Pixinsight, even no!

There has never happened to see photographs processed by this software, surcharge, which promises to be a "all in one", and see stars that seem fake, nebulae that look like comics? Often I get this feeling, maybe more of a feeling, but I tried not to overdo it, I actually looked at belle processing performed by astroimager experts but mostly I just saw a lot of saturation to the colors (no need of course to spend those figures to increase saturation) but more importantly from my point of view I don't like knowing that a software interpolate , replace, and make unreal a photo, for indulging the photographer remove noise or refine the margins of a Nebula! But what can I say, I won't even know who puts fake spike in the photo to make it more spectacular ...  son views perhaps:) or simply want to images as well. Personally I think it does not introduce anything particularly interesting that could justify the cost if not risking misused, throwing away maybe good shots taken with effort and sleepless nights, example: HDR wavelet is a feature from the generic photo editing software such as Adobe Photoshop/Gimp, the specific Startools, perhaps it's more a matter of fashion or "pecoraggine" as the race to buy a DSLR cooled thinking to do miracles or finding Japanese optics stracara then elaborarr bad because without knowledge of what you are doing with PixInsight, then the result reflects the foolish choice and plays, the same image could be made better with a telescope of mediocre quality. so why spend all this money ill just to copy without reasoning anyone? :) mah