DAM

Answered

Comments

263 comments

  • Avatar
    Denis Kotsee

    We've posted a short video showing the DAM in action today, check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSoEiro0K3Y&feature=youtu.be

    You can see the interface and the speed the library is working at. We'll be releasing more substantial material soon.

    -2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Fernando Ariznavarreta

    I have seen it and was about to post the same video.

    Is that the DAM?

    We will see but it seem more like a file browser similar to Adobe Bridge.

     Does it read LR catalogs as was announced?

    May we expect to continue using LR and then browse the catalog in Luminar?

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Russell Webb

    40 seconds of loud music and not a lot else, complete fob off from Skylum!!!

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Sascha C.

    After watching that video I am sure that we will get a DAM with absolutely minimum features that is totally behind ON1 or LR CC. There is absolutely nothing special. Where are the "reinvented" things you are always talking about?

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Peter Holka

    Will be there option to arrange thumbs to normal (one size) grid? I don't really like the way as they are in the video, it is really awfull. BUT it is just my personal opinion. 

     

    4
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Chris Malikoff

    I (and I suspect we) am tired of waiting to see what your proposed import, sorting, metadata tagging, labelling, and other DAM-specific routines look like, and you show us a silly video of a basic image browser. Are you serious? Is this really all you could muster? I think, no... I know that your users are looking for way more than this in this thread. You continually insult us with a complete lack of detail and information. I'm over it - I want to support a company that supports my needs, not a company that promises more than it can achieve and hides its lack of progress with fluff and the assumption that we're all stupid.

    I've deleted Luminar permanently from five devices and have installed On1. I'm very happy and I think that it is superior in nearly every way and it frankly costs no more than Luminar. I'll be telling everyone I work with and know of who needs decently-supported and capable image manipulation software and is looking to get away from Adobe's subscription model.

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Larry Koch

    It is a DAM hoax - baiting us all in with promises and no plans to truly deliver.

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Uwe Mobil

    Quote: We'll be releasing more substantial material soon.

    Let us give them some time. I am courios what is going to come.

     

    Browsing, finding, keywording and ORGANIZING in the easiest way are the most important features of a DAM.

    What annoys me the most with software of the competitors is the lacking of an easy way of browsing through the images using the Mousewheel.

    It has to be implemented as it is done in ACDSEE oder LR for example.

    I do not want to use an arrow-key or a button for "next picture" or a picture list in a sidebar or sth like that.

     

    If that would be the way it is in Luminar, I stay with LR and/or Acdsee. 

     

     

    -1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Moritz Wellner

    Please, Pay me a Dollar, every time someone from Skylum says soon. I would not need to work anymore...

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Gracie Allen

    Not supporting either side (and I'm fer-sher not a fan of Adobe with their repugnant business model), but:

    I've tried Luminar, and it's a Develop module substitute.  With the DAM still not out.  And I've played with On1, and it's a Lightroom substitute with most of the common (at least those of interest to most of us) tools.

    But I haven't seen ANYTHING that even remotely replaces the heavy lifting done in Photoshop.  The multiple-layer, pixel-level work that gets done on a select set of images that need to be turned into output.  Which means even if you BUY a Lightroom substitute, you still need Photoshop (or it's equivalent) to do the things you can't do in Lightroom or it's replacement.  So, on top of paying for the substitute tool, you're still paying Adobe for Lightrom and Photoshop and whatever - unless you can get by with the 3 or 4 or 5 year-old version.

    Having tried Luminar several times (I usually try new versions to see if it's improved significantly enough to merit leaving Adobe), how are people handling buying multiple tools (with limited compatibility to Photoshop)?  Are y'all just limiting yourselves to the limited, gross optimization capabilities of the Lightroom substitutes, or are you paying for both Adobe and something else?

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Frank Fiorentino

    Did I fall asleep and wake up on April fools day because that DAM video has to be a joke, right?

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Robert Simoneau

    @Gracie, I find Affinity Photo to be the perfect replacement for Photoshop. Then again I am just a hobbyist at this

    -1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Peter Holka

    @Gracie Allen >>

    "But I haven't seen ANYTHING that even remotely replaces the heavy lifting done in Photoshop."

    Have you checked Affinity Photo yet? It is worth to check it. It is very good and capable replacement for Photoshop for the very good price - $49.99. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mike Morrison

    I use Affinity Photo as my PS replacement. Amazing that a $50 program can do so much.

    For those of you who are fed up and moving to On1, keep in mind that last two years On1 has released their new version around November time frame. 

    I currently use On1, Luminar, Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer and Aurora.  Not as happy with Aurora as I had hoped to be.

    Like I said in the past, I'm not too worried about when the DAM is released because I use On1 for that.  I like to jump to Luminar on occasion when there is some specific look I want.  I believe it's best to have more than one tool in your toolbox.

     

     

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Peter, Affiniy Photo isn't even in the same ballpark as Photoshop. I just recently needed to create a composite image out of two of my shots - and Affinity, although it nominally does everything I needed, it failed in oh so many ways. It took me - although I never before created a composite like that - about 2 hours to get a result where you don't see that it's a composite unless I point out the remaining minute flaw in Photoshop, I failed to get to a satisfactory result in Affinity after 8 hours of trying... So the PS subscription is a must for my needs!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Dann Lavery

    @Gracie Allen

    As mentioned by others check out Affinity Photo by Serif.  Being a non Ps user myself, the learning curve has been steep with Affinity.  Affinity does NOT have a DAM.

    Like you I've flushed the software rental business model.  For me personally I see using Serif and Skylum products going forward.  Affinity has more horsepower and Skylum have a more intuitive U.I. (I.M.O.)

    Adobe Bridge is where Ive landed for asset management.

    All the best in your search!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Pascal Brönnimann

    For no pro and no serious amateur, the mysterious DAM + Luminar will ever be an alternative to Lightroom or OnOne as long as Luminar remains in its native format for RAWs. Nobody will risk thousands of raw photos and since the damn DAM should have as few features as possible, I don't think there will be a way to extract the original file from the Lmnr-files with one single click.

    Furthermore, I don't think we will see the DAM this year and I'm tired of hearing these words again and again: “Coming soon…”.

    Also this line is a pain in my neck: “ We are aware of that issue… and our developers are working on it right at the moment…”

    I've been waiting for a simple thumbnail (lmnr-files) since the first version and to this day this “feature” (they call it “feature”!!) doesn't exist on my system (mac os 10.13.6)!!

    That's pathetic!

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Luis Mederos

    @Gracie Allen and others

    There are 2 possibilities I'm researching:

    a.  ACDSee has a new version coming out, which *may* alleviate some of problem of no PS replacement.   I am not totally convinced but have not tried it.

    b.  GIMP has just released an update.   It is closer IMHO to a PS-feel, but I have not tried a recent version.

     

    The problem of the PS and DAM (LR) combination remains a very real one.

     

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Gracie Allen

    Yes, I actually HAVE Affinity Photo ‘cause I wanted to see if the $50 program really CAN replace the types of things I commonly do in Photoshop.  So, a couple simple examples where I ran into problems:

    Go out some night and photograph the Milky Way with a foreground (say rocky shoreline of a lake at 3 a.m.).  Shoot SIX or more images exposed for the stars – maybe ISO 6400, f/4, 20 seconds to minimize smearing of the stars.  Then shoot 3 – 6 images properly exposed for your foreground (an area that's VERY dark.  Maybe ISO 1600, F/8, 8 or so MINUTES (now you have high ISO noise AND long exposure noise).

    Each image of the stars will be OUT OF REGISTRATION since the earth rotates between/during your shots and at ISO 3200 or 6400 (or higher) they will have higher than desirable levels of noise for making decent sized prints.

    Process the images to do noise reduction.  In Photoshop this means opening the images exposed for the stars as layers.  Turn off all but the bottom and second layers.  Using whatever tools you choose, examine the "Difference" between layer "2" and "1" so you can precisely align the second layer "2" to the bottom layer "1" – PS auto-align won't do this accurately, and as far as I can tell, neither will Affinity. 

    Rotate, skew, distort, and warp layer 2 until the stars line up as accurately as possible with layer 1. Turn off "2"  and turn on layer 3.  Do the same processing to align the 3rd layer with the bottom (reference) layer.  Repeat for all the layers. 

    Now remove the transient noise from your aligned layers.  In Photoshop, you use "Median" on a smart Object to remove transient noise…  Your VERY noisy images will now be MUCH less noisy and ready for use. 

    I haven't found a way to do this in Affinity (or any other substitute for Photoshop other than possibly Gimp).

    Now take the images of the foreground and do exactly the same thing.  You’ll end up with a foreground object that has minimal noise without having to do a 1-2 hour exposure.

    Take both outputs, put them together as layers, precisely register and blend the connection area between the foreground and the stars and make the junction align perfectly.

    Now you have the raw material to process “normally” in Lightroom or Affinity or whatever.

    But I haven’t found any way to do this in Affinity or any other $50 tools.

    Another simple example:  Take a normal image of something with complex edges like trees against a bright, clear, blue sky on a cloudless day (“A”).  Now add some clouds from your library of "cloud" images…  The sky on the cloud image (“B”) is NOT (they never are) a perfect match for the sky in A, and you don't want to replace the entire clear sky, (you'll have a very difficult time getting the edge matching perfect, especially the areas in amongst the trees where the sky shows through), you just want to add some clouds where you want them.  In Photoshop, layer B on top of A, then do levels on each channel red, green, blue individually on B to make a perfect match between the sky of your cloud image B and your other image A.

    Then back to RGB channel and the sky on your cloud image matches the sky of your other image accurately.  Erase B as needed, smooth, and voila, clouds where you want them.

    Again, I haven’t found a way using anything from Skylum or in Affinity Photo to do this.

    These are a couple basic examples of the kinds of things I've found I can only do in Photoshop.  If I"m wrong, and Affinity or anything from Skylum can do these types of pixel-level editing, let me know.  But so far I haven't found a workable substitute for Photoshop.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ramesh ramchand

    My earlier post was removed by the mods. Maybe it was too critical of Skylum or maybe it was because I showed a preference for a competitor product. Quite disappointed with this behavior towards a paid customer.

    When I purchased Luminar 2018 last year, I was promised a DAM early this year. If I have to use LR or ON1 as a DAM, it does not make sense for me to then add on Luminar. It just makes it clunky as there are many duplicative features.

    The other option was to use Apple Photos which does have a half decent DAM with raw capability.

    Having seen the demos so far on the Luminar DAM, I am less convinced that this is a 'soon to be' released product. Many of the options you would expect to see on the main screen are simply missing (e.g. metadata, views etc.)

    I have run out of patience with Skylum. As such I have decided to move to a competitor product.

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Gracie - have a look on youtube - only today Serge Rameli posted a video how to avoid the biggest mistake in sky replacement. His workflow regarding sky replacement seems even easier than yours:

    https://photoserge.com/free-lesson/the_one_mistake_to_avoid_when_you_do_sky_replacement

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Martim, there is simplification and oversimplification. The latter is usually the result of not understanding where the limit of simplification lies. Photolemur is a very good example of going 1000 steps too far, it's a useless toy. Luminar in parts is also guilty of the same mistake in that it takes away decisions from the photographer (you have no say if or how much noise reduction is applied during the RAW conversion - that is a case of "too simple" because it takes away a conscious decision and thus invalidates a possible workflow on that basis). In previous versions the appeal of Luminar was the ease of use in some areas. For example the way the user could determine how much noise reduction to apply, it had no complicated settings, you simply let it render one of the strengths and if you liked it chose how much of that to apply. Perfect balance of feature vs. complexity. That was dropped in favor of a more complicated, less intuitive but much faster noise reduction - which turns out to be hopeless because the preview rendering differs from the rendering when exporting and thus you have no chance to find the necessary balance...

    By the most hypocritical thing is that given their bias to "keep it simple, stupid" they have chosen to over-complicate the DAM image browser to the point of making that impossible to use in an organized manner, it's all eye candy without any considerations to it's intended purpose. It looks sort of good to the uninformed but to the user who wants to use it for the purpose of culling and selecting images it's a complete failure - with inconsistent line heights and in consequence inconsistent preview sizes it is only another sign that they are clueless on how photographers think. In this case they make it impossible to judge an image on it's own merits because the preview size impacts the rendering of certain image aspects which will make either the smaller or the larger preview look better on the first glance, the inconsistency in sizes thus yields inconsistency in evaluation - which must be one of the key goals of a DAM. Thus this file browser is a complete and utter mess that should never be released in the current state... Unfortunately they seem incapable of understanding even the most basic principles and thus are prone to make the same mistake over and over again.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Ken Korman

    The only thing I would consider a show stopper regarding the dam is if images are saved to a large proprietary Luminar file as they are now instead of using a side car file. Though it is hard to imagine that this is something that would be overlooked. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Sascha C.

    Is that the reaction of the complaints regarding the missing DAM?

    https://skylum.com/blog/why-you-shouldnt-focus-too-much-on-negative-feedback-

    Really? Are you sure? Is that the answer? We are bad always complaining customers which should not be taken too serious because we demand what you promise us since 2016?

    I can't believe it. This blog post makes me speak-less.... 

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Denis Kotsee

    Not at all, it's just a thinkpiece not aimed to comment on anything in particular. We're doing what we can to speed up the development.

    -1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Luis Mederos

    @Denis Kotsee

    if the thinkpiece was not aimed at anything in particular, I suggest Skylum really, really, really work on change management and user communication --- the timing for publishing a piece making that statement could not be any worse.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Denis, then maybe you should have taken a page out of that very book - and have gone for a more simple, traditional file browser with a fixed grid - what you showed is a spectacularly overcomplicated mess that took way too long to develop and has unfixable design flaws. A grid oriented file browser is a matter of weeks to create (if that much - even if you include the time to have a queue and background worker threads to render the previews), the unusable mess shown in the video is much more complex and is consigning the Luminar DAM to the garbage pile of overambitious failed projects because the prospective users weren‘t included in the process and their needs were not considered.

    Had you released the browser as a working model 5 months ago when the hand held screen capture was released then people like me could have told you to stop that errant direction and think about what is important in a DAM. But no, you finish the mess and are proud of it. In Germany we have a saying „Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall“ which can be paraphrased to „arrogance is the beginning of the downfall“.

    I am sorry to have witnessed from the outside how you wasted a lot of development resources in a lost cause (which the DAM is going to be if you don‘t pull the plug on that ill fated file broweser with it‘s inconsistencies)!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Pascal Brönnimann

    In dealing with their customers, Skylum really does not shine. 

    But they can probably afford this arrogance, since they have opened up a huge pool of customers with the Windows-world.

    While most professional users will probably say goodbye to time, there are enough uncritical customers who are satisfied if the program looks nice, works fast and produces reasonably nice results with as few clicks as possible.

    But to be fair you have to say that the idea to replace Photoshop with an 80 dollar program is a bit naive. For me Luminar will probably remain a nice plugin and the probably stylish DAM is for Sundays, maybe to browse somewhat more trendy through my pictures.

    At Skylum you probably have to set your expectations quite low, then you might even be surprised in the future.

    But if enough customers migrate, Skylum itself will probably be surprised and hopefully appear less smugly.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Luis Mederos

    Folks forgive my ignorance.

    What video are some of you referring to?   All I have found is a 15sec blurry screen grab of image moving very fast on Facebook.

    If there is something else, could someone post it here?   

     

    Thank you!

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Angela Andrieux

    Hi Luis - The video is a preview of the DAM. You can view it here: https://youtu.be/fSoEiro0K3Y 

    -1
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.