Aurora
 

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.


--
PeterN

Aurora
 

On Dec 10, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.

I have been using Aurora on my Mac since the Beta three + years ago, and I
have the curren Aurora HDR 2018 installed.

It can be used for tone mapping of single images with good results,
particularly if you start with a RAW file.

Saying that it does a better job than Luminar is silly since Luminar is not
an HDR processor or specialized tone mapper.

I have found it to be much better than NIK HDR Efex Pro.

My usual advice with Aurora HDR, as with any advanced graphics software, is
to check the tutorials offered. Muddling through is fine, but getting an
understanding from tutorials ultimately makes life simpler.
https://aurorahdr.com/video-tutorials
--

Regards,
Savageduck

Aurora
 

On 12/10/2017 9:54 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.

I have been using Aurora on my Mac since the Beta three + years ago, and I
have the curren Aurora HDR 2018 installed.

It can be used for tone mapping of single images with good results,
particularly if you start with a RAW file.

Saying that it does a better job than Luminar is silly since Luminar is not
an HDR processor or specialized tone mapper.

I have found it to be much better than NIK HDR Efex Pro.

I agree.


My usual advice with Aurora HDR, as with any advanced graphics software, is
to check the tutorials offered. Muddling through is fine, but getting an
understanding from tutorials ultimately makes life simpler.
https://aurorahdr.com/video-tutorials


Thank for the link.

I don't know if the reply was sent, but I want to add that once I read ,
or go through the tutorials, I will press buttons, to see how it affects
the image. I have a tendency to work on a duplicate, so I can do a
comparison.


--
PeterN

Aurora
 

On Jan 3, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/10/2017 9:54 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.

I have been using Aurora on my Mac since the Beta three + years ago, and I
have the curren Aurora HDR 2018 installed.

It can be used for tone mapping of single images with good results,
particularly if you start with a RAW file.

Saying that it does a better job than Luminar is silly since Luminar is not
an HDR processor or specialized tone mapper.

I have found it to be much better than NIK HDR Efex Pro.

I agree.


My usual advice with Aurora HDR, as with any advanced graphics software, is
to check the tutorials offered. Muddling through is fine, but getting an
understanding from tutorials ultimately makes life simpler.
https://aurorahdr.com/video-tutorials

Thank for the link.

I don't know if the reply was sent, but I want to add that once I read ,
or go through the tutorials, I will press buttons, to see how it affects
the image. I have a tendency to work on a duplicate, so I can do a
comparison.

This is the first response I have seen to my reply to you in this particular
thread, and I understand that other stuff was happening. I am assuming that
the issues of opening to Aurora from Bridge, or Lightroom have been resolved.

If you have any other questions, you know how to contact me.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Aurora
 

On 1/3/2018 4:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 3, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/10/2017 9:54 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.

I have been using Aurora on my Mac since the Beta three + years ago, and I
have the curren Aurora HDR 2018 installed.

It can be used for tone mapping of single images with good results,
particularly if you start with a RAW file.

Saying that it does a better job than Luminar is silly since Luminar is not
an HDR processor or specialized tone mapper.

I have found it to be much better than NIK HDR Efex Pro.

I agree.


My usual advice with Aurora HDR, as with any advanced graphics software, is
to check the tutorials offered. Muddling through is fine, but getting an
understanding from tutorials ultimately makes life simpler.
https://aurorahdr.com/video-tutorials

Thank for the link.

I don't know if the reply was sent, but I want to add that once I read ,
or go through the tutorials, I will press buttons, to see how it affects
the image. I have a tendency to work on a duplicate, so I can do a
comparison.

This is the first response I have seen to my reply to you in this particular
thread, and I understand that other stuff was happening. I am assuming that
the issues of opening to Aurora from Bridge, or Lightroom have been resolved.

If you have any other questions, you know how to contact me.


Did you mean to say Aurora works as plugin for Bridge. I use it as a
plugin for PS @ LR. I could not find Aurora as a plugin for Bridge.

--
PeterN

Aurora
 

On Jan 4, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/3/2018 4:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 3, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/10/2017 9:54 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.

I have been using Aurora on my Mac since the Beta three + years ago, and I
have the curren Aurora HDR 2018 installed.

It can be used for tone mapping of single images with good results,
particularly if you start with a RAW file.

Saying that it does a better job than Luminar is silly since Luminar is
not
an HDR processor or specialized tone mapper.

I have found it to be much better than NIK HDR Efex Pro.

I agree.


My usual advice with Aurora HDR, as with any advanced graphics software,
is
to check the tutorials offered. Muddling through is fine, but getting an
understanding from tutorials ultimately makes life simpler.
https://aurorahdr.com/video-tutorials

Thank for the link.

I don't know if the reply was sent, but I want to add that once I read ,
or go through the tutorials, I will press buttons, to see how it affects
the image. I have a tendency to work on a duplicate, so I can do a
comparison.

This is the first response I have seen to my reply to you in this particular
thread, and I understand that other stuff was happening. I am assuming that
the issues of opening to Aurora from Bridge, or Lightroom have been
resolved.

If you have any other questions, you know how to contact me.

Did you mean to say Aurora works as plugin for Bridge. I use it as a
plugin for PS @ LR. I could not find Aurora as a plugin for Bridge.

No, not as a plug-in for Bridge. As I explained in an earlier post in the
other Aurora thread, in Bridge, select either the HDR exposure bracket, or
the individual file for single image tone-mapping. Then either right-click,
or from the menu, Open in Aurora. No pluging needed.

You might remember this image I posted of Bridge being used to make a
selection to open in Aurora.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h9nomutlmruz9sd/screenshot_263.png

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Aurora
 

On 1/4/2018 4:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 4, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/3/2018 4:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 3, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/10/2017 9:54 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.

I have been using Aurora on my Mac since the Beta three + years ago, and I
have the curren Aurora HDR 2018 installed.

It can be used for tone mapping of single images with good results,
particularly if you start with a RAW file.

Saying that it does a better job than Luminar is silly since Luminar is
not
an HDR processor or specialized tone mapper.

I have found it to be much better than NIK HDR Efex Pro.

I agree.


My usual advice with Aurora HDR, as with any advanced graphics software,
is
to check the tutorials offered. Muddling through is fine, but getting an
understanding from tutorials ultimately makes life simpler.
https://aurorahdr.com/video-tutorials

Thank for the link.

I don't know if the reply was sent, but I want to add that once I read ,
or go through the tutorials, I will press buttons, to see how it affects
the image. I have a tendency to work on a duplicate, so I can do a
comparison.

This is the first response I have seen to my reply to you in this particular
thread, and I understand that other stuff was happening. I am assuming that
the issues of opening to Aurora from Bridge, or Lightroom have been
resolved.

If you have any other questions, you know how to contact me.

Did you mean to say Aurora works as plugin for Bridge. I use it as a
plugin for PS @ LR. I could not find Aurora as a plugin for Bridge.

No, not as a plug-in for Bridge. As I explained in an earlier post in the
other Aurora thread, in Bridge, select either the HDR exposure bracket, or
the individual file for single image tone-mapping. Then either right-click,
or from the menu, Open in Aurora. No pluging needed.

You might remember this image I posted of Bridge being used to make a
selection to open in Aurora.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h9nomutlmruz9sd/screenshot_263.png


I was not able to find Aurora as an open option in Bridge. The only was
I can open images in Aurora as a plugin is to export them from LR. I
even tried an older version of Bridge. At no time during the
installation was there any indication of Aurora being a plugin except
for LRl and PS.

--
PeterN

Aurora
 

On Jan 4, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/4/2018 4:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 4, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/3/2018 4:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 3, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/10/2017 9:54 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

During an online presentation of Aurora by Trey Ratcliff, some
mentioned
that Aurora can be effectively used to process single exposure images.
Some said that it did a better job than Luminar. While playing with it,
that same thought had previously occurred to me. There was at least one
person who said it made a good replacement for NIK. I know the product
is just out, so I am simply passing this information along. If anyone
here is using it, they might want to post their experiences. I am just
starting with it, and think it's a really neat tool, although I have
not
competed any image to the point where I would post it.

I have been using Aurora on my Mac since the Beta three + years ago,
and I
have the curren Aurora HDR 2018 installed.

It can be used for tone mapping of single images with good results,
particularly if you start with a RAW file.

Saying that it does a better job than Luminar is silly since Luminar is
not
an HDR processor or specialized tone mapper.

I have found it to be much better than NIK HDR Efex Pro.

I agree.


My usual advice with Aurora HDR, as with any advanced graphics software,
is
to check the tutorials offered. Muddling through is fine, but getting an
understanding from tutorials ultimately makes life simpler.
https://aurorahdr.com/video-tutorials

Thank for the link.

I don't know if the reply was sent, but I want to add that once I read ,
or go through the tutorials, I will press buttons, to see how it affects
the image. I have a tendency to work on a duplicate, so I can do a
comparison.

This is the first response I have seen to my reply to you in this
particular
thread, and I understand that other stuff was happening. I am assuming
that
the issues of opening to Aurora from Bridge, or Lightroom have been
resolved.

If you have any other questions, you know how to contact me.

Did you mean to say Aurora works as plugin for Bridge. I use it as a
plugin for PS @ LR. I could not find Aurora as a plugin for Bridge.

No, not as a plug-in for Bridge. As I explained in an earlier post in the
other Aurora thread, in Bridge, select either the HDR exposure bracket, or
the individual file for single image tone-mapping. Then either right-click,
or from the menu, Open in Aurora. No pluging needed.

You might remember this image I posted of Bridge being used to make a
selection to open in Aurora.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h9nomutlmruz9sd/screenshot_263.png

I was not able to find Aurora as an open option in Bridge. The only was
I can open images in Aurora as a plugin is to export them from LR. I
even tried an older version of Bridge. At no time during the
installation was there any indication of Aurora being a plugin except
for LRl and PS.

That must be one of the few differences between Mac and WIN vesions of either
Adobe CC, Bridge CC, or Aurora. I wouldn’t be too bothered by that since
you can still open a bracket, or individual file using the Aurora
stand-alone. Otherwise starting from within LR is probably the best way to
go.

Personally I never use Aurora as a PS plug-in, and I hardly ever use Bridge
to Aurora. I mostly use LR+plug-in, and occasionally the stand-alone. If I
need to edit/adjust the Aurora HDR result further in PS, I just use PS as an
external editor for LR, and make the round trip, and then that would be for
something I cannot do in LR.

--

Regards,
Savageduck