Luminar 4 anyone ?

[Joseph Hanna]

Gosh that’s so strange. I can honestly say in all the years I’ve had the software it’s never, not a single time, crashed. Some of the forums I visit surrounding photo editing almost unanimously praise the solution as a very robust build and I honestly don’t recall a single “Capture One” crashes thread. I wonder why it would be so good for some and such a joke for others? Have you looked into why it might be crashing on your particular system? Might be worth a look if you indeed haven’t explored that avenue.

I will add however that of the three solutions (Luminar, Lightroom and Cap 1) Luminar crashes the most and with the most dire consequences that of which includes losing data. Once in a blue moon Lightroom gets fidgety but with no consternation other than a re-boot.

I think everyone has different goals that they wish to gain in post production. I like to shoot wide so how the software handles raw files is really important to me. Lightroom for instance butchers my FujiFilm shoots. Conversely Capture One not only handles the FujiFilm brilliantly but it also does great with my Sony Alpha stuff. The second most important aspect for me (especially when shooting wide, or ultra wide) is decently crafted lens correction. Lightroom certainly has the biggest library but Capture One a very close second. Comparatively Luminar just absolutely su#ks at lens profiles. It’s simply unusable at wide and ultra wide.

Anyway I like to discuss this stuff (obviously) and love to hear folks experiences , good and bad.

Horses for courses I suppose

 

[Ysarex83 77]

Gosh that’s so strange. I can honestly say in all the years I’ve had the software it’s never, not a single time, crashed. Some of the forums I visit surrounding photo editing almost unanimously praise the solution as a very robust build and I honestly don’t recall a single “Capture One” crashes thread. I wonder why it would be so good for some and such a joke for others? Have you looked into why it might be crashing on your particular system? Might be worth a look if you indeed haven’t explored that avenue.

I will add however that of the three solutions (Luminar, Lightroom and Cap 1) Luminar crashes the most and with the most dire consequences that of which includes losing data. Once in a blue moon Lightroom gets fidgety but with no consternation other than a re-boot.

I think everyone has different goals that they wish to gain in post production. I like to shoot wide so how the software handles raw files is really important to me. Lightroom for instance butchers my FujiFilm shoots. Conversely Capture One not only handles the FujiFilm brilliantly but it also does great with my Sony Alpha stuff. The second most important aspect for me (especially when shooting wide, or ultra wide) is decently crafted lens correction. Lightroom certainly has the biggest library but Capture One a very close second. Comparatively Luminar just absolutely su#ks at lens profiles. It’s simply unusable at wide and ultra wide.

Anyway I like to discuss this stuff (obviously) and love to hear folks experiences , good and bad.

Horses for courses I suppose

I get paid to teach Adobe (LR/PS). I have LR/PS installed on my computers because I have to teach it. I think it's excellent software and I recommend it especially to folks who want to do this professionally. But personally I switched to Capture One back in 2011/12. Capture One runs on my Laptop and current desktop, my previous desktop and the desktop before that and the laptop before that and it doesn't crash or create errors of any kind. Can't remember it ever failing and I use it almost daily and have for the past 8 years.

Because of my job teaching I maintain copies of a lot of different photo processing software. I have a copy of Luminar 4.

I don't think I can say anything good about it; hang on while I go load it up and try.......Nope. As usual I either find something new that's wrong with it or I get reminded about something I found before that upsets me. Yep, lens profiles are missing and how about input profiles -- at least an input tone curve I can have some control over?

My biggest complaint about Luminar as I noted earlier in the thread is that it's raw workflow is destructive. I really hate that. This is a high priority goal for me. I want my raw workflow to be 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable.

Here's an example why.

raw file

That's a dropbox link to a raw file from a Fuji XE-2. Here's my edited version of that photo processed in Capture One. The processing meets my goal of 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. If you take the trouble and look at the raw file you'll notice I removed a tree branch from in front of the window.

Fuji users fuss a lot about their Fuji film simulation profiles. Any decent raw processor either provides them (not Luminar) or at least allows for the user to add them. I used the Provia film sim for the above processing. Let's say I want to change my mind and use a different one or even let's say I want two versions. Let's see the photo with the Velvia film sim:

To do that all I had to do was make a single selection from a drop menu in C1.

LR users will find the tools in LR can't handle the branch removal and they'll go to PS to do it. But the editing in PS is destructive and then they can't do what I just did. Luminar is just out of the question as it comes with destructive editing builtin.

But Luminar can replace your sky. Can C1 do that. No, C1 can't replace a sky. Luminar is sold as a collection of canned effects. C1 is an raw file parametric editor. During this period of isolation from the virus my wife and I have resorted to ordering staple foodstuffs from Target. Yesterday we opened one of our newly purchased cans of pineapple. My wife said, "It's not bad, I can barely taste the can." I said, "I taste the can." That's the problem with canned anything including photo effects: everything that comes out of a can tastes like a can.

Joe

 

[Joseph Hanna]

Agree with all of this. It appears our goals are similar and yes I’m a bit enamored with Fuji film sims and honestly my Fuji camera(s) as well. I guess it could be a placebo like thing but there’s an intangible there that is compelling and satisfying. I’ve gotten pretty proficient on my Sony Alpha’s but sometimes the ease of the Fuji makes for an undeniably creative tool.

I love the pineapple reference. There’s always something artificial about things I’ve done in Luminar. Some love it and I support that but that’s just not the goal and outcome I’m after. The AI can get pretty ugly and in a hurry and as I mentioned it just flubs the ultra wide stuff.

That kinda brings me full circle and much like the intangible attraction to FujiFilm the same goes for Capture One in that there’s just something there, and in the way it handles raw files, that is immediately satisfying. I’m definitely ok with Lightroom, with the exception of how my Fuji stuff looks (although I do think it’s better at that than in the past) but still...for me Capture One covers far more ground for “my” needs.

If only they’d hurry up and get a Sigma 14-24 lens profile I’d be completely set

 

[crf8]

capture one


FB.me/CRFinTN Facebook
www.flickr.com/crf8/

 

[COPhotoGuy52]

I like it. I works for some photos. I am just trying to get use to it. I still like PS for some things though.

 

[Mike Drone]

I am interested as well. I received an ad that it was on sale and have been trying to make time to review it before it goes off sale. Right now I pay for Photoshop yearly. A one time buy would be great.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

I am interested as well. I received an ad that it was on sale and have been trying to make time to review it before it goes off sale. Right now I pay for Photoshop yearly. A one time buy would be great.

It's not a one time buy, it's a one time buy until they upgrade and you need the upgrade. If you have the Adobe Photographer's package then you have Lightroom. Luminar is a crude kludge by comparison.

Joe

 

[COPhotoGuy52]

I am interested as well. I received an ad that it was on sale and have been trying to make time to review it before it goes off sale. Right now I pay for Photoshop yearly. A one time buy would be great.

It's not a one time buy, it's a one time buy until they upgrade and you need the upgrade. If you have the Adobe Photographer's package then you have Lightroom. Luminar is a crude kludge by comparison.

Joe

I think of Luminar as Lightroom on steroids. Photoshop will always be an amazing program, But some people can't afford the insane price year after year. I am still on CS5 , for the most part I don't need a upgrade. I would love to upgrade to the latest and greatest. Then I wouldn't need to upgrade for 5 or 6 years at least . Being that adobe doesn't work that way any more I am stuck.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

I am interested as well. I received an ad that it was on sale and have been trying to make time to review it before it goes off sale. Right now I pay for Photoshop yearly. A one time buy would be great.

It's not a one time buy, it's a one time buy until they upgrade and you need the upgrade. If you have the Adobe Photographer's package then you have Lightroom. Luminar is a crude kludge by comparison.

Joe

I think of Luminar as Lightroom on steroids. Photoshop will always be an amazing program, But some people can't afford the insane price year after year. I am still on CS5 , for the most part I don't need a upgrade. I would love to upgrade to the latest and greatest. Then I wouldn't need to upgrade for 5 or 6 years at least . Being that adobe doesn't work that way any more I am stuck.

I think of Luminar as Lightroom on a really bad trip.
Luminar is supposed to be a competitor in the field of raw conversion programs with enhanced editing abilities. These apps:

Lightroom
Capture One
On1
DXO PhotoLab
SilkyPix Pro
DarkTable
etc.

In addition to converting a raw file these apps provide editing capabilities that are often sufficient to complete an image edit without recourse to a raster editor like PS or Affinity.

Let's compare just one simple capability: A gradient that will allow you to for example darken the sky selectively.

So we begin by selecting the gradient tool (create a layer if that's required) and draw the gradient over the sky area that we want to darken. Next step is to apply the degree of change we want and then we continue working on the image. But in the process of editing an image one change bumps into another change and then another and we always end up with a little tweaking and fine-tuning back and forth. So after you let's say made a color adjustment in the foreground and a contrast change you decide the gradient needs a tweak.

Not a problem in LightRoom, Capture One, On1, PhotoLab, SilkyPix, or DarkTable just go back to the gradient and make the tweak -- maybe a slight rotation or pull it up a little or expand the area of gradation or whatever. But in Luminar your gradient once created became cast in concrete. You can't go back and adjust it. Your only option is to delete the gradient entirely and start over trying really hard to get it right since you won't be able to adjust it later. I wouldn't even call that bad design -- that's broken.

Joe

 

[DaveAllen]

I have it and have played around with it some, but can't say that I've seen anything I'd actually use in my work.

 

[JBPhotog1]

Fuji users fuss a lot about their Fuji film simulation profiles. Any decent raw processor either provides them (not Luminar) or at least allows for the user to add them. I used the Provia film sim for the above processing. Let's say I want to change my mind and use a different one or even let's say I want two versions. Let's see the photo with the Velvia film sim:

LR users will find the tools in LR can't handle the branch removal and they'll go to PS to do it. But the editing in PS is destructive and then they can't do what I just did. Luminar is just out of the question as it comes with destructive editing builtin.
Joe

Yes you can do this in PS and the steps are really simple.

- Open the file in ACR and select the "Workflow Options", select the checkbox next to "Open in Photoshop as Smart Objects".
- In PS make a new layer above your Smart Object(SO) layer and clone out the branch.
- Click on the SO layer icon and it takes you back into ACR, select the "Camera Calibration" tab and select a new profile, once done click the "OK" button.
- The file is rendered with your new profile and the cloning out of the branch is retained.

Additionally, if you want to visually see the two or more versions in your PS workflow, select your SO layer in PS with a right click and select "New Smart Object via Copy" from the contextual menu. This creates an independent copy of the SO layer. If you click on the copy SO layer icon it will open back up in ACR where you can change the profile and save this new version with the "OK" button. The file will render with these new settings in PS and leave the original SO layer alone. Now you can have two versions of the SO layers or as many as you like in your one PS document. Turning them on or off will show you a comparison.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

Fuji users fuss a lot about their Fuji film simulation profiles. Any decent raw processor either provides them (not Luminar) or at least allows for the user to add them. I used the Provia film sim for the above processing. Let's say I want to change my mind and use a different one or even let's say I want two versions. Let's see the photo with the Velvia film sim:

LR users will find the tools in LR can't handle the branch removal and they'll go to PS to do it. But the editing in PS is destructive and then they can't do what I just did. Luminar is just out of the question as it comes with destructive editing builtin.
Joe

Yes you can do this in PS and the steps are really simple.

No.

- Open the file in ACR and select the "Workflow Options", select the checkbox next to "Open in Photoshop as Smart Objects".
- In PS make a new layer above your Smart Object(SO) layer and clone out the branch.
- Click on the SO layer icon and it takes you back into ACR, select the "Camera Calibration" tab and select a new profile, once done click the "OK" button.
- The file is rendered with your new profile and the cloning out of the branch is retained.

All correct but you forget to note that the cloning out of the branch is retained with the earlier profile and does not update the change. Any raster layer in PS will not update a change made to a Smart Object. The cloning work will therefore show and you'll be forced to re-do the cloning work. In an editor that is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable like C1 the cloning work will update the profile change.

So no, you can't really do that in PS, the raster layer is effectively destructive.

Joe

 

[JBPhotog1]

Well there I go talking out of my backside again. I should have actually tried my solution before proclaiming it from a theoretical standpoint since I have never change the film simulation after edits are made. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

Well there I go talking out of my backside again. I should have actually tried my solution before proclaiming it from a theoretical standpoint since I have never change the film simulation after edits are made. Thanks for the correction.

Photoshop gets close by using Smart Objects and no other raster editor has that option -- kudos Adobe. The term non-destructive editing gets a lot of play. It should because for those of us that handle a large volume of photographs it can really matter. Re-doing editing work unnecessarily sucks and re-doing editing work unnecessarily for dozens if not hundreds of photos sucks real big. So all the vendors make some kind of claim in their advertising that they support non-destructive editing. Most of them do partially but very few do so 100% in the context of a raw workflow. Luminar which is the topic of this thread is on top of the bad list. Editing in Luminar is destructive which is remarkable. The key to fully non-destructive editing is to do the work parametrically. Raster editors like PS can't really pull it off. Yet here's Luminar which is at least on face value a parametric editor turning in worse performance than PS which is a raster editor. In respect then to a non-destructive editing workflow Luminar sucks real big.

Joe

 

[Space Face]

I've just watched a fairly in depth video review of the functions of this software and must admit it does look fantastic.

The sky replacement is a bit gimmicky but it looks good and easy to use. Dunno if I'd use any of the presets (ie use someone else's) but as you can upload your own that's the option I'd go for if I were to use it.

I must admit I'm sorely tempted, purely for it's ability to bring out the best of the RAW files for landscapes.