HDR Myth Busters: Some good reasons to use Aurora HDR even if you haven't liked HDR in the past.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

Some good reasons to use Aurora HDR even if you haven't liked HDR in the past.

https://aurorahdr.com/7-myths-about-hdr-photography?kmi=mrjcall%40gmail.com&utm_source=Aurora+HDR+Friends&utm_campaign=897ad97f09-HDR_myths_Aurora_EN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fcda7c57a9-897ad97f09-270841185&mc_cid=897ad97f09&mc_eid=75bdd5ed7a

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I do not use HDR often, perhaps I should. I know Aurora is a very good software but I love Photomatic Professional. It fits my needs.
I am in agreement, HDR results look realistic but we can make them as weird as we want.
I always use presets and go realistic with my images.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

mrjcall wrote:

Some good reasons to use Aurora HDR even if you haven't liked HDR in the past.

https://aurorahdr.com/7-myths-about-hdr-photography?kmi=mrjcall%40gmail.com&utm_source=Aurora+HDR+Friends&utm_campaign=897ad97f09-HDR_myths_Aurora_EN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fcda7c57a9-897ad97f09-270841185&mc_cid=897ad97f09&mc_eid=75bdd5ed7a

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

camerapapi wrote:

I do not use HDR often, perhaps I should. I know Aurora is a very good software but I love Photomatic Professional. It fits my needs.
I am in agreement, HDR results look realistic but we can make them as weird as we want.
I always use presets and go realistic with my images.

I agree. I as well don't use HDR much, but when I do I use Photomatix Pro. I did find the article interesting in the 7 Myths of HDR though, and appropriate for HDR regardless of the program one uses.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

Jakebrake wrote:

I agree. I as well don't use HDR much, but when I do I use Photomatix Pro. I did find the article interesting in the 7 Myths of HDR though, and appropriate for HDR regardless of the program one uses.

Highly recommend trying Aurora in the 30 day trial. I think you'll find it more intuitive and simpler to get the results you're after. I also have Photomatix, but am finding I use Aurora more and more often, especially the 2018 version which is so much better!

Vienna74 Loc: Bountiful, Utah now Panama

I shoot bracketed sets wherever possible, even hand-held, because it gives me the option of processing as HDR or choosing a single best exposure for normal or HDR post-processing. I often dial back certain aspects from presets (I use Photomatic 6) to achieve more realistic results, but the added depth and texture I keep is the difference between blah and bang.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

mrjcall wrote:

Highly recommend trying Aurora in the 30 day trial. I think you'll find it more intuitive and simpler to get the results you're after. I also have Photomatix, but am finding I use Aurora more and more often, especially the 2018 version which is so much better!

OK, ya sold me. I'll try Aurora HDR and compare. Incidentally, I just downloaded Topaz Studio, (free) and it seems they have a pretty good HDR converter for single shot jpeg's. I did this just for fun, and the results are not too bad.

Taken at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Wildlife Preserve

(Download)

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

camerapapi wrote:

I do not use HDR often, perhaps I should. I know Aurora is a very good software but I love Photomatic Professional. It fits my needs.
I am in agreement, HDR results look realistic but we can make them as weird as we want.
I always use presets and go realistic with my images.

I have both. Aurora is good but no better than Photomatix Pro. Both have strengths and weaknesses. If I had to choose one it would be Photomatix hands down.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

kymarto wrote:

I have both. Aurora is good but no better than Photomatix Pro. Both have strengths and weaknesses. If I had to choose one it would be Photomatix hands down.

I think you'd find Aurora 2018 to be a strong competitor against Photomatix Pro.....actually pulling ahead in some of the capabilities.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

mrjcall wrote:

I think you'd find Aurora 2018 to be a strong competitor against Photomatix Pro.....actually pulling ahead in some of the capabilities.

Yes, in some. But sadly lacking in others where Photomatix is strong.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

kymarto wrote:

Yes, in some. But sadly lacking in others where Photomatix is strong.

Example?

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Selective deghosting, which Photomatix does beautifully. Does not open .dng files. Does not save tiff 16 bit files—an absolute mistake. Photomatix has three different local tonemappers, each giving a slightly different look, which can be very useful. Saves the 32 bit intermediary file in a proprietary format, which cannot be opened in any other HDR program.

I do like the look of the tonemapper, but don’t always find the result as pleasing as Photomatix, although on the other hand sometimes I find it better.

I usually make my original 32 bit file in Photomatix because of the deghosting, and then make various versions in Photomatix, SNShdr and Lightroom, and then mask together the best elements of each. Aurora claims to open .hdr files but does not. It claims to open 32 bit floating point tiff files but the tonemapping results are horrible.

So for me Aurora is of limited value.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

kymarto wrote:

Selective deghosting, which Photomatix does beauti... (show quote)

Yep, I'll give you the selective defrosting....

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

mrjcall wrote:

Some good reasons to use Aurora HDR even if you haven't liked HDR in the past.

https://aurorahdr.com/7-myths-about-hdr-photography?kmi=mrjcall%40gmail.com&utm_source=Aurora+HDR+Friends&utm_campaign=897ad97f09-HDR_myths_Aurora_EN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fcda7c57a9-897ad97f09-270841185&mc_cid=897ad97f09&mc_eid=75bdd5ed7a

NO, if you don't like HDR, why bother?

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

speters wrote:

NO, if you don't like HDR, why bother?

High Dynamic Range doesn't have to mean the grunge look. Here's an example I shot on the BRP this afternoon of using Aurora HDR processing without the typical effect....

(Download)