Luminar 4 - pretty impressive

Medley

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
104
I've never been much into post-processing, having used LR over the years for basic stuff like pulling up shadows, a bit of sharpening here and there, stuff like that. So I was stunned when I decided to try out Luminar 4. It is remarkably trivial these days to make dramatic changes to photos that are otherwise fairly bland. It took me about 10 minutes with Luminar to turn this.....

8LX1P2jbrmm2A?width=5184&height=3888&cropmode=none.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


...into this....

IwhHrh5JIiXDw?width=4835&height=3628&cropmode=none.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Not everyone's cup-o-tea, I acknowledge, but this is pretty impressive, one has to admit.
 
Last edited:

ArizonaMike

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Arizona, USA
Thanks for posting the image.

The Sky Replacement functionality in Luminar 4 is a very nice addition but there is a lot more that has been improved that gets less attention. Their raw development seems much better, the AI Enhance seems quite good now and I have found that the app is much improved all around.

There are some issues for me - you can only transfer HDR sequences to the latest version of Aurora (which I think is not as good as some other HDR apps), their distortion correction functionality will not fix my Olympus 8mm FE images and a lot of the plugins on my system will not run under L4 but I think it is much better than it used to be.

I have been using Dxo's PhotoLab for raw development but have partially switched to L4 because I like some of the adjustments very much.
 

Repp

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,313
Location
Seoul, South Korea
Really hope that they allow for keyword import from LR soon, that’s the last thing I need before deleting adobe from my laptop.
 

mcasan

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,703
Location
Atlanta
IMHO, very poor DAM. Definitely not on the same level as Lr Classic, C1P, Photo Mechanic, and others. Your milage may vary.
 

ArizonaMike

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Arizona, USA
IMHO, very poor DAM.
When I first came across Luminar I was not very impressed. It did not seem capable of the kind of adjustments that I sometimes needed to do on my files and it was only with the release of Luminar Flex (circa L3?) that I thought it was worth paying attention to. L4 impressed me and I began to convert to it, at least partially, but never paid any attention to the DAM since it was not important to me. For those to whom a DAM is important I am sure you are right.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,601
Location
France
I've tested a few versions in the past... seemed not to work properly on windows, but the approach seemed promising.
Problem is, on all the ads they seem to promote functions I don't care about (sky replacement, false sunrays, face automatic retouching), so nothing that made me want to test the program again.
Maybe I'll test L5...
 

mumu

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
442
I'm glad they're continuing to develop it. I'm going to stick with LR as long as I can since we get it free through work. But once I retire, I'll be open to migrating to something else, assuming the processing and DAM is as good as LR.
 

Keeth101

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
371
Sorry but I really don't like the idea of replacing sky's and all the rest, it's just false to me.

In this case, I think it's turned a nice, natural photo into something garish. Very sorry but that's just my take on it.

It's definitely something which I will not be buying, I prefer to see a picture as it was taken. I have no problems with sharpening, getting the colour balance right, de-noising and all the other things we do to enhance our photos but completely changing the sky etc is just making a lie of your photography IMO.

Sorry if I sound harsh, I don't mean to. Your original picture is really nice.
 

ArizonaMike

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Arizona, USA
Sorry but I really don't like the idea of replacing sky's
It is a bit odd but even though I agree with your opinion (I like to see shots as they looked when they were taken) I find the whole idea of sky replacement interesting from both the idea of how a changed image would look to my fascination in what kind of underlying algorithm they used to determine where the sky is and how they masked it to do a decent job. I suppose as a retired software engineer I am caught up in the technology and approach that allowed them to actually accomplish something so difficult. I am not referring to the image that the OP posted but rather to how different things look when something like the sky is changed.

Still, given that sometimes my photos end up with sun glare ruining a sky I do find the ability to replace a damaged sky image with something similar that hikes the sun spots or glare and restores the image to something similar to what it was to be helpful. I always try to use a sky of a similar sort, clear blue for clear blue, light clouds for light clouds, and so on but I have saved some photos this way.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,601
Location
France
I suppose as a retired software engineer I am caught up in the technology and approach that allowed them to actually accomplish something so difficult. I am not referring to the image that the OP posted but rather to how different things look when something like the sky is changed.
Yes, that's what interesting in the examples.
I don't plan to replace the skies in my pictures, however they could use the same type of technology to get quick "sky selection" functions to play of the luminosity for instance, or the saturation, it could be quite useful.
 

Repp

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,313
Location
Seoul, South Korea
If you ignore the features like sky replacement and AI portrait retouching, it’s still a really good photo editor. I like it better than LR for everything except the DAM functions, and I don’t even use the AI functions. Most of the development team were the guys who made the Nik software and split when google bought them out.
 

dpswbab

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2014
Messages
208
I tested a couple of older versions and didn't pursue it when I found their healing tools severely lacking in functionality. Have they been improved to PS level?
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
437
Location
Kansas
Real Name
Mel
I must admit that I tried Luminar 2018 and liked it but hated how slow it was. Then Luminar 4 came out and it was unmanageable for me to use since it needs to be fast and easy. My wife used it and even formed a Facebook page called "Skylum Software Discussion among users" https://www.facebook.com/groups/1121398054701085/. It is not a place to just post pictures but it is a forum of users of Skylum who want to help others with problems or to show people how to best use the software. There are a couple of Skylum developers on the page who monitor from time to time and it is a question and answer among users. Seems to be well populated with users helping other users. It has 747 members and the rules are not to argue, be negative all the time and to use pictures only to explain how it was done.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,601
Location
France
If you ignore the features like sky replacement and AI portrait retouching, it’s still a really good photo editor. I like it better than LR for everything except the DAM functions, and I don’t even use the AI functions. Most of the development team were the guys who made the Nik software and split when google bought them out.
Is the windows version equivalent to the mac version?
On the first releases there was a huge gap between the two. The windows versions were awful.
 

Medley

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
104
Anyone notice that there’s no longer a boat in the foreground? I’ve never tried anything like that before, and I was stunned how easy it was.

This was done using the Healing function, by the way. I don’t know how it compares to LR’s because, as I said in my first post, I’d never fooled around with much post-processing until recently.
 
Last edited:

Medley

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
104
So, here's another example that is less over the top. While the overall scenery in the original is generally attractive, there is no redeeming the sky. I'd wager that if I didn't fess up to replacing it, most people would not have suspected anything.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I kind of feel that this does more justice to the beauty of the location, and I'm sure there are many days where the sky is this beautiful. The day that I was visiting Lexington, KY, however, wasn't one of them. Is this a lie?
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And for what it's worth, the edited picture in my original post isn't one I would publish, necessarily. I just wanted to show it as an example of the magic that's available to photographers today. Editing is editing, is it not?
 

Medley

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
104
Yes, that's what interesting in the examples.
I don't plan to replace the skies in my pictures, however they could use the same type of technology to get quick "sky selection" functions to play of the luminosity for instance, or the saturation, it could be quite useful.
That’s one of the intriguing things about how they’ve implemented the sky replacement function. It appears that they are, in fact, applying modifications to the overall luminosity and tone of the colours in the original shot. In my original post, after the new sky has been applied, the tones of the buildings and Ferris wheel are modified to simulate what the reflective light would be on them with such a sky. I didn’t modify that stuff. There seems to be a fair amount of AI being applied as well beyond just the delineation of borders, etc., for masking.
 

Medley

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
104
And is this possible to use the same type of algorithms without replacing the sky?
(for instance: just lighting up the sky or darkening it).
I believe so, however I haven’t tried too much in that regard yet. I’ve only started using it within the last six weeks or so, and that because I no longer want to pay Adobe’s monthly subscription model. Between the CC Photography package and a Premiere Pro subscription I was paying close to $1000 year which, for a hobbyist like me, just isn’t reasonable.

When I started researching different options I read numerous comments about LumaFusion for Windows not being on par with the Mac version. By all accounts they have addressed those gaps and I can say that it is a very capable, well-performing tool that is reasonably priced. I use a Dell XPS 13 with a 6-core i7 processor. The GPU is integrated and so is fairly low-powered, but it seems to provide very adequate response.

I cancelled all my Adobe subscriptions in early February.
 
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