bfstuff

I'm still new at getting into digital photography, but I know I like HDR. I've been trying to decide the (Windows) HDR software I want to use. I was looking at Nik, but with support dead on that, decided to look elsewhere. I've been working with Photomatix trial version. It's OK, but most of the presets are a waste to me because I'm into the more natural look, just extending the dynamic range, than artistic effects. Photomatix is nice, though, because it is a stand alone program, which I prefer. I just saw (through this forum, thanks!) that Aurora is coming out with a Windows version. Since it's been only an Apple software tool it may be tough to get a single answer, but here goes... Has anyone out there had experience using both Photomatix and Aurora? If so, what are the advantages/disadvantages of each? Is Aurora a stand alone program, or usable only as a plug-in?

I'm primarily interested in landscape photography, and looking at doing some night time photography (with possibly some light painting). I currently have PS Elements, but haven't fully decided whether to go to something more robust for PP. So, that's why I prefer a stand alone HDR program.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Aurora will function as a stand-alone or as a plug-in to other editing apps, including Lightroom and Photoshop.
Suggest you read trade press reviews of both products and recent comparisons in, for one example, DPReview.com.
The reviews compare the features in detail.

Robeng Loc: California

Go to Trey Ratliff's website Stuck in Customs. He is one of the inventors of Aurora. Lots of information there.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Check on photoengine
Very realistic options

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I have used Photomatix for several years and I love it. With todays version it's even better for me. I can now take 50 or 100 pictures and process them automatically. I take all my pictures put them on my screen 3 across and scan them to see if the camera has 3 of each picture. Any missed 3 ups gets removed then I put the Photomatix on AUTO MODE load the file (I set the setup to fix any movement --people in the pictures) and let it rip. Go and have dinner and com back to have all my HDR done. I will fix any with Aperture.
The batch process and people movement makes my day.

bfstuff

Oloneo is priced a little higher than the others &, from what I see on U-Tube, seems to not be as capable as either Photomatix or Aurora. What is it in particular that you like about it, just more realistic renderings?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

if you like the natural look, Photoshop and LR will give you the most realistic looking HDR. Otherwise, LR/Enfuse is quite good, and popular with architectural photographers because of the natural looking results.

https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

Either way, you will grow to appreciate the benefits of LR and PS, for the price of a newspaper or magazine subscription. In the meantime you will be working at first in a familiar looking workspace, since Elements looks a lot like PS. As your skills improve, both software products have the capacity to meet your future needs.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

Another option for hdr is HDR Projects 4 Professional. Anyone have any experience with this German program?

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

I own, use and have compared both programs on the same natural looking landscapes images. Aurora is a bit slow on my older Mac pro and I am unable to upgrade to the latest version because they skipped Mac 10.9. Anyway Photomatix is very fast on my machine. I would say that it's posable to get great results with both programs if you like HDR's. It's also very easy to get shit results in the wrong hands. Personal I now prefer to hand blend two exposures in PS and only use HDR programs if I'm looking for a more artistic effect.