HDR Windmill
May 15, 2019 11:13:17 #
I downloaded Aurora 2018 when it was free. I used the three files to get the result of the HDR JPG file and nothing else was done to. I compared this to the same processed results using Affinity HDR stacking and liked the Aurora results much better (all stacks were originally done with RAW files). Seems Affinity loses color in the background that Aurora enhanced. Please let me know what you think of this comparison of Aurora to Affinity results.
2 stops over
(Download)
"0"
(Download)
2 stops under
(Download)
Aurora HDR
(Download)
Affinity HDR
(Download)
May 15, 2019 11:17:53 #
I prefer the last because the sky becomes a supporting player rather than overwhelming the fascinating construction of the windmill.
May 15, 2019 11:18:42 #
Hope this helps. Our real sky color here in Colorado is kind of in-between the two pics.
May 15, 2019 11:22:15 #
Bill Munny wrote:
The extra detail of Aurora also created a grainy look to the sky and shows your sensor dust spots Hope this helps. Our real sky color here in Colorado is kind of in-between the two pics.
May 15, 2019 12:24:08 #
I like them both, however Linda is correct the 2nd one has less grain and fewer dust spots. You should consider having your sensor cleaned the spots will only get worse for you... Nice work, however perhaps you can touch up the spots in your editing program.
May 15, 2019 13:10:11 #
If I recall correctly, Affinity, NiC, Frantz, apply very little tone mapping. They allow you to process it to taste after it is compiled. Haven't got my Main computer reloaded yet so I may be wrong, but that was my recollection.
Ron
Ron
May 15, 2019 14:53:55 #
Last week I cleaned my sensor, it was pretty messy. After two years of wonderful Colorado wind and dust, I finally got the Delkin kit and the sensor seems to be clear once again. Thanks for the critique.
May 15, 2019 14:53:55 #
May 16, 2019 07:14:26 #
May 16, 2019 10:58:36 #
The zero exposure appears to be underexposed so the results are less then what could have been obtained.
Why the auto exposure selected 1/500 at f5.6 seems to be out of order for a scenic. The first result looks like what might be obtained with a straight out of the camera using a polarizing filter.
The second result looks like it is Overexposed to some degree.
Better luck on your next attempt at HDR.
Why the auto exposure selected 1/500 at f5.6 seems to be out of order for a scenic. The first result looks like what might be obtained with a straight out of the camera using a polarizing filter.
The second result looks like it is Overexposed to some degree.
Better luck on your next attempt at HDR.
May 16, 2019 11:30:48 #
Interesting that your 2 stops over image appears darker than both the resulting HDR images. Wonder why that would be?
Nov 21, 2019 15:05:14 #
Hamltnblue
Loc: Springfield PA
Linda From Maine wrote:
The extra detail of Aurora also created a grainy look to the sky and shows your sensor dust spots
I found that with Aurora, that the spots show up but are not real.
It appears to be a result of their process.
I've had them appear randomly with none of the original pics showing the spots.
Go figure.
Here is a post of someone that had the problem in the extreme:
https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360028054472-Aurora-HDR-2019-abnormality-Generated-spots-in-image
Jan 16, 2021 14:20:02 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.