Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is Luminar worthwhile?  (Read 7459 times)

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2017, 08:44:54 AM »

Most software today uses DCRAW for conversion at some point under the hood, or at least most of them do.

That is interesting. My "most" I assume ON1 Photo RAW and Luminar, at least?

ON1's demosaicing doesn't seem to resolve details nearly as well as LR nor C1. Is that because of DCRAW?
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

Alan Smallbone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 753
    • APS Photography
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2017, 10:11:47 AM »

That is interesting. My "most" I assume ON1 Photo RAW and Luminar, at least?

ON1's demosaicing doesn't seem to resolve details nearly as well as LR nor C1. Is that because of DCRAW?

I think but not absolutely certain that ACR and LR use parts of Dcraw or they integrated some parts of it. The Dcraw program itself has a tons of options and how the data is handled is often up to the other software that uses it. I am not a pixel peeper and what matters to me is getting results I am happy with, and how happy I am with prints and viewing the images. Doing minute comparisons at the pixel level I suppose can be interesting, but not the most important thing for me.

That being said if you want the ultimate in detail then use Iridient, or Capture One and or be very picky how you apply your sharpening, depending on the image some form of deconvolution may be needed.  There are all kinds of factors, lens blur, capture setting, lens distortion and capture and post creative sharpening and editing that all can affect the apparent sharpness of an image and the "details". I find that On1 and Luminar do acceptable conversions, if I really am picky about a particular image than I will convert in Iridient and the process in something else like On1.

The only way to decide it is to try out all the different programs with your own test image and decide what is acceptable to you.

Alan
Logged
Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13917
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2017, 10:26:29 AM »

I think but not absolutely certain that ACR and LR use parts of Dcraw or they integrated some parts of it.
Doesn't matter does it? What each converter 'uses' is moot considering they all differ in quality. It's the rendering, how the rubber meets the road (and the person driving) that counts.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Alan Smallbone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 753
    • APS Photography
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2017, 11:14:11 AM »

Doesn't matter does it? What each converter 'uses' is moot considering they all differ in quality. It's the rendering, how the rubber meets the road (and the person driving) that counts.

Yes that was kind of my point but I did not state it, there are lots of factors besides what does the demosaicing. All of the software are just tools, use what works for you and gives the results you are happy with getting.

Alan
Logged
Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2017, 12:21:07 PM »

Doesn't matter does it? What each converter 'uses' is moot considering they all differ in quality. It's the rendering, how the rubber meets the road (and the person driving) that counts.

Sure. I didn’t realize that DCRAW could be used in different ways as desired by different hosts. I have not been satisfied with ON1’s raw conversions compared to C1 Pro after both have been used to tweak the image. I, at least, can’t get ON1 to where C1 Pro gets easily.

If DCRAW was doing all the work for ON1 and Luminar, I wouldn’t be too optimistic about Luminar. Because there is such flexibility of use, I need to give the demo version of Luminar a test of my own.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13917
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2017, 01:13:00 PM »

Sure. I didn’t realize that DCRAW could be used in different ways as desired by different hosts.
These hosts are all filled with sliders/controls and their own proprietary processing. Finding two that can produce identical rendering is harder than finding vast differences.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2018, 03:42:42 PM »

After purchasing Aurora 2018 and being impressed, I decided to purchase Luminar 2018. I have to admit, I'm underwhelmed. It's "ok", and though the price was decent, it hardly replaces Lightroom, Photoshop or my other standbys such as Capture One and DxO. It's perhaps nice for some special effects, but I just don't feel compelled to use it.

I'd be curious if others have better experiences.

Lundberg02

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2018, 11:52:44 PM »

Iridient is one click and done for me.
Logged

Alan Smallbone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 753
    • APS Photography
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2018, 01:07:17 PM »

After purchasing Aurora 2018 and being impressed, I decided to purchase Luminar 2018. I have to admit, I'm underwhelmed. It's "ok", and though the price was decent, it hardly replaces Lightroom, Photoshop or my other standbys such as Capture One and DxO. It's perhaps nice for some special effects, but I just don't feel compelled to use it.

I'd be curious if others have better experiences.

The big advantage of these other apps is that there is more sophisticated masking tools than what is included in LR. Luminar is not intended at this time to replace LR, there is no DAM yet, they claim they are adding it for this year. Photoshop is a completely different beast, and the app that currently best replaces PS is Affinity Photo.

Yes the filter method is a different workflow.

Alan
Logged
Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2018, 01:55:03 PM »

I just don't find Luminar's raw detail resolution to be as good as LR or CO. For me, they have a ways to catch up. After they add their DAM features, I may take another look.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

Frodo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
    • http://
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2018, 01:49:18 PM »

I'm using Windows and could not make the LR plug-in work. LR expirted the file to Luminar fine, but Luminar did not hand the edited file back. I tried both export to Luminar and edit in Luminar. This means that the Luminar edited file needs to be imported into LR , which is a pain. Nik Silver Effex plug-in works seamlessly.

Luminar has a few "filters" that are interesting (e.g. soft glow for portraiture), the erase tool works better than the healing brush in LR, but I have yet to try the layer masks. Raw conversion is okay, waaay better thanAffinity which provides very ability to push shadows and pull highlights.

Its just over $100 in New Zealand so about twice the price of Affinity. But the plug-in has to work before I am interested.
Logged

ihv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
    • http://www.flickr.com/ihv
Re: Is Luminar worthwhile?
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2018, 06:08:16 AM »

Raw conversion is okay, waaay better thanAffinity which provides very ability to push shadows and pull highlights.

In Affinity, the recovery seems to be greatly improved in the upcoming 1.6.3 version: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/53250-affinity-photo-customer-beta-16398/&do=findComment&comment=269146

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up