![]() ![]() I ended up reprocessing all my old photos and revealed detail that i completely missed before. Once i understood its capabilities and potential, it was a no brainer. After a week i purchased the full software. Looked up a few "edit with me" videos that used PI and tried to recreate the steps. I wanted to ensure that i truly wasn't missing anything and that my choice to continue using PS was valid. Then i downloaded the free trial version just to see what the fuss was all about. ![]() I resented it for literally no reason other than the fact that everyone kept pushing it - youtube videos, articles, forums. It felt almost elitist that it was being pitched as this be-all-end-all piece of software for astrophotography. I saw folks online talking about PI and i thought it was the most convoluted user-unfriendly piece of software i've ever seen. Used it for about 6 months and was pretty happy with results. Had to learn how to use it from scratch, as i had no experience with any image processing software or workflows at all. I started my astrophotography journey with PS. I have no interest in learning a language and methodology to perpetuate it's use. ![]() Ascom is a standard, Pi, is snake oil to me, regardless of some of the beautiful work I have seen created with it, I'll take the hard pass for lack of useability. It's also slow as snot.Īs you can see, I don't like Pi, and I don't apologize for it, nor will I be brow beat into using the overly pushed boomerware because someone markets the product as a signal processing editor. I'm not sure I'd agree that Pi is the gold standard since most people still need to use a raster editing program to do certain aspects of editing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |