I played with Photoshop, PhotoLab, Luminar and WorkSpace

Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
341
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
First a little fun... spot the mistake....

_7061625_openWith-copy.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I have been using Luminar and Arora from the first available versions. They both great editors. Now with Luminar 4 and AI you have an extremely capable solution. Not only AI, Luminar has a lot of flexibility to make up your own creations and skies and more...

Something completely different but also really interesting to work with is PhotoLab 3. It takes a while to get use to but once you crossed the line the possibilities are endless....

Then the old workhorse Photoshop. Through out all the years I used Photoshop, cut some home made movies in Photoshop and been creative in my own style...

I edited a few images with these different editors, mixed them, used Luminar as a filter only plus plus...

See this link
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
341
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
The problem with the original image is the direction of the sun..... :) I added a few more images to the article...

_RGB0217_openWitha_web-ready_V1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I love the next one... Taken with a Canon PowerShot G7 many years back... It was impossible to get this type result and look at the time.... especially for my own skills at he time...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
341
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
All of them, except the last one in your second post (with the fence on the seafront) have the sun in a position contradictory to the lighting on the subject.
Well done.... the sky replacement function on Luminar 4 is awesome. The danger is exactly this.... the direction of the sun can be completely wrong.... I have not tried but the next step will be to create my own set of skies. I see one can buy skies on the Luminar website....does this mean one can build them?

All said, Luminar is surely great software with lots of potential....
 

grcolts

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
405
Location
Texas
Real Name
Gary
I just did a similar comparison using Darktable and Olympus Workspace. What I found was that both programs can deliver decent images. Darktable offers more processing options while Workspace is simpler and has a better slideshow option. One thing I wanted to look at was did Workspace deliver Olympus colors better than Darktable...my conclusion was that Darktable was just as good color wise as Workspace.
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,309
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
Well done.... the sky replacement function on Luminar 4 is awesome. The danger is exactly this.... the direction of the sun can be completely wrong.... I have not tried but the next step will be to create my own set of skies. I see one can buy skies on the Luminar website....does this mean one can build them?

All said, Luminar is surely great software with lots of potential....
I don’t know if I should be congratulated, wrong lighting tends to stand out like a sore thumb. I don’t really understand the current trend to make a shot more dramatic with an imported sky. But each to their own.
 

number17

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
177
I always used LR and then Darktable for processing, and have been very happy with them. The past 2 weeks I started fooling around with Luminar 3 and was pleasantly surprised how capable it is as a pure RAW processing application, and allows for far more creativity than what LR or DT could do.

This is what i did, after editing the photo for 3 min, as a newbie to Luminar

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And this is the original image

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
341
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
I always used LR and then Darktable for processing, and have been very happy with them. The past 2 weeks I started fooling around with Luminar 3 and was pleasantly surprised how capable it is as a pure RAW processing application, and allows for far more creativity than what LR or DT could do.

This is what i did, after editing the photo for 3 min, as a newbie to Luminar

View attachment 812539

And this is the original image

View attachment 812540
Great work... I am an older guy and one of the most challenging things for me personally is preserving and enjoying a form of art I loved for years and to then develop an ability to learn modern art. My children keeps me young and expose the old man on a daily basis to new trends and art forms linked to photography.... Luminar and especially V4 is a great vehicle to experiment and adapt to what we see happening around us... It also adds more value to our expensive photographic toys... My 2 cents

Love to see more of your creations... :)
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
341
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
I don’t know if I should be congratulated, wrong lighting tends to stand out like a sore thumb. I don’t really understand the current trend to make a shot more dramatic with an imported sky. But each to their own.
You should not underestimate the importance of your comment. As new editing tools make life easier... think about it, never in the past was replacing a sky as easy as today.... While that's all possible now, the danger is more and more having a shadow incorrectly placed.... sizing of objects you add to a picture false and on and on.... I think we should not hide under a rock in terms of new trends but do our best to add value applying our great gear in such a way as to create realistic modern art.... 😁 .... my room does feel smaller.....🙃
 

MichailK

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
627
Location
Thessaly, Greece
Have you tried anything else than chatting with your PC :)
hey, “color creative” for me usually means having the camera deciding on the wrong white balance whenever it wants

PC ..what? Oh, are you talking about those legacy machines usually used on old school industrial applications like the motorcycle dynamometers I used to service once upon a time or the recording studio multitrackers back in my ‘90s? :hide:
 
Last edited:

MichailK

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
627
Location
Thessaly, Greece
as to create realistic modern art
Well, my view is that Art becoming a commodity in abundance over the past 2 decades has been altered a bit in its definition for me but the definition remains as personal as ever.

Where does Photography end and Graphic Arts begin?
Is Photography just another a Graphic Art?

I can only answer for myself, to myself.

I always find this master’s paradigm great in such a discussion, I once had a fling with an art photographer and she used heavily similar techniques in her improvised dark room on her kitchen countertop:


isn’t what is happening at 6:35 a Luminar et al ancestor, that is, Graphic Arts and not pure Photography?

and if Ansel Adam’s brains initially saw the final image from what his eyes captured, isn’t he entitled to manipulate what the camera captured into what he saw, so real Photography and definitely not Graphic Arts?


Myself, I much prefer setting up microphones than using samplers (that put me out of business but that is another story... well not, Luminar et al do something similar nowadays)
 
Last edited:

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,455
For me it is all about the end result. If you tried to look realistic, but amazing and fell short on one, because the light is from the wrong direction, people who know their stuff will spot this. If you go for an over-the-top look then I think anything goes and it all becomes a matter of taste. @number17 s Example in my opinion fell short, because it achieved neither. It looked quite fake but did not achieve the over-the-top amazing look that is required to justify the strong editing.

Basically it needs to belong into either photography or graphic art and it will be judged by the standards of that genre. If it is clearly not photography anymore because the editing stands out, than the editing must elevate it from photography or it will be just bad graphic art.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
341
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
but amazing and fell short on one, because the light is from the wrong direction,
If I understand correctly you say its OK to have the sun's direction false if the image looks great? I am OK what that.... I do prefer to get it right, but if the consensus is... don't worry, I am OK... :) What concern me more is our natural instincts, the viewer will know something is wrong, even if they can't immediately spot it.... my feeling is having it right will make the difference between an acknowledge masterpiece and just a great image....

Practicing the "accurate" recordings of a scene versus manipulating the final look in Photoshop are both exciting for me.... in fact the 2nd option is sometimes way more fun...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

MichailK

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
627
Location
Thessaly, Greece
What concern me more is our natural instincts, the viewer will know something is wrong
not sure about that, with the overdose of automatically overedited pictures in everybody’s pocket nowadays.... we have a whole generation of youngsters perfectly sure that “waxy skin” equals “healthy skin” .... myself, I had trouble seeing the ”error” but I can always say “hey, I had a stroke 2 years ago!” and get away with it :p
 

grcolts

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
405
Location
Texas
Real Name
Gary
I believe one should let viewers know whether or not an image has been digitally worked; meaning more than just light, contrast, etc. Adding clouds, sun, moon, people. Nothing wrong with digital images, I just did a book showing some of my digital work on Blurb. Normally for my nature and landscape images I try to keep my final image as close to the scene as I remembered it. When I do more than basic processing I let people know that it is a digital image or a fine art image, meaning more has been done to it than just regular processing. Anyway, that is the way I do it.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
341
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
I believe one should let viewers know whether or not an image has been digitally worked; meaning more than just light, contrast, etc. Adding clouds, sun, moon, people. Nothing wrong with digital images, I just did a book showing some of my digital work on Blurb. Normally for my nature and landscape images I try to keep my final image as close to the scene as I remembered it. When I do more than basic processing I let people know that it is a digital image or a fine art image, meaning more has been done to it than just regular processing. Anyway, that is the way I do it.
Congrats on the book. Is it mostly images or text also? It seems blurb is better for images and lulu when you adding much text?
I guess this has been argued for generations in clubs, competitions and and. For me personally, I think its all art and one should have the freedom to express your art. Personally I like to keep it realistic. Having said that, Luminar 4 makes it so easy to add mountains or skies and its really fun. Should one or should one not?
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom