Luminar vs Aurora?

Comments

7 comments

  • Avatar
    Angela Andrieux

    Hi Pappu,

    I don't think we have a side-by-side comparison published (not a bad idea, though!) Here are my thoughts on how the two stack up against each other:

    Aurora HDR is designed for high dynamic range style photography which is generally characterized by enhanced detail throughout all tonal ranges. It works great on single exposures, but really shines when merging multiple images.

    Luminar, on the other hand, is built to handle many different photographic styles, but is designed for starting with a single exposure only.

    As for a comparison of tools - many of the tools are similar but very few are exactly the same.

    I put together a quick comparison chart of the filters so you can see roughly how they compare. Also keep in mind that Luminar has Free Transform, Clone/Stamp, and Erase tools (none of which are present in Aurora HDR) and the way that the filters are applied (and can be individually masked) differs tremendously..

    For my personal workflow I find that the two application work beautifully together. I use Aurora to merge exposures and get toning where I want it and then jump to Luminar for more stylistic edits.

    I hope that helps! Let me know if I can clarify anything for you.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Pappu Murthy

    Great job you did with your comparison. But I feel a smart user can probably simulate a lot of Luminar filters in Aurora as well. But Luminar can never merge differently exposed photos into one. Also, Luminar can not merge and stitch which Aurora can not do either anyway. I really think that both softwares should merge into one, and eliminate the redundancy and add stitching several images and a database management That will make it real super duper software.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Pappu Murthy

    Black and white conversion, Brightness/contrast controls, clarity etc are really not that hard to simulate in Aurora. I agree though that Dehaze is something I have no clue how one would go about doing in Aurora. One has to run to PS to do that I guess. Oh well, just some random thoughts.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Angela Andrieux

    Hi Pappu

    I'm glad the comparison was helpful! You're right in that a smart user can create most of the effects using the tools in Aurora as well. 

    I don't know if Luminar and Aurora will be merged into a single app in the future, but I agree it would be a powerhouse!

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Lee Bo

    Thanks for that side-by-side image.  It helped a lot.

    I purchased Luminar and use it regularly.  I installed the trial of Aurora and liked it, but ended up going back to Luminar as Aurora didn't have all the "fine editing" tools.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Urs Stettler

    Totally agree with Pappu. The less I have to import/export, transfer photos and open and close different softwares, the better. As it stands right now, I need Lightroom to stitch, Aurora to handle HDR and Luminar to benefit from all its filters. Too complicted! Please, let me know when you offer the combination software and I'll be certain to buy.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    John Kress

    Me too. I am still very confused about this. I think you need both, so why is there 2 different applications overlapping in this way. Just charge more and get rid of the redundancies. Having to pick through both, swapping back and forth is ridiculous. If I had to pick one it would be Arora...

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.