If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
aurora borealis | David J Taylor[_16_] | Digital Photography | 5 | August 14th 10 10:50 PM |
Photographing Aurora ? | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | January 14th 10 03:11 AM |
Photographing Aurora ? | Walter Banks | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 9th 10 09:00 PM |
Stereoscopic Aurora | tontoko | Digital Photography | 0 | December 27th 06 12:08 PM |
aurora | Don B | Digital Photography | 1 | January 24th 05 02:43 PM |