Topic: Skylum / Luminar? (Read 1747 times)

jrp · « **on:** November 23, 2019, 06:13:08 pm »

The market seems to consist of Adobe, which has a lot of resource, but only seems to do the bare minimum to keep ahead of the pack, and a bunch of small-medium sized shops that produce imaging software with occasional flashes of brilliance.

Some of the Luminar 4 demos look vg, but Skylum seems to have gained a reputation second only to Adobe in toxicity. Similarly for the On1 folks.

Is there any excuse for a program to actually crash in 2019?

Anyway, given that the investment in a piece of software is mainly in your time, rather than the $xy up front, are any of the alternatives worth it, at present?

Martin Kristiansen · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2019, 10:07:39 pm »

I have been using Luminar 3 for about a month and now 4 since it was released. Neither versions have ever crashed on me. Processing mostly Sony files 24MP and 42MP but also some 80 MP Leaf files. I have tried running it stand-alone, as a plug in to PS and as a plug in to LR. The latter seems to be where I am settling with the software.

Not sure exactly how I will end up using the software but it certainly seems interesting and not just the much touted sky replacement feature. There are quite a few less flashy features that I am finding useful and will very likely end up using. More and more LR is becoming my DAM tool and a place I do quick adjustments. It’s also useful for outputting various formats and sizes for my clients with presets.

An intelligent discussion about this software would be interesting I think.

rdonson · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2019, 10:06:17 pm »

I’ve been using Luminar 4 since it became available for those who bought it prior to public release.

Like Martin I use it from Lightroom. I don’t use it on every photo but on those I think I can create something better. The AI tools are not difficult to use but they can be abused by the ham fisted. Its never crashed on me but I’ve found some bugs which I don’t think keep me from using it effectively.

Yes, I have PS and LR and other tools for processing as well. DXO Nik collection and other plugins.

I’m also quite satisfied with Adobe. I’ve not had Adobe LR or Ps crash on me either and I’ve been using Lr since the first public beta and PS for a few years prior.

Martin Kristiansen · « **Reply #3 on:** November 25, 2019, 08:57:49 am »

About a minute to achieve this result. I just used a stock sky image and its not right I know that but the potential is there.

Martin Kristiansen · « **Reply #4 on:** November 25, 2019, 09:32:22 am »

Even more extreme. a minute or two in Luminar 4. Not to my taste but just showing what is possible with very little time and very little skill

chez · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2019, 10:52:55 am »

Quote from: Martin Kristiansen on November 25, 2019, 08:57:49 am

About a minute to achieve this result. I just used a stock sky image and its not right I know that but the potential is there.

Why even bother go out and shoot when you can just create images in your nice warm home using pieces from stock.

chez · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2019, 10:53:38 am »

Quote from: Martin Kristiansen on November 25, 2019, 09:32:22 am

Even more extreme. a minute or two in Luminar 4. Not to my taste but just showing what is possible with very little time and very little skill

And very little ownership or pride in the image.

Martin Kristiansen · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2019, 11:02:30 am »

Quote from: chez on November 25, 2019, 10:53:38 am

And very little ownership or pride in the image.

Well in the last image it was a sky I shot. So it’s all mine. I do own it I guess. I put it together as well. Pride is a different one. It’s never Liked the image anyway. The original was not successful but I thought it was a good candidate to fool around with.

But this software is here now, it’s not going to go away. It’s going to get better. Faster. To me it’s a game changer and I haven’t really figured out how I feel about it.

Lust4Life · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2019, 07:41:38 am »

I find the last couple of comments on this topic of interest, but a bit sad.

Only a very small portion of what is called "Photography" today can qualify as truly "Fine Art".

You can't even seek out and invest the time to find a "sky" that is beautiful in itself, but prefer to let
a software program generate one for you?

?

As John Stossel used to say, "Give me a Break!"

Martin Kristiansen · « **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2019, 08:20:02 am »

Quote from: Lust4Life on December 01, 2019, 07:41:38 am

I find the last couple of comments on this topic of interest, but a bit sad.

Only a very small portion of what is called "Photography" today can qualify as truly "Fine Art".

You can't even seek out and invest the time to find a "sky" that is beautiful in itself, but prefer to let
a software program generate one for you??

As John Stossel used to say, "Give me a Break!"

Give me a break please. I was attempting to open up an intelligent discussion about the implications of this new software. Clearly you aren’t my target audience. I was not attempting to create art with this example and have no interest in replacing the skies in my images at all. However many people will and if you think that all the software can do is replace the sky then you are in for a rude awakening. But if you prefer then put your head back in the sand, I’m sure the view is very comforting.

Also so the software doesn’t “generate” a sky. It has a rather modest selection of skies built into the software so you can experiment with that. The idea is actually to create a library of your own skies that you could then use should you choose to do so.

rdonson · « **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2019, 05:54:07 pm »

Here's one that was a fine sunset on the Blue Ridge (looking at the backside of Grandfather Man outside of Boone, NC) made better (IMHO) by Lr and Luminar 4. Likely nothing I couldn't have done in PS but it would have taken me far longer to achieve.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2019, 09:04:45 am »

IMHO, the OP is a good topic for a discussion, however the simplistic sky replacement examples took it to a wrong direction.
It would be much more useful to show and discuss Luminar tonal adjustments and practical AI effects below the sky.

Rand47 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2019, 10:17:24 am »

Quote from: Martin Kristiansen on November 25, 2019, 11:02:30 am

Well in the last image it was a sky I shot. So it’s all mine. I do own it I guess. I put it together as well. Pride is a different one. It’s never Liked the image anyway. The original was not successful but I thought it was a good candidate to fool around with.

But this software is here now, it’s not going to go away. It’s going to get better. Faster. To me it’s a game changer and I haven’t really figured out how I feel about it.

Martin, You’ve said a mouth full here, I think. I bought it and am similarly exploring. I found an old image that I’d taken at the Playa at DV. I’d driven out in the dark to catch the sunrise to have beautiful light and a stark empty sky. I took that file and added a sky in Luminar 4. Then just for fun posted it to my FaceBook page w/o comment on processing. What amazed me is how the unwashed masses gushed over the “amazing photo” and “beautiful light” and how talented I was to capture such a scene. I was flabbergasted, to say the least. It is, for sure, an “eye catching image” but I was expecting comments like “overworked” and “is this a composite” and the like. NOPE. Many other images that I’ve posted were much better “photography” and more delicately processed / nuanced. They received nice comments, but nothing like the “one button wonder” from DV. Arrrgh...

For architectural / RE work, some types of advertising work, and the like I think Luminar 4 will have a place ... so I’m fascinated. As a photographer-artist, I’m wondering what the heck the world is coming too. As someone said above, I’ll soon be able to shoot in Paris in the spring w/o leaving my home. What the.....?

Rand

Martin Kristiansen · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2019, 10:38:23 am »

I have been totally snowed under with commercial work the last while and haven’t had a chance to look at Luminar 4 in a while.

I have given it some thought though. I certainly see more commercial applications for the software than I do for my personal work. I recently shot a private jet for a client and had one morning to get the photography done. Interiors no issue but it was a windy morning with a flat overcast sky. I would have certainly used Luminar had it been available. A no brainer

Im off to a private game farm for a week starting 14 December. Seven days of luxury in a place belonging to friends and in return they would like a landscape photo from the place. It’s beautiful so that won’t be a hardship to shoot. A good trade I think. I have big plans and to be honest Luminar doesn’t really feature in those plans. If I see nice skies I will shoot them for commercial use in Luminar like with the aircraft photography. I just cannot see myself using sky replacement for my personal work.

Funny story about the game farm. She told me they had bought two giraffe and when the delivery was made 4 animals were dropped off. Dont you just hate it when FedEx screw up up like that?

John Hollenberg · « **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2019, 03:19:48 pm »

Quote from: Martin Kristiansen on December 07, 2019, 10:38:23 am

Funny story about the game farm. She told me they had bought two giraffe and when the delivery was made 4 animals were dropped off. Dont you just hate it when FedEx screw up up like that?

They really stuck their necks out with that delivery!

MattBurt · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2019, 03:46:32 pm »

I agree about something like sky replacement for certain commercial applications would be handy but I'd also probably not do it with my personal work. It's just not really a place I want to take my own images.

Terry_Kennedy · « **Reply #16 on:** December 12, 2019, 08:58:25 am »

Quote from: jrp on November 23, 2019, 06:13:08 pm

Is there any excuse for a program to actually crash in 2019?

Just to address this point the OP made, which I don't think anyone else has brought up...

Unless the app is running on the raw hardware (no operating system) which isn't practical now and was pretty much never practical except for certain very niche applications (mostly video), it has to deal with whatever bugs are in the language libraries, operating sytem window management, and the underlying operating system itself. It could be the best-behaved application ever and still suffer from crashes due to problems outside its control.

Now, 2 apps that provide the same sort of feature may behave differently - one uses hand-coded assembly language by the program's developers for speed, while the other uses GPU offload using a library provided by either the GPU vendor or the operating system. Is one going to be less prone to crashes? Probably. Can you correctly guess which one is which? Probably not.

As far as lots of users doing lots of things over many years, with the assumption that therefore all bugs have been found, I give you CVE-2019-1468. Microsoft isn't saying, but this is likely another bug in Adobe Type Manager, "The gift that keeps on giving".

shadowblade · « **Reply #17 on:** December 12, 2019, 09:02:37 am »

Sky replacement has been fantastic and worth the price of Luminar alone.

The reason? Masking.

Masking a sky in Photoshop can be a pain. It's easy enough when you're dealing with buildings and well-defined mountains, but much harder when dealing with foliage, long grasses and other things with elements of transparency.

The trick here is to use sky replacement to separate the sky, rather like a greenscreen, then, with a few adjustments, use that as a mask in Photoshop. Then you can apply curves, colour corrections and other normal adjustments to the sky, without affecting the rest of the scene.

All you need to do is create a 'sky' for the program to use, consisting of a single, flat colour that doesn't appear anywhere else in the scene (or, at least, anywhere else close to the sky). Use that as the 'sky' for the purpose of replacement, then export the result back to Photoshop and select for the colour you replaced the sky with.

Martin Kristiansen · « **Reply #18 on:** December 12, 2019, 09:58:19 am »

Clever Shadowblade.

Longcove2 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 12, 2019, 10:08:10 am »

I've read with some interest the comments about Luminar. I used Luminar 3 for some time trying to like it. It never crashed but it was painfully/unusably slow with every aspect of image development. So now I'm back with Lightroom 6 and still waiting for a usable replacement. I use Flex on occasion as a Lightroom Plug-in. I also use Affinity which probably provides the best bang for the buck. Unfortunately it has no DAM.
But a thought entered my tiny mind. I use Windows and the Luminar Windows Forum remains lit up with complaints about speed and crashes. Nobody here has mentioned this so are you all using Mac? Does Mac play nicer with Luminar?
As an aside. I do mostly bird photography and there are times when the bird has a background with boring blue, or worse, grey. The ability to easily replace sky is appealing although it goes against my ethics and artistic honesty - such as they are.

Author Topic: Skylum / Luminar? (Read 1747 times)