>>3324095>But the whole goal of Astro IMO is to have pixel sized starsYou are wrong, on many levels.
The goal of astro is capturing the most photons possible, from the selected wavelength(s), with the most precise tracking possible, in the timeframe given by weather and the season.
Having pixel size stars is stupid, you don't look at the stars, you look at the nebulosity and the fine details in said nebulosity. The stronger stars will always wash out the nearby pixels, you can't do anything about it.
Doing astro landscapes adds the composition of the foreground and proper separate exposure for it and you will have to do a composite in PS.
Pic related for example had a stopped down low ISO exposure for foreground and a separate wide open high ISO exposure for the stars. Unfortunately the milky way was far away at the time I could make the image. (and the lit up scenery induced heavy light pollution)
Going for pixel size stars is stupid and futile, it makes you concentrate much less on the important parts.
This image
>>3323578 for example is much better than the most posted here, even though it is noisy, blurry and oversaturated to Ken and back. It is just nice to look at. This
>>3322421 is also one of the better ones despite the obvious newbie mistakes of missing focus (by trying to do it in one take instead of a composite) and over abuse of the sharpening slider. The composition and color management is there, though the photographer needs to practice more.
