Your points about PI's image editing are well-taken. I think PI's true strength is the overall ecosystem. The scripts, plugins, and tools that have been developed around it are what truly make it stand apart.
I can see a series of short tutorial videos on affinity photo astro processsing, forming in your mind , or maybe a book or a course lol Astro has got me back into photography so im using photo editing software, glad i havent fallen for pixinsight so far so thanks for this video , just at the right time for me !
I have about 120 of them so far lol I put a complete layer-based image processing playlist up a couple months ago: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=r2LC1EAy386MNb77
Don't disagree and I suspect the main difference in the two is the starting point from which each type of software emerged. Layer based editors were created by and for creative artists who needed to find ways to present their work artistically. PixInsight and other similar astrophotography tools were created by scientists who needed ways to manage the ever-increasing amounts of digital data from imaging sessions, taking into account the evolution of cameras and sensors. It will continue to have this focus, so I don't anticipate it will ever become another Photoshop or Affinity Photo. I use both types of products and am happy to do so - each for its specific strengths.
PixInsight wasn't developed as a scientific tool, but rather as a tool for astrophotographers. It was developed when digital astrophotography was in its nascent days, however, and still reflects that era. But their own website states: "The PixInsight project originates from the inside of astrophotography: PixInsight is a software platform made by astrophotographers, for astrophotographers." It's fidelity does present opportunities for areas like astrometry, but images developed in layer-based software can be used just as well, provided they are developed for data rather than aesthetics.
@@SKYST0RY Weren't all astrophotographers scientists back then? Visual observing was big for amateurs, but I think the astrophotography hobby was really driven by advances in academia. The About Us page for PixInsight says they provide "cutting-edge image processing and analysis tools for a broad range of technical imaging applications. We design and implement novel paradigms and innovative methodologies." That smacks of academic/research/scientific origins and priorities to me. I guess I'm saying that I would never expect this tool to be a Photoshop equivalent. And that's ok.
You hit the nail when you mentioned PI is molded after software developed in the 90's. Most of the programmers are in their senior years and no new developers have been brought on board to refine the software. It is clearly evident from the interface that PI is antiquated.
As someone with a long history in the software industry at a pretty high level, PixInsight is a clear example of everything that goes wrong with software developed by subject matter experts and mid-level software developers without adult supervision.
I have been using Siril and Photoshop. I have downloaded a trial for Affinity and plan to watch your videos to help me learn how to use it. I've had fellow APers try to talk me into PI but as a very long time photographer PI makes my head hurt....lol Thanks for this and your other videos!
I spent over a decade in university studying psychology and Earth sciences due to my interest in emergent intelligence. We always used to talk about those scientists who use jargon to sound smart, and I always had a tremendous admiration of Carl Sagan who made science understandable. PI makes me think of jargon-based side of the scientific world. I have a complete workflow for both pre-development and development here that may help you: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=HT80G083YxFq95q7
I think this is spot on. You see on the social media “processed in PixInsight and Photoshop” or another editing program. If it was great at editing, people wouldn’t do the second step. I do like saving projects but that may be due to its complexity. Also, the naming of processes is annoying until you get used to it and even then trying to find a tool can be difficult if you don’t recall. My biggest gripe is exactly what you stated… going back if there is an issue you didn’t address. (Oversaturated pixels or some other problem)
haha the timing of this video for me is insane, i JUST tried pixinsight for first time last night with the demo, and I have exactly the same thoughts as you did, the lethargic feel of some of the tools with even changes taking 1/3 seconds to update (especially the layering script) is just so jarring for creativity, after last night i said to myself well im definitely not doing the compositing in pixinsight after that hahah question about the frequency seperation, i cant really see an easy way to do that in photoshop also, is there any advice there?
The last time I used PhotoShop was about 10 years ago, when Affinity Photo came out. I don't recall the tool there. However, you can try Affinity Photo for up to six months free. If you can use PhotoShop, you can move to Affinity Photo very easily as the workflow is extremely similar.
I use Pix for stacking, colour calibration, RC tools and GHS (maybe some masking too). I export starless and stars from pix and finish the rest in Affinity Photo
Where did you learn the Affinity photo for astrophotography? Also, what are the system requirements are for Affinity photo? Can you create mosiacs like with APP? Lastly, does it have the option of merging HA with Rgb n all like/better than PI?
I started studying layer-based photo editors way back when PhotoShop was the only really good option, back around the time prosumer digital photography became accessible. It is not difficult to transition to Affinity Photo as they have a very similar layout and flow. Affinity can run on any modest system, but for big photos you're going to want more RAM. I have 32 GB but my computer is 4 yrs old. I think I will double the RAM or more when I replace it. There will be no problem mergying Ha (or any image) to another. It's all about how you composite them together.
You should invest some time and really learn PI instead of brushing your data in photoshop, fiddling with layers, enhancing noise and messing up star colors. There are plenty of tutorials to get you started on youtube for free.
Why? He gets the outcome he desires... If you want all astronomical images to look exactly like everyone else's we can all save a fortune and sleepless nights and just download hubble photos. I don't like every single edit on this channel but I highly value an out of the box approach, I can take something away from it.
I would hazard a guess and say he's quite competent with PI. I really don't think the reason he uses layer-based editing is because he's not good with PI. Judging by his content I would say he knows much more than the average astrophotographer.😉
I started out with AP using GIMP and then Affinity Photo, but a colleague convinced me that PI was the way to go. Since then, however, I've been frustrated by many times having to start over--trying a different 'order of operations' in the work flow to attempt a better result--that seems to be your major point. I may give Affinity a second look, although I don't relish the idea of re-learning its idiosyncracies after spending well over a year learning PI's. An additional comment about Affinity is that I started out using pretty much the AP-based macros and the video tutorials that Affinity provided. I might just disregard them and try to relearn the techniques on my own, as I found that the 'push button ' macro approach often doesn't really help you understand what's going on. I should also say that I find your 'heretical ' approach to AP to be quite refreshing!
Thank you, Richard! Persons I knew (some in the Royal Astronomy Society of Canada) also had me convinced PI was the pinnacle of AP developing, along with some commentary on forums (which I later discovered to be silliness or bias of the same caliber as statements like refractors are the best telescopes). Anyway, you just described one of the many issues of editing without layers. Mess up and all you can do is undo actions, which is time consuming and one of PI's many inefficiencies. However, you can do things in a layer-based photo editor that, to my knowledge, cannot be done in PI, such as frequency division, or custom compositing tools onto images, or combining tools into other tools to make new tools, and so on. Even PI's ability to composite is extraordinarily limited. The relatively new Image Blending script is exceedingly limited compared to compositing in a layer-based photo editor where you can blend (composite) as many images (and tools) together as you want, in an infinite variety of ways. BTW, Affinity has been offering a 6 month free trial. And I have some 120 videos out on how to use Affinity for astrophotography. A foundation set is my complete workflow playlist: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=Q52UhAZBtF3CViXm
Yeah I started astrophotography without experience in any kind of photo editing software. Most of the tutorials online involved pix insight so that's what I started with. My first pet peeve with PI was how everything was named as complicated as possible for some reason, difficult to remember the convoluted names of the tools I was trying to find. My second, as you mentioned, is everything is done numerically with value fields and poorly explained in context menus, if you go for help on their forums you get a wall of jargon and math that you don't understand nor probably even need... a little bit like asking for help as a beginner Linux user 🤣 The more I use it the more I understand that they're likely not really interested in you doing what you want with your photo, it feels more like they're trying to funnel you into the "correct" edit of what you shot instead of letting you be more creative. Maybe that's just me. I've started using Photoshop but I still don't use it very much in the editing process, mostly if I just want to make a small adjustment at the end of it. I need to get better with it. God forbid I use a brush tool to feather a mask, wouldn't that just be tragic 🙄
I find it very interesting that you mentioned being funneled into the "correct" edit. I encountered a lot of that It when I first started this channel not long ago. Some persons were really furious that I wasn't using the "correct" PI method. One self-appointed PI expert virtually popped a gasket because I wasn't using the "correct" workflow. He has a channel that was a lot larger and now is not so much larger, and became the only other channel operator that I had to hide from the channel due to his toxicity.
I only used Photoshop and lived by it for 2 years. after Pix I could never move back. Getting out of layer based processing was really off putting but it gets easier. I still use PS for wide field images and for better color correction (which Pixinsight lacks honestly). Honestly your photos from Affinity seem to be at the same quality (obviously with some differences) as if it were processed in Pix. Goes to show it's the photographer not the program. (Side note amazing photos!)
I 100% agree! Skill with the developing platform is the most important thing. I would go so far as to say it's more important than the equipment. I have seen horrible images shot from professional observatories--images that failed only because the processing was subpar. I often emphasize in my videos that I am using relatively cheap equipment--an EQ6R mount, a Celestron C8 (not the Edge) and mere ZWO LRGB filters for most of my images in hopes of moving people away from the buy-to-get-better trap (which is common in all forms of photography). I would place in order of importance for good images: Quality of sky, quality of mount, processing and everything else behind that.
I agree, i always found pixinsight to be like astro gear before ZWO hit the market, everything was outdated, using methods that never evolved, the old st4 or com ports found on new mounts has only really been updated in the last few years and all programs associated with our hobby has that DOS feel from the 90s to it. Dont get me wrong pixinsight stacks better, but have you tried astap for your stacking it does an amazing job at it as well, at least the closest to a pixinsight stack ive seen. With that being said though i think blurX is actually the only reason apart from stacking that i would use pixinsight, what alternatives are there for blurX?
Overall, I tend to agree and have used a layer editor for polishing and PixInsight for masters (particularly in the last few years). Scripts are essentially also a how-to-do process already worked out. I’ll make up an example - Do I run a script called orton effect or do I step through the process. In PixInsight, I might have a script and magic, it’s done. I might also know the process and take the time and it’s done better. BUT, if I do know the process, a layer editor will do it better and faster because of the reasons you list. The issue is what is the process. I feel cheat sheets with just enough info to do something would help use layer based later stage processing until one becomes knowledgeable of the various techniques. Eg. I didn’t know the order of the layers you mentioned in the video. That is a key bit of info. Sometimes it’s hard to find a video that something was described and then go though it to find the key point. With bad weather presenting little practice, the scripted way of getting things done ends up being very helpful and PixInsight often gets a greater percentage of the workflow that day.
It's only my opinion, which may be skewed since I've used layer-based photo editors almost since there was prosumer digital photography, but I think the learning curve for layer-based photo editors is easier in the long run. With a little practice, it just flows because the tools are more straightforward and the the visual feedback is immediate. I have about 120 videos on how to use Affinity Photo to process astrophotography images. And about 2.5 months ago I created a complete workflow playlist that may help: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=FubSgm_6tI68kLx3
Totally agree with your points. I've never used PI because think is too expensive for what I need. I prefer to use other free softwares, my one scripts in Python and Affinity.
I am a newbie to Astrophotography but I am also an amateur wildlife photographer and have been using the original Affinity Photo. I watching your videos and realize that functional idiot with it because I don’t know how to use the layers. I am using more like the Instagram editor than the powerful tool it is capable of being. Do you know a good source that would systematically teach me how to use Affinity Photo? I find that since it is not mainstream there is less content available on line. The fact that you use Affinity is main reason I started following your channel. Thanks
There are a LOT of YT channels devoted to Affinity Photo. One of my favorite channels for learning it's general editing capabilities is Affinity Revolution.
The configuration is pretty straightforward: reducer/corrector, extension tube, OAG, filter wheel and camera. The filter wheel and camera are both made by Player One and fit flush to one another. This website has the back focus measurements: www.ancientphotonsastro.com/post/back-focus-for-the-edge-hd-8-at-f-7-and-f-10-using-a-celestron-oag
@@SKYST0RY when you said corrector, is something different than the reducer? I love what you do and the way that you explain everything, so simple, good. I am interested in how you achieve such beautiful images with your C8. That's why I ask for the optic train. So, what kind of corrector. Thanks for your time..
@@bonairecloudynightsobserva2297 The reducer/corrector is a single optical element that somewhat reduces the focal length of the SCT in order to make rounder stars on the outside of the image circle and provide a somewhat lower focal ratio. I use the Celestron reducer/corrector. Hope that helps.
I can't give a good answer. I tried it early on in its development but haven't used it since. But I understand GIMP has come a long way and is a very capable, layer-based photo editor nowadays.
It can be. Affinity Photo offers a couple ways to do it, and Siril has a very good histogram transformation tool, but the histogram tool in PI is great. I consider that one of its main strengths.
One of the original and arguably most recognizable astro content-creators used layer-based editing exclusively for a long time...with great results! Thanks Trevor😉
I agree that we are bending backwards when it come to editing in PI. I would love to be able to move to Affinity for editing. It would be a great help I believe if you could give a high level view if your usual processing technique along the associated tools as many of us are unfamiliar with the way Affinity can deal with astro photos.
This may help you. It is my complete hybrid workflow, encompassing application of PI's strengths in pre-editing and AP's strengths in image editing. th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=HT80G083YxFq95q7
I totally agree with everything here. Use PI for stacking and integration, star removal, the start of it all. Then goto layer based for the rest.
Your points about PI's image editing are well-taken. I think PI's true strength is the overall ecosystem. The scripts, plugins, and tools that have been developed around it are what truly make it stand apart.
I can see a series of short tutorial videos on affinity photo astro processsing, forming in your mind , or maybe a book or a course lol
Astro has got me back into photography so im using photo editing software, glad i havent fallen for pixinsight so far so thanks for this video , just at the right time for me !
I have about 120 of them so far lol I put a complete layer-based image processing playlist up a couple months ago: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=r2LC1EAy386MNb77
Don't disagree and I suspect the main difference in the two is the starting point from which each type of software emerged. Layer based editors were created by and for creative artists who needed to find ways to present their work artistically. PixInsight and other similar astrophotography tools were created by scientists who needed ways to manage the ever-increasing amounts of digital data from imaging sessions, taking into account the evolution of cameras and sensors. It will continue to have this focus, so I don't anticipate it will ever become another Photoshop or Affinity Photo. I use both types of products and am happy to do so - each for its specific strengths.
PixInsight wasn't developed as a scientific tool, but rather as a tool for astrophotographers. It was developed when digital astrophotography was in its nascent days, however, and still reflects that era. But their own website states: "The PixInsight project originates from the inside of astrophotography: PixInsight is a software platform made by astrophotographers, for astrophotographers." It's fidelity does present opportunities for areas like astrometry, but images developed in layer-based software can be used just as well, provided they are developed for data rather than aesthetics.
@@SKYST0RY Weren't all astrophotographers scientists back then? Visual observing was big for amateurs, but I think the astrophotography hobby was really driven by advances in academia. The About Us page for PixInsight says they provide "cutting-edge image processing and analysis tools for a broad range of technical imaging applications. We design and implement novel paradigms and innovative methodologies." That smacks of academic/research/scientific origins and priorities to me. I guess I'm saying that I would never expect this tool to be a Photoshop equivalent. And that's ok.
Speaking truth!
You hit the nail when you mentioned PI is molded after software developed in the 90's. Most of the programmers are in their senior years and no new developers have been brought on board to refine the software. It is clearly evident from the interface that PI is antiquated.
I really hope PI will "come of age". It has the potential to be so much better than what it is, provided it gets with the times.
As someone with a long history in the software industry at a pretty high level, PixInsight is a clear example of everything that goes wrong with software developed by subject matter experts and mid-level software developers without adult supervision.
That's hilarious. I love that! I really don't hate PI, I just really wish there was the adult supervision.
I have been using Siril and Photoshop. I have downloaded a trial for Affinity and plan to watch your videos to help me learn how to use it. I've had fellow APers try to talk me into PI but as a very long time photographer PI makes my head hurt....lol Thanks for this and your other videos!
I spent over a decade in university studying psychology and Earth sciences due to my interest in emergent intelligence. We always used to talk about those scientists who use jargon to sound smart, and I always had a tremendous admiration of Carl Sagan who made science understandable. PI makes me think of jargon-based side of the scientific world. I have a complete workflow for both pre-development and development here that may help you: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=HT80G083YxFq95q7
I think this is spot on. You see on the social media “processed in PixInsight and Photoshop” or another editing program. If it was great at editing, people wouldn’t do the second step.
I do like saving projects but that may be due to its complexity. Also, the naming of processes is annoying until you get used to it and even then trying to find a tool can be difficult if you don’t recall.
My biggest gripe is exactly what you stated… going back if there is an issue you didn’t address. (Oversaturated pixels or some other problem)
haha the timing of this video for me is insane, i JUST tried pixinsight for first time last night with the demo, and I have exactly the same thoughts as you did, the lethargic feel of some of the tools with even changes taking 1/3 seconds to update (especially the layering script) is just so jarring for creativity, after last night i said to myself well im definitely not doing the compositing in pixinsight after that hahah
question about the frequency seperation, i cant really see an easy way to do that in photoshop also, is there any advice there?
The last time I used PhotoShop was about 10 years ago, when Affinity Photo came out. I don't recall the tool there. However, you can try Affinity Photo for up to six months free. If you can use PhotoShop, you can move to Affinity Photo very easily as the workflow is extremely similar.
I'm going to cancel my Adobe Sub and try Affinity.
They're both good but Affinity is far more affordable. I think Affinity is presently offering a six month free trial.
Literally just did that! Will Most likely purchase AP
I got AF on sale for less than $50.00
I use Pix for stacking, colour calibration, RC tools and GHS (maybe some masking too). I export starless and stars from pix and finish the rest in Affinity Photo
Where did you learn the Affinity photo for astrophotography? Also, what are the system requirements are for Affinity photo? Can you create mosiacs like with APP? Lastly, does it have the option of merging HA with Rgb n all like/better than PI?
I started studying layer-based photo editors way back when PhotoShop was the only really good option, back around the time prosumer digital photography became accessible. It is not difficult to transition to Affinity Photo as they have a very similar layout and flow. Affinity can run on any modest system, but for big photos you're going to want more RAM. I have 32 GB but my computer is 4 yrs old. I think I will double the RAM or more when I replace it. There will be no problem mergying Ha (or any image) to another. It's all about how you composite them together.
You should invest some time and really learn PI instead of brushing your data in photoshop, fiddling with layers, enhancing noise and messing up star colors. There are plenty of tutorials to get you started on youtube for free.
Why? He gets the outcome he desires... If you want all astronomical images to look exactly like everyone else's we can all save a fortune and sleepless nights and just download hubble photos. I don't like every single edit on this channel but I highly value an out of the box approach, I can take something away from it.
@@mark2220 fair point
I would hazard a guess and say he's quite competent with PI. I really don't think the reason he uses layer-based editing is because he's not good with PI. Judging by his content I would say he knows much more than the average astrophotographer.😉
I started out with AP using GIMP and then Affinity Photo, but a colleague convinced me that PI was the way to go. Since then, however, I've been frustrated by many times having to start over--trying a different 'order of operations' in the work flow to attempt a better result--that seems to be your major point. I may give Affinity a second look, although I don't relish the idea of re-learning its idiosyncracies after spending well over a year learning PI's. An additional comment about Affinity is that I started out using pretty much the AP-based macros and the video tutorials that Affinity provided. I might just disregard them and try to relearn the techniques on my own, as I found that the 'push button ' macro approach often doesn't really help you understand what's going on. I should also say that I find your 'heretical ' approach to AP to be quite refreshing!
Thank you, Richard! Persons I knew (some in the Royal Astronomy Society of Canada) also had me convinced PI was the pinnacle of AP developing, along with some commentary on forums (which I later discovered to be silliness or bias of the same caliber as statements like refractors are the best telescopes). Anyway, you just described one of the many issues of editing without layers. Mess up and all you can do is undo actions, which is time consuming and one of PI's many inefficiencies. However, you can do things in a layer-based photo editor that, to my knowledge, cannot be done in PI, such as frequency division, or custom compositing tools onto images, or combining tools into other tools to make new tools, and so on. Even PI's ability to composite is extraordinarily limited. The relatively new Image Blending script is exceedingly limited compared to compositing in a layer-based photo editor where you can blend (composite) as many images (and tools) together as you want, in an infinite variety of ways. BTW, Affinity has been offering a 6 month free trial. And I have some 120 videos out on how to use Affinity for astrophotography. A foundation set is my complete workflow playlist: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=Q52UhAZBtF3CViXm
Yeah I started astrophotography without experience in any kind of photo editing software. Most of the tutorials online involved pix insight so that's what I started with.
My first pet peeve with PI was how everything was named as complicated as possible for some reason, difficult to remember the convoluted names of the tools I was trying to find. My second, as you mentioned, is everything is done numerically with value fields and poorly explained in context menus, if you go for help on their forums you get a wall of jargon and math that you don't understand nor probably even need... a little bit like asking for help as a beginner Linux user 🤣
The more I use it the more I understand that they're likely not really interested in you doing what you want with your photo, it feels more like they're trying to funnel you into the "correct" edit of what you shot instead of letting you be more creative. Maybe that's just me.
I've started using Photoshop but I still don't use it very much in the editing process, mostly if I just want to make a small adjustment at the end of it. I need to get better with it.
God forbid I use a brush tool to feather a mask, wouldn't that just be tragic 🙄
I find it very interesting that you mentioned being funneled into the "correct" edit. I encountered a lot of that It when I first started this channel not long ago. Some persons were really furious that I wasn't using the "correct" PI method. One self-appointed PI expert virtually popped a gasket because I wasn't using the "correct" workflow. He has a channel that was a lot larger and now is not so much larger, and became the only other channel operator that I had to hide from the channel due to his toxicity.
I only used Photoshop and lived by it for 2 years. after Pix I could never move back. Getting out of layer based processing was really off putting but it gets easier. I still use PS for wide field images and for better color correction (which Pixinsight lacks honestly). Honestly your photos from Affinity seem to be at the same quality (obviously with some differences) as if it were processed in Pix. Goes to show it's the photographer not the program. (Side note amazing photos!)
I 100% agree! Skill with the developing platform is the most important thing. I would go so far as to say it's more important than the equipment. I have seen horrible images shot from professional observatories--images that failed only because the processing was subpar. I often emphasize in my videos that I am using relatively cheap equipment--an EQ6R mount, a Celestron C8 (not the Edge) and mere ZWO LRGB filters for most of my images in hopes of moving people away from the buy-to-get-better trap (which is common in all forms of photography). I would place in order of importance for good images: Quality of sky, quality of mount, processing and everything else behind that.
I agree, i always found pixinsight to be like astro gear before ZWO hit the market, everything was outdated, using methods that never evolved, the old st4 or com ports found on new mounts has only really been updated in the last few years and all programs associated with our hobby has that DOS feel from the 90s to it. Dont get me wrong pixinsight stacks better, but have you tried astap for your stacking it does an amazing job at it as well, at least the closest to a pixinsight stack ive seen. With that being said though i think blurX is actually the only reason apart from stacking that i would use pixinsight, what alternatives are there for blurX?
No other alternatives for BXT that I know of, though quite a few good free AI-driven deblur and denoise tools are coming out lately.
Overall, I tend to agree and have used a layer editor for polishing and PixInsight for masters (particularly in the last few years). Scripts are essentially also a how-to-do process already worked out. I’ll make up an example - Do I run a script called orton effect or do I step through the process. In PixInsight, I might have a script and magic, it’s done. I might also know the process and take the time and it’s done better. BUT, if I do know the process, a layer editor will do it better and faster because of the reasons you list. The issue is what is the process. I feel cheat sheets with just enough info to do something would help use layer based later stage processing until one becomes knowledgeable of the various techniques. Eg. I didn’t know the order of the layers you mentioned in the video. That is a key bit of info. Sometimes it’s hard to find a video that something was described and then go though it to find the key point. With bad weather presenting little practice, the scripted way of getting things done ends up being very helpful and PixInsight often gets a greater percentage of the workflow that day.
It's only my opinion, which may be skewed since I've used layer-based photo editors almost since there was prosumer digital photography, but I think the learning curve for layer-based photo editors is easier in the long run. With a little practice, it just flows because the tools are more straightforward and the the visual feedback is immediate.
I have about 120 videos on how to use Affinity Photo to process astrophotography images. And about 2.5 months ago I created a complete workflow playlist that may help: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=FubSgm_6tI68kLx3
I also use PI and AP2 together. I do find that AP2 tends to become unresponsive and when I have it open at the same time as PI.
Large images within photo editors can be memory and resource hogs, for sure. I have 64 GB of memory which helps, but I still consider it just enough.
Totally agree with your points. I've never used PI because think is too expensive for what I need. I prefer to use other free softwares, my one scripts in Python and Affinity.
After all the money I have invested in equipment, I think that software is a bargain.
I am a newbie to Astrophotography but I am also an amateur wildlife photographer and have been using the original Affinity Photo. I watching your videos and realize that functional idiot with it because I don’t know how to use the layers. I am using more like the Instagram editor than the powerful tool it is capable of being. Do you know a good source that would systematically teach me how to use Affinity Photo? I find that since it is not mainstream there is less content available on line. The fact that you use Affinity is main reason I started following your channel. Thanks
There are a LOT of YT channels devoted to Affinity Photo. One of my favorite channels for learning it's general editing capabilities is Affinity Revolution.
Great video. I wondering if you can describes your optical train with measurements, if you uses a C8, your configuration is amazing.
The configuration is pretty straightforward: reducer/corrector, extension tube, OAG, filter wheel and camera. The filter wheel and camera are both made by Player One and fit flush to one another. This website has the back focus measurements: www.ancientphotonsastro.com/post/back-focus-for-the-edge-hd-8-at-f-7-and-f-10-using-a-celestron-oag
@@SKYST0RY when you said corrector, is something different than the reducer?
I love what you do and the way that you explain everything, so simple, good.
I am interested in how you achieve such beautiful images with your C8.
That's why I ask for the optic train.
So, what kind of corrector.
Thanks for your time..
@@bonairecloudynightsobserva2297 The reducer/corrector is a single optical element that somewhat reduces the focal length of the SCT in order to make rounder stars on the outside of the image circle and provide a somewhat lower focal ratio. I use the Celestron reducer/corrector. Hope that helps.
@@SKYST0RY thank you for your help.
@@bonairecloudynightsobserva2297 I hope that helps.
This all very subjective and pointless. Use whatever you are comfortable with and gives you the results that are pleasing to YOU.
Just out of curiosity, how would you rate GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation) against Affinity and Photoshop?
I can't give a good answer. I tried it early on in its development but haven't used it since. But I understand GIMP has come a long way and is a very capable, layer-based photo editor nowadays.
What about the actual stretching of the image after stacking. Can that be done outside PI with AP?
It can be. Affinity Photo offers a couple ways to do it, and Siril has a very good histogram transformation tool, but the histogram tool in PI is great. I consider that one of its main strengths.
I do my stretching with GIMP. So, yes. :)
One of the original and arguably most recognizable astro content-creators used layer-based editing exclusively for a long time...with great results! Thanks Trevor😉
I agree that we are bending backwards when it come to editing in PI.
I would love to be able to move to Affinity for editing.
It would be a great help I believe if you could give a high level view if your usual processing technique along the associated tools as many of us are unfamiliar with the way Affinity can deal with astro photos.
This may help you. It is my complete hybrid workflow, encompassing application of PI's strengths in pre-editing and AP's strengths in image editing.
th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html&si=HT80G083YxFq95q7