A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aurora



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 11th 17, 03:34 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 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  
Old December 11th 17, 03:54 AM posted to alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 18, 07:29 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 18, 10:17 PM posted to alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old January 4th 18, 08:00 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 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  
Old January 4th 18, 10:19 PM posted to alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old January 5th 18, 01:39 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 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  
Old January 5th 18, 03:34 AM posted to alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:11 AM
Photographing Aurora ? Walter Banks 35mm Photo Equipment 0 January 9th 10 10:00 PM
Stereoscopic Aurora tontoko Digital Photography 0 December 27th 06 01:08 PM
aurora Don B Digital Photography 1 January 24th 05 03:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.