I just bought it but haven't downloaded it yet. But I went to a meeting last week where a woman did a presentation on flower photography, and she uses Luminar. Her work is beautiful. That's not much of a comment, but it's because of her presentation and seeing her work that I bought it at the $49 price the other day.
Posted by Mark Seaver on July 21, 2018 at 12:39 PM
I looked at a couple of reviews that make it look very interesting, Ken. It looks like it might let me do most or all of what I do in Lightroom and PS6. Wish they had a trial version, but at $49 USD, it's cheap enough to be worth trying. I really don't want to get on the Adobe, monthly payment plan merry-go-round.
As an instructor and educator, I feel somewhat of an obligation to try alternatives so I have tried Luminar, Affinity Photo, OnOne and DxO Photolab. All are cheaper alternatives to the monthly plan (I guess) and all work very well for image enhancement. All 4 programs have many aspects that work very similar to the way Adobe does things, but also many things done differently so there is still a learning curve.
So I'd say purely for image development, you can't go much wrong with any of them. The learning curves should not be that steep if one fully commits to the software. Where all fall short (except arguably OnOne) is in the organizational aspect. Lightroom totally excels at this and IMHO really has no peer at this point.
Even though Adobe infuriates me sometimes, it seems senseless to me to cut off my nose to spite my face. The seamless integration of Lightroom and Photoshop, the organizational strength of Lightroom, and not having to worry over remaining up to date with continuing automatic upgrades and improvements make the subscription a no brainer for me. I don't think Adobe listens as much as they should and are slow to respond to bugs sometimes but railing against them and denying oneself all the advantages of the plan just to "show them" makes no sense for me. That said, I appreciate that everybody has different priorities and/or rationales.
I really don't want to get on the Adobe, monthly payment plan merry-go-round.
Mark, I resisted the Adobe Creative Cloud/ Photoshop plan for a long time, but bit the bullet quite awhile ago. Since you do a lot with LR and PS, it is worth the money @ $9.99/mo. CS6 is long in the tooth, but the Creative Cloud apps are updated with new features, and is better optimized these days. IMO, it is worth looking into.
I have not checked out Luminar since the Adobe products and TK's Actions Panel do all that I need.
--P
Posted by Keith Bauer on July 22, 2018 at 10:08 AM
I've used Luminar now for about a year. I don't see it as a competitor to LR at the moment. They are working on a Digital Asset Module that will be incorporated into Luminar to address that aspect. We'll see what that does.
Luminar is excellent. I see it as a competitor to Nik, On One, and Topaz. I've had a lot of experience with Nik and didn't bother picking up the new version since Luminar is far superior in my books. Haven't used On One and my experience with Topaz is while the tools work, they are deathly slow (especially in comparison to Luminar).
Luminar is a very well designed product. Works as a stand alone tool, or as a plugin to LR and/or PS. I use it as a plugin to PS. Mostly used to work on Smart object layers to do specific tasks. It has a very nice interface, provides easy masking and allows for the use of blending modes for each filter you choose to use. All in all, a giant thumbs up. (no, I'm not associated with them in any way).
I really don't want to get on the Adobe, monthly payment plan merry-go-round.
I don't understand the continued resistance to this model. For $10/month you always have the latest software. We all spend a lot of money on this passion and to keep current on software is important. To each his own, but in my opinion if you're a LR or PS user, this model is very reasonable and provides a lot more value than being behind and trying to figure out how to work around using newer cameras that are not, and will not, be supported by old software and not having access to updates that come out on a very regular basis that add value to the post processing experience.
Luminar is excellent. I see it as a competitor to Nik, On One, and Topaz. I've had a lot of experience with Nik and didn't bother picking up the new version since Luminar is far superior in my books. Haven't used On One and my experience with Topaz is while the tools work, they are deathly slow (especially in comparison to Luminar).
Keith, It interests me to see why you greatly prefer Luminar over NIK. I use NIK a lot in my daily processing and really enjoy the Dfine2 , Viveza 2, and the Output Sharpener. I've been pleased with these but am always interested if something better comes along. Would you mind expanding your comments on why you like Luminar better and does Luminar offer the same features as NIK when it comes to those 3 particular aspects (Dfine, Viveza, Sharpener) of NIK? Thanks!
Here's my thoughts: From the Nik perspective: I never use Viveza. I find it is far easier to use PS tools and masks based on color from TK. Luminar has many many filters that are color based like Viveza. They work well.
Output Sharpener: I used to use it but continued to see sharpening artifacts in my prints that were problems. I traced them back to OutPut Sharpener and now use with Smart Sharpen, or Luminar Details Enhancer. The combination of those tools has produced superior results. I know a lot of people like Output Sharpener, it just wasn't for me.
Dfine: I always liked Dfine and is the one Nik tool that I thought worked really well. Still does. In Luminar I use DeNoise. I've found it produces great results, is very easy to mask within Luminar (unlike the Nik Control points which are just not accurate enough for most images. If I needed to mask NR using Dfine I just used PS masking on the NR layer).
If you only are using those 3 Nik tools, Luminar doesn't seem like a tool you'd probably take advantage of. If you use Color Efex Pro, then Luminar really shines. Each filter can have it's own blending mode, each filter can have it's own mask, and each filter has it's own opacity. Customization of the work environment makes is very friendly for the tasks at hand. Luminar is what Nik could have been as a toolset had it not spent all those years being neglected by Google. Now DxO spent a year just getting it working reliably again. The Software engineers at Luminar built the tool from the ground up, understand the need for robust, fast processing and are always releasing speed and functional enhancements.
As I said earlier though.... If you're looking for options that might be better for your workflow, and the 3 tools are ones you listed, I'm not convinced Luminar is it.
Posted by Bill Chambers on July 23, 2018 at 12:46 PM
Thanks Keith. Your expansion and opinion are greatly appreciated. Actually, I do like to use Color Efex Pro but it doesn't work well for me. I will do a filter and then add another and it will usually then delete my first filter; very frustrating. It does that probably 90% of the time if I use more than 1 filter. The only way around it is to open Color Efex, apply 1 filter, close it out, and then open up Color Efex again, apply another filter, close out, etc. For me, that's not enough sugar for a nickel. When I saw the sale on Luminar was going to run out last night I went ahead and purchased and downloaded it, but I haven't had a chance to actually use it yet. I will be watching videos and YouTube tutorials on it tonight and then start playing with it. Thanks so much for your response.
Bill: Color Efex pro is annoying with the design of "adding" a filter that "replaces" the existing filter. Look carefully on the right side and you'll see a button labeled "+ Add Filter". Hit that button, and it will add a new filter to the existing filter stack, rather than replacing the existing filter.
Correct Keith, but I am hitting the "Add Filter" button and it still deletes the filter(s) before it. I really can't complain too much since I got it while it was free, but I will use Luminar for that function (and others) instead of paying for the new version of NIK.
Discussion
10 repliesSo I'd say purely for image development, you can't go much wrong with any of them. The learning curves should not be that steep if one fully commits to the software. Where all fall short (except arguably OnOne) is in the organizational aspect. Lightroom totally excels at this and IMHO really has no peer at this point.
Even though Adobe infuriates me sometimes, it seems senseless to me to cut off my nose to spite my face. The seamless integration of Lightroom and Photoshop, the organizational strength of Lightroom, and not having to worry over remaining up to date with continuing automatic upgrades and improvements make the subscription a no brainer for me. I don't think Adobe listens as much as they should and are slow to respond to bugs sometimes but railing against them and denying oneself all the advantages of the plan just to "show them" makes no sense for me. That said, I appreciate that everybody has different priorities and/or rationales.
I have not checked out Luminar since the Adobe products and TK's Actions Panel do all that I need.
--P
Luminar is excellent. I see it as a competitor to Nik, On One, and Topaz. I've had a lot of experience with Nik and didn't bother picking up the new version since Luminar is far superior in my books. Haven't used On One and my experience with Topaz is while the tools work, they are deathly slow (especially in comparison to Luminar).
Luminar is a very well designed product. Works as a stand alone tool, or as a plugin to LR and/or PS. I use it as a plugin to PS. Mostly used to work on Smart object layers to do specific tasks. It has a very nice interface, provides easy masking and allows for the use of blending modes for each filter you choose to use. All in all, a giant thumbs up. (no, I'm not associated with them in any way).
I don't understand the continued resistance to this model. For $10/month you always have the latest software. We all spend a lot of money on this passion and to keep current on software is important. To each his own, but in my opinion if you're a LR or PS user, this model is very reasonable and provides a lot more value than being behind and trying to figure out how to work around using newer cameras that are not, and will not, be supported by old software and not having access to updates that come out on a very regular basis that add value to the post processing experience.
Here's my thoughts: From the Nik perspective: I never use Viveza. I find it is far easier to use PS tools and masks based on color from TK. Luminar has many many filters that are color based like Viveza. They work well.
Output Sharpener: I used to use it but continued to see sharpening artifacts in my prints that were problems. I traced them back to OutPut Sharpener and now use with Smart Sharpen, or Luminar Details Enhancer. The combination of those tools has produced superior results. I know a lot of people like Output Sharpener, it just wasn't for me.
Dfine: I always liked Dfine and is the one Nik tool that I thought worked really well. Still does. In Luminar I use DeNoise. I've found it produces great results, is very easy to mask within Luminar (unlike the Nik Control points which are just not accurate enough for most images. If I needed to mask NR using Dfine I just used PS masking on the NR layer).
If you only are using those 3 Nik tools, Luminar doesn't seem like a tool you'd probably take advantage of. If you use Color Efex Pro, then Luminar really shines. Each filter can have it's own blending mode, each filter can have it's own mask, and each filter has it's own opacity. Customization of the work environment makes is very friendly for the tasks at hand. Luminar is what Nik could have been as a toolset had it not spent all those years being neglected by Google. Now DxO spent a year just getting it working reliably again. The Software engineers at Luminar built the tool from the ground up, understand the need for robust, fast processing and are always releasing speed and functional enhancements.
As I said earlier though.... If you're looking for options that might be better for your workflow, and the 3 tools are ones you listed, I'm not convinced Luminar is it.
Luminar's default behavior is to ADD the filter.