# HDR soft feeback needed



## Bertha (Dec 16, 2015)

Has anybody used or hear about Aurorahdr soft?? 
Need more feedbacks (im choosing of aurora, affinity and hydra hdr soft)
so im waiting :hail:


----------



## clee01l (Dec 16, 2015)

Welcome to the forum.  Why do you want to buy a $250 product (on sale for $99) when you can upgrade to LR 6.3  for $79?  LR6.3 has HDR included in addition to new features not available in LR5.7.  And For $120/yr, you can get a subscription to LR & _Photoshop_ that has continual updates


----------



## Bertha (Dec 17, 2015)

hmm i have already thinking about buying LR and PS..my friend tell me this soft are great for mac..but i think now its really can be expensive (maybe it will be some discount on Christmas)


----------



## Michael D. (Dec 17, 2015)

If you subscribe, Photoshop and LR will cost you about 34 cents per day.   Not sure if you can get a better deal than that!


----------



## DGStinner (Dec 17, 2015)

You can download a trial of AuroraHDR Pro for free. It is limited during the trial.  Non-pro can be bought in the App Store for $30. Pro plus other goodies is $99.


----------



## mcasan (Dec 27, 2015)

Aurora HDR does things that LR HDR can not remote do....such as creating layers and letting you create/modify masks.    On advantage of LR HDR, the output is DNG.   With Aurora, like many other plugins, the output comes back to LR as PSD or TIF.   Yesterday I got Aurora plus the Creative Kit from Macphun.    Great and fun tools.    Reminds me of the good old days years ago when Nik Software was cutting edge and fun.   My understanding is that Macphun was founded by former Nik employees who left when Google took over the company.


----------



## clee01l (Dec 27, 2015)

mcasan said:


> ...   One advantage of LR HDR, the output is DNG.   With Aurora, like many other plugins, the output comes back to LR as PSD or TIF...


This is neither an advantage or disadvantage. The DNG that LR HDR outputs is an RGB DNG. It is not a RAW Format. I haven't checked, but it could even be a lossy DNG similar to the Compressed files that LR sends to LR Mobile.  PSDs, TIFFs & RGB DNGs are very similar file formats.  All are derived from the TIFF/EP6 file standard.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 27, 2015)

Except that the LR DNG is still true HDR; it is a 16 bits floating point linear RGB file. The Aurora output may be 16 bits too, but it won't be linear RGB and it will be integer rather than floating point. That means it can not have a dynamic range that exceeds 16 stops, so it's no longer true HDR.


----------



## mcasan (Dec 27, 2015)

Adobe HDR does not hold a candle to what Aurora HDR can do.  If the Adobe product could do the same range of processing, Macphun and Trey Ratcliffe would not have made the product.    IMHO, Macphun makes some of the best value post processing tools on the market.   I fully agree that using LR as the DAM makes total sense.

Watch the Aurora HDR training videos and see for yourself.      http://aurorahdr.com/video-gallery


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Dec 28, 2015)

mcasan said:


> If the Adobe product could do the same range of processing



It sounds like you're saying Adobe are half way there - the HDR file they're creating has all of the information they need, but the sliders need a greater range for HDR files.


----------



## mcasan (Dec 28, 2015)

Actually I am not saying that at all.  With Aurora you can add layers to do specific things such as noise reduction or add a texture overlay image.   Aurora is well past the of simply adding sidecars edits to a raw file.   They are creating layered documents that you bring back to LR as TIF or PSD files.     Run through the Aurora videos to see the huge gap between HDR inside LR and what you can do with Aurora.  HDR inside LR is a very nice thing to have and for some folks it will be enough....just like for some folks the Develop module is enough of an editor.   But for many photographers LR is a good DAM and an OK editor.   But the editing capabilities and noise reduction inside LR are far from bleeding edge.


----------



## Dave Miller (Dec 28, 2015)

mcasan said:


> Actually I am not saying that at all.  With Aurora you can add layers to do specific things such as noise reduction or add a texture overlay image.   Aurora is well past the of simply adding sidecars edits to a raw file.   They are creating layered documents that you bring back to LR as TIF or PSD files.     Run through the Aurora videos to see the huge gap between HDR inside LR and what you can do with Aurora.  HDR inside LR is a very nice thing to have and for some folks it will be enough....just like for some folks the Develop module is enough of an editor.   But for many photographers LR is a good DAM and an OK editor.   But the editing capabilities and noise reduction inside LR are far from bleeding edge.



I doubt that LR is intended to be "leading edge" that's the job of Photoshop.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 28, 2015)

I think that comparing Aurora and Lightroom HDR is comparing apples and oranges. First of all, Lightroom HDR is meant to be as realistic as possible. It's meant to use HDR in such a way that you can't see it's HDR. In that respect it does a great job - at least most of the time. It's still a work in progress though. Lightroom is not Photoshop however. If you want layers or texture overlay, or anything else, that's what Photoshop is for.

To me Aurora is very 'Trey Ratcliffe-ish'. Almost every example on their website looks overcooked to me. I see very few examples that don't have the word 'HDR' all over it in capital letters. I tried it and got similar results. Of course you don't have to overcook things in Aurora, but it's clearly aimed at people who fancy the type of HDR photos that Trey Ratcliffe makes. If you like that it's great, because you can achieve these results fairly easily and you've got powerful tools to dive deeper if you want to. MacPhun has done a great job in that respect. But I don't like it, so I'll pass.


----------



## smcf (Dec 28, 2015)

Just out of pure boredom I banged off 5 bracketed shots out the window just now and produced an HDR shot from both Aurora HDR and Lr HDR. You can judge for yourself about the results. These are both unaltered; meaning I didn't push into Trey territory while in Aurora HDR. The point is you can get a fairly natural looking result from Aurora (if you want).


----------



## mcasan (Dec 29, 2015)

> The point is you can get a fairly natural looking result from Aurora (if you want).



Exactly.   Trey's style may be a bit much for many folks.   But it is great that Aurora can do the extremes because then you know it can do the subtle with ease.    Folks can produce garish images using just Develop module, without even using HDR at all.  Usually it is the artist, not the brush.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 29, 2015)

mcasan said:


> Exactly.   Trey's style may be a bit much for many folks.   But it is great that Aurora can do the extremes because then you know it can do the subtle with ease.    Folks can produce garish images using just Develop module, without even using HDR at all.  Usually it is the artist, not the brush.



My point was that if you like a more subtle HDR, you don't need a product that is aimed at the more extreme 'Trey' style (even if it can do subtle versions too, which I also confirmed). You've got everything you need in Lightroom right now, so why pay for something that adds little (if you like to keep it subtle). Apart from that, everybody is free to use and to like what he/she uses or likes. This is not a contest so we don't need to establish who is the 'winner' here.


----------

