2.11
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Dear AstroBinners Here is my most recent galaxy image, the NGC 6744. https://www.astrobin.com/qp2ksy/ The image was too large to upload to the forum, so here is the link. This is my first proper galaxy image, so any constructive criticism would be appreciated. |
4.02
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Well I quickly recognize ChatGPT in the image description  The first thing I noticed was that the galaxy was unusually purple, so I would say, practice on aligning color channels correctly, and Color Calibration is one way to do that. Another thing is the galaxy could use some deconvolution. I also noticed the background sky has a tint of red, or I'm imagining it. |
7.76
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| Way too deep in the blue/violet end for the arms but otherwise not too bad. |
4.36
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I agree with the above. For my taste the background is way too dark and it seems a bit owerpowered by the same blue/purple that is shown in the arms like Andrea said. The galaxy itself could use some deconvolution as messierman mentioned as well. Aside from the description, something else that was a bit distracting to me was the sky plots to the left. I found that it took a lot of attention away from the actual image. This information will mostly be covered by AB's plate solving and the sky plot is added to the page alongside your description. I'm sure this might not be everyone's taste, but I'd rather upload a plate solved revision and make it an overlay image when you hover it in stead. I noticed that you had done that in some way as well, maybe manually? |
4.44
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Some comments, I saw you use Photoshop and Siril. I am mostly Pixinsight so will refer to what I use there and hopefully there are alternatives you can use there. 1. I do recommend using something similar to SPCC for color calibration, agree with the others it is too purple. I do not use Siril so not sure what alternative is there. 2. Also suggest using Pixinsight and BlurXTerminator for deconvolution or analogue in Siril 3. Background is too dark. The histogram in the image is not balanced and black point is too close to left. |
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Beautiful image. My sense of astrophotography is weighted towards an appreciation of the artistic and sculptural. I enjoy the focus on the movement of the galaxy, the texture of the form, and the balance of color. The rotation of the galaxy is underscored by the airy wisp of at the tail end of each leg. For my tastes the dark background enhances the image because it focuses attention on the subject matter, even though it may be more realistic to have an image replete with stars. What you have done is interpretative. I understand that my sense of astrophotography may not be the most popular, but, to me, the image is gorgeous. I couldn't care less if it should be more or less purple, yellow, white or green. It is not right and it is not wrong; it is what you saw and decided to express by underscoring those elements. Astrophotography is as much art as science or process. All of photography is to some degree interpretative...angle, composition, crop factor, depth of field, lighting. I enjoy seeing what you accomplished here. |
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I have processed an image of this galaxy (https://www.astrobin.com/npwi8w/C/) and found it difficult to color calibrate in Pixinsight because it always came out too blue. I think this was due to the high intensity of the blue data relative to the other filters. Maybe the galaxy is actually that blue, but I have my own "artistic" ideas of how it should look, so that is what you see. You can see my processing notes with the image. As for specific suggestions, try doing a linear fit to reduce the dominance of the blue filter and then do the color calibration. You might also check the calibration of your monitor. Perhaps you don't see the extent of the purple caste. My general advice is to switch to Pixinsight to take full advantage of the many tools available (e.g., BlurXterminator, NoiseXterminator, StarXterminator, GAME, Generalized Hyperbolic Stretch, Spectrophotometric color calibration, etc). I realize some of these may be available as free-standing software, but as someone who has processed a lot of images over the years, I can't recommend Pixinsight too highly. I also use GarXpert AI routinely. If you stay in this hobby long enough, I predict you will end up with Pixinsight. George |
|
2.11
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Thank you for all the feedback everyone! Means a lot to me. I will reply to all the messages in one go. 1. messierman3000 - You are right actually  Well, we are almost 1 quarter into the 21 century, the merger of human and AI has started, so why not seek help from a robo-friend when you need it most 2. andrea tasselli and Jan Erik V - It is not suprising to me that my color is off, as to be honest I have very limited understanding of color processing in general. I have no background in photography like many do, so all those curves and stretches are totally alien to be. Just like my nickname. If there are any videos that explain how those color curves work it would be very helpful. I really need to get that general understanding of color processing. 3. Othon Benavente - Thank you very much! Commets like this really motivate me to try even harder when it comes to astophotography! 4. gmadkat and George Hatfield - Many people have suggested using PixInsight, and I've read a lot about it. The only issue is the fact that PixInsight costs 300 euros. Not only that, but each of the additions, like StarXTerminator, etc., cost 60 euros each. I simply cannot afford such a price, as I'm a university student. Moreover, I personally consider such pricing policy to be inappropriate and very discouraging to the astrophotography community. So even if I had those 500 euros, I wouldn't buy PixInsight simply out of principles. I don't want to support a company that is charging such crazy prices and turning so many people away from this wonderful hobby. Siril, on the other hand, has things like StarNet, which function just like the PixInsight add-ons, but are completely free. I really like the whole spirit of the independently developed Siril, and the new 1.2.0 version is brilliant. I got used to this software, and I want to support it in the future, so PixInsight is not an option for me. Thanks for all the feedback and I wish you all the best in 2024! Clear skies, Alien Enthusiast. |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Alien... After closer inspection, I see the data you processed is from Telescope.live, the same source I used for this object. There is no way to get around it; astrophotography is an expensive hobby. And when the cost of processing software is compared with the cost of quality hardware, it begins to look downright reasonable. But I can see your point if you are just starting out with some data from Telescope.live. Spending $500 to process a $5 image does not make much sense. But given the quality of Pixinsight, I don't think their prices are "crazy," no more than Planewave is unreasonable for charging $60K plus for a CDK24 or Takahashi $15K for a TOA150. High quality demands a high price in many areas, and astrophotography is no exception. I bought Pixinsight in 2012, so the initial cost I paid is buried in the clouds of time. I have used it for the intervening 12 years with many free upgrades along the way. It was one of the most cost-effective purchases I have made to support my image-processing hobby. George |
11.14
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Even if you are a PI user, you don't need BlurXterminator, NoiseXterminator, StarXterminator, or, GAME, Generalized Hyperbolic Stretch and GraXpert to produce a great result. PI is already a standalone tool. You don't even need PI for producing great images (I am a PI fan BTW  ). Siril has its own photometric calibration and gradient correction tools. Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, Siril plays well with Starnet and GHS.Your image is underexposed (in photography terms). The color cast is either due to poor color calibration or a combination of suboptimal gradient correction and poor color calibration. |
|
7.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| To be honest a not too dissimilar picture of the same subject won an APOD, so the OP's onto something... |
|
4.36
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Just wanted to add that initially when I first got started I thought PI and the addons were a bit expensive too, but considering that they are a one time purchase including all future updates, I really think it's quite reasonable. If you do general photography and use Photoshop you have to sub, so actually I find that the creator(s) of these tools are encouraging new users as well by choosing not to go down that route. I have no problem paying for something that someone has commited a lot of time and energy into making and continuously improve for free. That being said, I too understand where you're coming from. I've spent quite a bit of money on gear to do my own photography so the amount of money spent on software really is marginal - but necessary (for me) in order to get the most out of what I want to do. If you are playing around with Hubble/JWST data or data from various telescope services I understand that this might not be the case. I have little experience with Siril except for trying it while starting out since it was a free option, but I just couldn't "get friendly" with the interface and the way things were done. Pixinsight is a lot more intuitive and powerful in my humble opinion, still, people get good results with other software as well. |
|
2.11
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thanks for additional replies! Lets do a second round of counter replies. George Hatfield and Jan Erik V - I understand your perspective on this. Astrophotography is indeed an expensive hobby. However, my issue with PixInsight is somewhat ideological. PixInsight's value-based pricing strategy represents an aggressive move to capitalize on the niche astrophotography market and create the illusion of limited accessibility for certain "unique functionalities". This strategy proved very successful, particularly in the 2010s, when it was essentially the only option if you didn't want to suffer with just the Photoshop. Such a pricing policy also fostered a strong customer base, as people got used to the interface + having made a substantial investment, therefore attaching even further to the product. However, the emergence of Siril, offering similar capabilities for free, challenged PixInsight's justification for its high price, democratizing access to quality astrophotography software. I do believe space should be accessible to all. Capitalizing on a growing niche market aggressively, where you essentially hold a complete monopoly and, as a result, can charge any price you want, is unethical in my opinion. Looking at the overall comparison, I've watched many PixInsight tutorials and am somewhat familiar with its interface. To me, Siril seems more logical, as it has an interface designed to work in steps, from file conversion to sequence organization, stacking, registering, stretching, etc. Meanwhile, in PixInsight, you have to manually search through countless dropdown menus for each workflow iteration. I also believe there is a strong personal bias for both PixInsight and Siril users. It's hard for me to imagine someone openly admitting that PixInsight is bad after paying 500 euros. At the same time, not paying those 500 euros likely makes one feel better about Siril. Tbh this whole PixInsight VS Siril debate is somewhat similar to Gagarin VS Armstrong comparison. Both were great in their local time frame. Asserting that one is better than the other is always subjective and sparks heated debates. Die Launische Diva - Thank you for the objective overview of this whole PI/Siril debate. Siril also has PixelMath which is super useful, together with StarNet and PCC its a great package. Speaking of your recommendations, I'll try my best to increase exp time as well as work on color processing. Hope my next image is better than the previous one! andrea tasselli - I submitted this one for IOTD consideration, lets see what happens All the best to you all! Alien Enthusiast |
|
4.36
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Alien_Enthusiast: I'm not trying to spark debate, I was just trying to explain my reasoning for choosing it over the likes of Siril (I just wanted to clarify that). Pixinsight can be customized in a lot of ways so I rarely (if ever) use drop down menus etc. I have a complete process/script workflow loaded on my screen, so I can simply drag and drop if I really wanted to (I don't though, there's a lot of work at various stages during processing). You may be right about it being subjective, however, I don't think Pixinsight would be this big if there weren't anything to it. There is a reason why so many people opt to use it, even NASA themselves. However that doesn't mean that other software might not do certain things better or similar. I don't quite follow your logic. If you spend all your time making a premium product, would you give it away for free unconditionally? I think it's great that there are free alternatives out there and massive kudos to those who spend their time and efforts to develop it. I do hope they get donations though (as they ask for on their website) as it isn't in any way free to do this. They have costs and I'm sure they value their own time. Personally I still don't really see the issue. Pixinsight used to cost 250 euros but recently got bumped to 300 I belive (as pretty much every other purchaseable object the last few years). I don't find it unreasonable at all. You spend money on remote images, by your argument those images hould be free as well. Even telescopes and cameras etc. It just doesn't work that way, Siril being the exception. But if Siril users value the product and efforts of the developers they will be paying by donations. Paying for remote telescope data can become quite expensive in the long run as well. Russell Croman's tools are not made by Pixinsight and are not mandatory. I'm no programmer but I imagine that programming these to consistently and constantly work with various software isn't straight forward, also it's likely very time consuming. Which would be why he chooses to focus on the most used software/best software in his opinion. He might be able to provide a better answer himself as I'm only speculating, he's active on CN and responds to emails etc. You can probably achieve similar results without his tools by doing more manual work with deconvolution, sharpening etc in stead. But as you probably find it easier and cheaper to buy remote images, many find it more efficient to use those tools in stead of spending tens, if not hundreds, of hours learning and recreating it with multiple other processing steps. So, to repeat myself, I personally have no issue spending a one time fee of a few hundred euros for a premium software that will be constantly updated and supported. If it were a subscription based software I would be more inclined to agree with your argument though (just like the remote telescope services are). Just for reference, I pay a lot more per year for my Adobe software than I did for that one-time payment to Pixinsight and Russell. |
|
11.14
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Alien_Enthusiast: Well, to be honest, I haven't thought of that. My view on this subject (which is off-topic of course) is that others are capitalizing the lack of support and limited documentation of PI. And I personally find very annoying that Siril follows a similar nomenclature like PI, the same nomenclature which is the target of many PI critics (for the reason that not everyone should have a maths degree to follow it). And speaking of math, a highly subjective equation describing the situation is... Hostility from the PI developers against their users + better marketing skills of someone else who hopped on the "AI solves them all" bandwagon + social media influencers = belief that PI requires paid add-ons to deliver decent results ... which is at least discouraging for many newcomers with limited budgets. |
|
7.76
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I was and still am an outspoken proponent of free/open software and I have used it to great effectiveness, as far as I am concerned, in the past. However, it did come the day where the the bar set was to high to be sticking with IRIS and PS(free) so I had to make a decision and the decision was to buy PI 11 year ago when it's price, in relative terms, was steeper than it is now. I had to swallow the bitter pill (in more ways then one, as anyone interacting with the PI developer can attest) and the lack of documentation is ever so grating on my rather easily irritated nerves. And don't get me started on WBPP. Having said that I can't complain about PI baseline performance (well, I can complain about their exceedingly convoluted deconvolution method, if you excuse the pun) and still lust after some of capabilities of IRIS to this day. I also find the SXT not up to the job in some circumstances and thank goodness that SN++ V2 came to the rescue (for which I'll be eternally grateful). Same applies to BXT, although to a lesser extent. Pity, I can't find another equivalent tool elsewhere. With Graxpert into the fray I'd say that if I had to start from scratch today I'll stick to Siril and be done with it. Point being that Alien_Enthusiast is perfectly right to stick to the path chosen and forgo PI. |
|
4.36
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: Of course, to each their own, and I don't think anyone has disputed that as far as I know so I'm unsure about who it's directed to. I can't be bothered about what people use to process their images. I'm only pointing out that normally things aren't free, and to pay a relatively small one time fee for a premium software is neither democratizing access nor is it monopolizing or making space any less available for anyone. It's down right normal and there are several choices of software out there. At least I expect to be paid for my work hours, why shouldn't they? PI or any of the addons aren't really that expensive either when you compare it to other paid premium software which can also be sub-based or includes upgrade fees. Having access to "quality astrophotography software" isn't a basic human right and the creators have every right to charge for their product just as much as any other company. I applaud free software and I welcome it as much as anyone, but I'm still firm on the fact that IMO people that use said software should also feel inclined to donating to the creators if they really appreciate the work that has been/is being put into it. It's nice to have free stuff, but no one is entitled to it. |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
| I agree that the latest add-ons, such as BlurXterminator for Pixinsight, are not absolutely needed for image processing. PI alone is fully capable of processing an image to yield an excellent result. And I suspect the same can be said for other processing suites, such as Siril. But I think it does take some time (and agony) to develop the skill level needed. Especially given the relatively incomplete documentation for these programs. Although YouTube videos make up for a lot of the poor documentation. My point is that these add-on programs make processing so much easier for the beginner. Take, for example, the difficulty in running deconvolution in PI versus the optimal use of BlurXterminator, which typically involves clicking one button with the default settings to yield results that are arguably better than anyone is likely to produce with PI alone. A similar claim can be made for optimal noise reduction with PI alone versus using NoiseXterminator. Another example would be the removal of gradients with GraXpert AI versus using DBE in PI. GraXpert AI , in my experience, consistently and quickly produces a result that is better than anything I could produce with DBE. I disagree that PI and its associate programs discourage interest in astrophotography. On the contrary, I would argue that nothing stimulates interest more than success. |
|
7.76
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
George Hatfield: Not entirely. Easier yes, more accurately, mostly yes but not always. |
2.11
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| me too , I agree with the above |
9.85
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
andrea tasselli:George Hatfield: andrea tasselli:George Hatfield: While GraXpert does an excellent job with simple backgrounds, i really prefer DBE over it, as it gives me much more control. The same is (for me) true for NoiseXteminator, which i bought but actually never use. TGVDenoise combined with masks give much better control. I think it might be temping to use one-click tools, but biting the bullet and learning to use all those multi parameter tools in PI can be very rewarding. It helps me to understand the nature of my images and those tools. But i fully agree that the steep PI learning curve has been flattened a lot for beginners. CS Fritz |
|
2.11
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Alright, it's time for the 3rd round of replies. It's turning into a seriously long thread, I feel like by the end of this discussion we will become good friends... This time I'll try to leave emotional judgments and biases aside, and simply focus on facts. I'll also use some equations, as Die Launische Diva started this trend. Fact N1 Pix Insight was introduced long time ago, 2005 to be exact. Source: https://pixinsight.com/astrophotocl/outreach/pixinsight_eccai_2006.pdf Fact N2 Up until recent times, when Siril 1.2.0 was introduced, PixInsight was clearly the only software that offered many of the necessary functions. You could use Photoshop, but long exposure to it would cause severe nausea and mental suffering, so that was clearly not an option for many people. Moreover, even if you did master Photoshop, the results would be way worse than what PI + addons get you right out of the box. Source: andrea tasselli in one of the previous posts on this thread Fact N3: Establishing a complete monopoly over the market, PixInsight started charging exceedingly high prices for their software, with no option of subscription-based usage, forcing people to pay inappropriately large amounts of money right at the beginning. The free trial doesn't give them any credit, as after the free trial is over, you'd still need to pay half a grand to continue using it, and if you spend 45 days learning the interface, you'd probably do so... I can already sense people saying, "But you paid 4K for your rig" - first of all, I did not. Second of all, comparing hardware and software prices is as pointless as arguing that if your laptop costs 4K USD, then Windows 11 running on it should cost 500 USD - as "Bill Gates also needs to feed his family" To support my claim of how inappropriate PixInsight prices are, I composed a graph of specialized software entrance prices. (Actually, my robotic friend did, his name was GPT-4 or smth along the lines)  Source: ChatGPT4 Now let's dive into economics for a minute. I don't know what your backgrounds are, but I took a few econ classes in uni, so I'm familiar with the subject. Adam Smith, a Scottish economist and philosopher, is often regarded as the father of modern economics. He is best known for his influential work "The Wealth of Nations" (1776). In it, Smith famously wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." This quote encapsulates his belief in the power of self-interest within a free market system, a concept further illustrated by his idea of the "invisible hand." This metaphor describes how individuals' pursuit of self-interest inadvertently benefits society as a whole, guiding resources to where they are most efficiently utilized. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith The point being - in a free market capitalist system, a part of which I assume all of you are, the individual is driven by self-interest. Therefore, a quote by Jan Erik V seems irrational to me: "I'm only pointing out that normally things aren't free, and to pay a relatively small one-time fee for premium software is neither democratizing access nor is it monopolizing or making space any less available for anyone. It's downright normal and there are several choices of software out there. At least I expect to be paid for my work hours, why shouldn't they?" Why would the consumer even care about the profitability of a company that is offering them a service/product? The consumer only cares about the affordability and efficiency of his own "consumables." This exact phenomenon, which I've noticed among many PI users, reminds me of the so-called "Stockholm Syndrome," a proposed condition that explains why hostages sometimes develop a psychological bond with their captors. So many PI users, across so many forums, are screaming outloud: "PI is not even that expensive"; "a year of Photoshop subscription costs you more"; "everyone needs to be paid for their work," etc. And one might ask themselves, why would someone defend a company that not only forced them to pay an insane amount of money but also left them with no proper tech support or documentation, as Die Launische Diva and George Hatfield have mentioned in their replies above. Why would people defend such a company? The only scientific explanation I have - Stockholm Syndrome. Over the years, the abuse and lack of alternatives developed a sense of determination to justify such undergoings and prove themselves that it was all worth it, even though it wasn't, just as andrea tasselli highlighted a few replies earlier. To sum it all up, I'll finish with an equation myself: (The amount of time and money invested into PI × self-induced Stockholm Syndrome of its users) ÷ demonopolization of the software market by alternatives like Siril = popularity and userbase growth of PI. To end on a positive note, here is another briliant creation of my robotic friend, hope you guys like it  |
|
9.85
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
I am am PI user and I like it, as it serves me very, very well , but I would like one more fact: The support is remakably poor (close to non existent) for a commercial product. The PI forum is a constant source of anger, as it is hardly more than a peer network. If I would start over again I would probably travel the Siril route. CS Fritz |
|
11.14
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
I am also a PI user and I believe that PI is the most compete astrophotography software (actually, to be honest, I haven't tried APP). I am also an Adobe subscriber  and I completely hate that, even if I find Lightroom to be a brilliant piece of software. Out of curiosity, do you know how hard is to end an Adobe subscription?As Fritz have said, the PI user support is nonexistent and all posts on their forum will end in OS wars or hardware wars. Instead of listening at their customers needs, their lead developer complains that his company is at threat and in the verge of financial collapse. What I believe is that PI is an excellent product but the lack of marketing skills (or maybe people skills) of its developers created a market of third-party add-ons. I find the paid ones to be expensive in comparison to PI, which as I have said, is a complete piece of software (modulo the documentation). |
|
4.36
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
I hope discussion doesn't promote unfriendliness @Alien_Enthusiast ! At least it's not my intention at all and I'm sure we could be good friends despite having different views  I think astrophotography in general, not only DSO's but also counting planetary etc, is kind of exceptional as there are indeed so many free tools available for people to use. I honestly find it rather unique. And there is nothing stopping anyone from creating other alternatives to publish for free, if they want to do so. Using certain people as sources as to how an image processed in Photoshop vs Pixinsight would be worse is a bitt off though, plenty of good images have been processed in Photoshop. Pixinsight in itself doesn't of course equate in good images. I also find it quite nonsensical to discuss matters from 20 years ago today, I don't know the full story of what has been at some point, what I do know is what the situation is today - and there are lots of possibilities outside Pixinsight. I enjoy PI and PS, you enjoy Siril. Just like I use a ZWO camera, someone else will be using QHY, Canon or Omegon. None of it matters as long as you get the results you are happy with and is able to pursue what you want. Cost is a subjective thing. This hobby costs a lot of money whichever route you choose. Buying a rig costs a lot when you pull the trigger, but renting time and paying a subscription to get access to data will also cost a lot of money in the long run. I paid 250 euros for PI, now it costs 300 (quite a stretch from half a grand I'd say). Nor is it in my opinion a huge amount for what it is. But again, this is subjective. I've not compared hardware and software prices, I've only drawn a conclusion based on how much we'd spend on that side of things. You're failing to properly reply to that argument though as I think your argumentation applies to that as well. Do you think telescopes, cameras or access to other peoples telescopes to get remote data should be free as well? Aren't all these companies equally guilty, in your view, of trying to capitalize on the universe in their own way? So let me ask, how did you get access to the dataset you processed? Not to mention that you are a paying member of Astrobin, would you then say that by being (IMO) the best arena to share images with like minded people (among lots of other things), they are capitalizing on our "niche community"? Doesn't it make you a hypocrite if you paid for it? Comparing Pixinsight to Microsoft is also quite a stretch. For my desktop I indeed paid for my windows installation separately. If you buy a laptop it would be included in the price already. Nobody has said that since hardware cost "x amount", then software should cost "y amount". I simply feel that spending a few hundred on software isn't too bad, especially since I've built a rig for a certain amount of money that far exceeds it. I understand how you could take that and make it into another argument, but it's not meant as a comparison. If I count the amount of hourse I've used Pixinsight then the running cost is ridiculously low. I don't use ChatGPT, and I'm not sure what you mean by entrance price. Are you actually comparing a one month sub for Adobe with a lifetime ownership of a Pixinsight licence? It's not really apples to apples either as it really depends on what kind package you would need from Adobe in terms of apps, storage etc. I'm using Adobe regularly and have a running sub. In a year, that cost me more than I paid for PI, which is a fact, hence my comparison. If you find a free alternative more attractive then be my guest. You also didn't include APP in your comparison, but in stead chose to include MS Paint? I would have liked you to explain shortly and precisely how Pixinsight and it's creators are restricting your access to space. I would also have liked an explanation as to why my "quote" is irrational to you. Was it the fact that they provide(d) a service/product that I'm happy with, so much so that I paid for it in order to use it whenever I want. The fact that I provide my employer with my services and in return they pay me the amount of money my services are worth. The fact that transfer of money for exchange of goods/services are normal? Or the fact that you don't need Pixinsight to have access to space? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But you seen set on making Pixinsight seem like a villain and that you are entitled to get whatever you need at no cost, but I honestly don't really get why. I get that people have various experiences whether it's about support, documentation or whatever. It may be perfectly valid, personally I have no bad experiences with them, but that doesn't imply that I think they are wrong. My experience is simply different. And by not agreeing with your statements you act rather harsh because your personal rationale seem to be the only right way to think. Quite honestly I find part of your posts borderline hateful for simply not agreeing with your views, resorting to low blows when none are needed. At no point have I written that Pixinsight is the only way or that it is better than anything else, quite the opposite in fact. I've only been disagreeing with three key statements from yourself that can be viewed here:  As always clearly stated; IMO: 1. Pixinsight aren't capitalizing any more than other businesses (Be it remote services, telescope makers, Astrobin itself or anything else astronomy related). 2. Pixinsight aren't monopolizing anything. 3. Pixinsight isn't making space any less accessible to anyone. If I make decent chairs from wood cut down on my own property and give them away for free, does that mean that Ikea should give their wooden chairs away for free as well? I don't see a point in keeping the discussion ongoing, I can't see myself agreeing with your somewhat aggressive rationale. Neither would you probably understand my reasoning on the subject. It's probably best we accept our differences and move on from there. |
