Aurora HDR, is it really better than the originals?
I have noticed a few posts featuring photographs on Steemit that have been enhanced with some photo manipulation software called ‘Aurora HDR’.
Without explaining too much, just look at these images, the top one is the original and the ones following contains filters.
I think @beautifulbullies has used this software in the past, or something similar, but it did'nt really click with me when I saw them the first time.
(Original Image)
(Architecture HDR Look 3 Filter)
Like any aspiring Steemian, I jumped out of my car on the way home to capture this photograph of Pendle Hill in Lancashire. If you see things, you just need to stop and capture them!
Do you think they enhance the image or are they just a little too much? The product comes with many filters and I tried just a few. I even reduced the modified ones to 800 x 600 just for you @enchantedspirit!
The sky seems quite unreal compared to the originals but the detail on buildings and bushes is quite startling. Blacks are blacker and colours are sharper and more focused.
(Original Image)
(Architecture HDR Look 3 Filter)
This is the Leeds/Liverpool canal quite close to my home, and was taken several weeks beforehand while I was an unemployed bum. What good times.
The original canal picture is a little mundane but with the filter the reflections come to life and everything seems so much alive. The sky details are enhanced but once again I’m not taken with that particular detail.
The last photograph I took while driving home tonight. I stopped several times to try and get some good snaps.
The clouds were looking good and this one in particular was stunning. I tried a few filters on it, but I think the original still looks the best.
(Original Image)
(Foggy Morning Filter)
(Landscape Detailed Filter)
(Shelling Filter)
(Toot Goes Pillowbuns Filter)
What do you think of these filters? Good, bad or indifferent?
If you found this article so invigorating that you are now a positively googly-eyed, drooling lunatic with dripping saliva or even if you liked it just a bit, then please upvote, comment, resteem, engage me or all of these things.
I think it has it's uses, but I also think it can detract from the main image. For example the first one I feel is a little too extra (my opinion). The one of the canal though, I think it really enhances the picture and makes and already great shot even better. I am a member of a regional Aurora Borealis hunting group and I think a lot of them probably use a filter like this to make their pictures "pop" a little more.
I admit I am in favor of slightly improving a picture and tweaking its contrast, exposure and the like. But I think this filter goes way too far, this looks absolutely unreal.
I rhink there is a middle ground to be found.
I think so too, they are good to tinker with though.
FOR TSE: I like the original photos better, too -- and since I was tagged in this post, I'll give an opinion.
I use flickr.com for my images -- and occasionally I'll come across photos that look like your filtered ones. The resolutions may be sharper but the colors are too intense. The sky can look positively frightening -- and I never use ones like that.
I had no idea how it was done. I assumed it was just a difference in camera equipment or processing. It's kind of sad to see it's deliberate. Often it just ruins the picture.
I think Ill stick to my original scary sky. This software has its uses, but I don't want to fork out £99 for it. I was gathering opinions and most, like you say they prefer the originals.