Macphun Aurora HDR 2017: Has anyone tried the new Macphun Aurora HDR 2017? I'm wondering if it's worth the $90 purchase price.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Has anyone tried the new Macphun Aurora HDR 2017? I'm wondering if it's worth the $90 purchase price.

ejrmaine Loc: South Carolina

Mac wrote:

Has anyone tried the new Macphun Aurora HDR 2017? I'm wondering if it's worth the $90 purchase price.

I own Aurora HDR 2017, although I didn't pay $90, as I owned the previous version and got an upgrade offer. I really like the Aurora HDR 2017, it's very versatile and is easy to use. They also offer many tutorials, to make the learning curve a little easier.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

ejrmaine wrote:

I own Aurora HDR 2017, although I didn't pay $90, as I owned the previous version and got an upgrade offer. I really like the Aurora HDR 2017, it's very versatile and is easy to use. They also offer many tutorials, to make the learning curve a little easier.

Thanks for letting me know ejrmaine. I am leaning toward getting and your info has helped.

Satman Loc: Indy

45 for the upgrade, free trial.

Today we announce Luminar for Mac, 45 also or 59 new..

Always something new,,,

tomface Loc: California

I feel that it's worth it. It is very versatile while being somewhat intuitive, particularly if you are already a Lightroom user.

tomcat

Absolutely, get it and also Luminar. I have pre-ordered Luminar and am anxiously awaiting the release.

Satman Loc: Indy

On1 RAW is next here.,.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

I have Aurora HDR Pro. Works well but creates Hugh files! I 58mb files after Aurora processing!

mrmal Loc: Saskatoon, Sask, Canada

I read somewhere that Luminar is a version of Aurora HDR 2017 without the HDR. So I think if you have Aurora 2017 don't need Luminar. Aurora is top notch, easy to use and reasonably priced. Would be interested in comments of Luminar if that is true. I have the CK pak as well and it does everything I need.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

tomface wrote:

I feel that it's worth it. It is very versatile while being somewhat intuitive, particularly if you are already a Lightroom user.

Thanks TomFace.
I use Photos on my iMac.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

tomcat wrote:

Absolutely, get it and also Luminar. I have pre-ordered Luminar and am anxiously awaiting the release.

Thanks TomCat.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Sinewsworn wrote:

I have Aurora HDR Pro. Works well but creates Hugh files! I 58mb files after Aurora processing!

Thanks Sineworn

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

mrmal wrote:

I read somewhere that Luminar is a version of Aurora HDR 2017 without the HDR. So I think if you have Aurora 2017 don't need Luminar. Aurora is top notch, easy to use and reasonably priced. Would be interested in comments of Luminar if that is true. I have the CK pak as well and it does everything I need.

Thank you MrMal

cmoroney Loc: Pasadena, California

How much of an improvement is there to Version 2 of Aurora HDR over the original? I have the first version but never really got into it, and am now busy exploring HDR Projects by Franzis. If you join StackSocial, there's a screaming deal on the latter software for anybody who's interested. But that being said, I am interested in hearing people's opinions on the added/upgraded features of Aurora HDR.

Mark Bski Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle

I'm very happy with Aurora Pro 2016, haven't done the upgrade yet. It's become my go-to for image developing rather than Lightroom.

One consideration, it's very very easy to over do images and have them wind up looking more like cartoons than photographs. But I've also been able to turn marginal photos into very nice images, it takes practice.

Aurora has a facebook section where photographers share their images developed with Aurora, check it out and get a feel for it.