more involved techniques as you go. I posted my "Simple Beginner" workflow in my description on my "Pacman NGC 281 in SHO." It's been working great for me so far. I also like being able to save my steps on the screen so I just go down the list and it speeds up the processing time. (Save Project) My favorite features are the Screen Transformation Function (auto stretch), Auto Background Enhance (ABE) and SCNR for taking the green out of SHO images.

Also PI has included StarNet under processes and I produced my first starless image a couple of days ago with just one click of the mouse. You can find it on my page under "Starless Helix."

Just my experience.

Good Luck, Eddie

Monty Giavelli:
I've been using PixInsight for several months and I found it a bit confusing a first, but I watched a lot of free Youtube videos and with practice it is really making sense. There are quite a few video series that start you off at the beginning and guide you along the many steps that are needed to process your images.
I don't use Photoshop, but I do have Lightroom. When I first stared using PixInsight I used Lightroom quite a bit to increase contrast and color saturation etc, but as I get better at using PI I'm using Lightroom less and less.
I have found that some of the better beginner video series are by "Cuiv the lazy geek", "Amy Astro", "Elf of Lothlorien", etc etc

Example -

Full OSC workflow with PixInsight - over 2 hours ELF of Lothlorien
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvuMrHEWaS8
Timestamps of the processing steps:
0:02:55 my folder structure
--- pre processing:
0:06:31 calibrate flats
0:15:47 integrate flats
0:21:13 calibrate lights
0:29:37 cosmetic correction
0:37:23 debayer
0:43:45 star alignment
1:00:11 subframe selector script
1:03:38 integrate lights
--- post processing:
1:13:35 crop
1:16:04 uneven background correction
1:21:19 why I skip deconvolution this time
1:22:48 background neutralization
1:25:08 Color Calibration and SCNR
1:29:13 linear denoise / how to create a luminance mask
1:43:17 stretch using arcsinh and HT
--- enhance / glam up:
1:53:05 local histogram equalization
1:58:10 saturation and contrast
2:02:30 unsharp mask
2:05:53 crop and resample
2:09:15 save: file types
--- next video preview:
2:11:07 L-OSC-Ha metamorphosis

I hope this helps,
Monty

Cheers Monty, ill be sure to watch

Hello Ricky,
I fully understand your frustration, Ricky. Personally, I use both PixInsight and PS. I purchased Warren Keller's first PI book, Inside PixInsight, and it has been a tremendous help in understanding the program. My one complaint with it is that in some places, the workflow is not chronological; to fully understand a particular process, you must constantly flip around the book, sometimes many chapters ahead, then back to original section, to get a 'straight line' understanding - very frustrating. I ended up taking 'workflow notes', and arranging them accordingly. While PI does have most of the same functions as PS, in many ways, PS is much easier to operate. As a result, I do 80% of the image processing in PI, then do all the final work, particularly color blending, etc. in PS

PI is definitely, worth the investment, for me, anyway, and as I learn and get used to all its abilities, perhaps I'll give up PS altogether. But for now, having them both to use makes processing much easier than either one alone. It is a continual learning experience, but every result gets better and more satisfying.

- - Steve

Thanks Steve,

Im definately going to give pix insight a go. I think you either click with a program or you don't. As someone said earlier, PS appears to complicate things when they try to make it an easier interface. I like to understand what a function is doing and you dont really get that with PS

Ricky

Hi Ricky,
I just started PI last week and it has made a tremendous improvement in my images. It wasn't as difficult as I expected. Once you get the hang of drag and drop it becomes second nature. You can start out simple and work your way into more involved techniques as you go. I posted my "Simple Beginner" workflow in my description on my "Pacman NGC 281 in SHO." It's been working great for me so far. I also like being able to save my steps on the screen so I just go down the list and it speeds up the processing time. (Save Project) My favorite features are the Screen Transformation Function (auto stretch), Auto Background Enhance (ABE) and SCNR for taking the green out of SHO images.

Also PI has included StarNet under processes and I produced my first starless image a couple of days ago with just one click of the mouse. You can find it on my page under "Starless Helix."

Just my experience.

Good Luck, Eddie

Hi Eddie,

A few of the features you mention above do appeal to me too. Starnet is a drag using external shell! Be handy to be able to run in inside the same software

Ricky

Not sure anyone mentioned this yet, but PI has a pretty good external support system with folks writing free scripts to do many of the tasks you are most likely to perform. For example, some of the scripts in the EZ Suite of tools are very useful such as EZ denoise and EZ soft stretch.

Ricky Graham:
It’s probably been asked thousands of times but I’m asking for peoples thoughts. I currently use notes to work with photoshop, and have a nightmare remembering how to navigate through it. This is usually not like me because I’m from a technical background and can usually remember stuff no problem.

I think photoshop is just one of those software packages I’m just not feeling. Does anyone know if pixinsight is easier to navigate?

i have zero issues with any other software I use. Just this 🙄

any other thoughts, pro’s or con’s greatly appreciated

Ricky

I have a tech background (not sure if that matters but you mentioned it). I never got completely used to photoshop. I'm a little better at it after a few years but still don't feel comfortable with it.

I am very comfortable in pixinsight.

All I needed to get started was a very basic workflow and exposure to a few local experienced imagers. I'm still learning of coarse but have reached a certain comfort level.

Its not just photoshop... light room and a few other adobe apps I've tried to learn... the GUI's and workflow just don't do it for me.

I also tried PI some years back. I intensly tried to familiarize with PI during the trial period, but the learning curve was so steep, that I never got to feeling comfortable in PI. I have also been using PS for several years, but eventually, I have ended up with using Astroart, which is a incredible simple to use yet powerful tool. It's our hobby's army swiss knife; it can be used to acquire images, sequences, autofocus etc. and it also have some pretty advanced post processing functions. You could try giving Astroart a try, you can download a fully (well almost) functional trial here Astroart Download Page
I also moved away from PS and bought a Affinity Photo license, which is much cheaper. It takes a little while to getting used to, but until now, I have been extremely pleased with Affinity Photo, Affinity Home Page

PS: I am not employed in or have any other involment with either of the two products above, I just wanted to supply You with some more options to consider.

Not sure anyone mentioned this yet, but PI has a pretty good external support system with folks writing free scripts to do many of the tasks you are most likely to perform. For example, some of the scripts in the EZ Suite of tools are very useful such as EZ denoise and EZ soft stretch.

Yeah that’s handy. No one had mentioned that yet

As opposed as virtually no support from the OEM… In prectice you relay on the charity of strangers to get around whatever issue you may have. This for a PAID piece of software.

I'm a PixInsight user too, and have climbed the learning curve slowly. I've tried numerous learning aids, and there are two I'd heartily recommend:

1. The Adam Block videos, especially the Fundamentals series
2. Mastering PixInsight (and the art of astroimage processing) by Rogelio Bernal Andreo

The non-modal, object-oriented design of PI is certainly different from most software we're used to, but Andreo explains it well and walks you through it.

Give it a shot!

Clear skies,
Bill Arden

I have both, like anything it just takes time to learn.
Probably use photoshop more, but that’s because I’m more familiar with it, I need both so whether ones better than the other it doesn’t matter.
The one thing I do like about Pixinsight, is you don’t have to rent it forever.

Here's a Photoshop fan. I like to use Astropixelprocessor to stack and do some very mild stretching. Everything else I do in Photoshop. I still find that I can do everything I want in Photoshop. One thing I can say for PI is that there are a lot of good instruction videos on Youtube, not so many on Photoshop that are really good. I still have not seen anything that people do in PI that I cannot do in PS, and with the help of some plugins.

I'm a AstroPixelProcessor fan myself and Photoshop user. People like starnet, and I've used it for a while, but I switched to starXterminator by rc-astro and it fits right into Photoshop and it does worlds better than starnet did. What's funny is people always say PI for software oriented people and PS for artistic people… but I'm a software developer by trade, and yet I don't like running scripts on imager for some reason, so I always use APP + PS. Guess I'm broken.

And yes Starxterminator is really good!