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