Comments

25 comments

  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Philip, sorry, if you really want to have your images organized in a DAM then that DAM must be able to manage all of them.  With Luminar not only slowing down to a crawl after a few images have been added to the „library“ there also is the chance that the whole database is rendered unusable if any images are added in which it doesn‘t like the EXIF - thus equating in a total loss of any work you may have put into editing images... That means Luminar outright is not fit for sale!

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    If 100,000 is the limit, then it doesn’t work as a Lightroom replacement.  End of story.  I am not going to segment my library after all the time spentthinking about the best arrangement.  If I want to search by keyword for all photos of my grandchildren, for example, I don’t want to have to load multiple catalogs to search across them.  That defeats the purpose of a DAM.

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    That only holds true if a system upgrade does not break it and then what. Also Skylum are very quick to take stuff into the "legacy" category where they cease support. L2018 is going that way already - no longer for sale and all efforts directed to the broken L3. Punters can kid themselves as much as they like but the Skylum model is subscription by any other name as is ON1. In fact those who bought into L3 might never see a decent dam until they pay to upgrade when it rolls into the next paid for version.

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    Philip, I am using the current, fastest iMac sold (not the Pro).  You don’t say how many photos you’ve scanned for cataloguing purposes.  Luminar is fast for a few thousand photos, but it took six hours to catalog 150,000 photos, and once done, ot takes a full 45 seconds to 1 minute from starting Luminar 3 to being able to do anything with it.  Moreover, it beach-balls all the time, and forces me to use force-quit on virtually any photo I attempt to edit, while failing to save the edits.  Lightroom Classic CC used to take the prize for the slowest loading program I owned, but now it is twice as fast as Luminar 3, and I have returned to using it as it has more useful functionality and is rock solid.  Luminar 3 might eventually get to a point where it is stable, but for me, tight now, it is totally unusable standalone.  (To be fair, it seems to work fine as a plugin to Lightroom).

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    OK.  Just for minor amusement, I blew away my entire catalog in Luminar, uninstalled the software, and reinstalled it on the same computer.  This time I created a catalog with a single folder from one day of shooting recently in Africa.  It contained about 2000 photos mixed of D850 and D500 lossless compressed NEF files.  It took about a minute to create the catalog.  I then attempted to edit a single image from a D850.  My editing consisted of a small crop, and a few touchups in the RAW filter.  I then tried to export the image to Smugmug, where I have an account.  After uploading the image, I came back to the image, still displayed on my screen.  I tried to Exit from Luminar.  No dialog to save the changes (though not necessarily expected given they might have been written to the XMP sidecar).  But, also no option to Quit - greyed out.  Went in the other room for 3 minutes to get another cup of coffee.  Came back.  No option to Quit (still greyed out).  Force Quit.  Re-enter Luminar - no changes to the photo saved.  I rest my case.

     

     

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    Well, the rent is relatively cheap when I buy at the holidays with a deep discount coupon and get two products forvless than the annual upgrade fee for most competing single-function products.  I realize I don’t own Adobe products, but don’t really care.  I beta test for many of Adobe’s supposed competitors and don’t have to pay for their products, so I always have options available should Adobe stop doing what I need or want it to do.  I’m constantly looking out for possible replacements and have bought all of Luminar’s releases since its original version several years ago.  I use Aurora regularly and find it to be rock-solid, which gives me hope that they *might* get Luminar stable enough to use.  Obviously the problems are with the file browser, as I have no difficulty with it as a LR or PS plugin.  I really wonder if the issue is catalog size, or image size.  My wife doesn’t experience ALL the problems with L3 with her much smaller catalog, and much smaller Fuji XT-2 and XT-3 images (though the XT-3 images look dreadful right now).  You’d think that with the XT-3 out since mid-September, and with two of Luminar’s programmers  being Fuji X users, that XT-3 support would have been a priority.  It supports Z6 images - a camera that came out two months AFTER the XT-3.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    If Luminar hadn‘t been as horribly broken as it was, and starting to be behind schedule as far as Duke Nukem Forever once was you would have had to pay for Luminar 2019 - Luminar defacto is a subscription software, they just try to fool you into believing otherwise... I rather pay a modest recurring amount of money for an excellent working product which is well maintained and offers 10 times the functionality beyond the wildest dreams Skylum has than having to deal with unusable releases and abandoned old versions every year...

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    I have already set the cache to the maximum.  I don’t use separate catalogs in Lightroom because my photos are organized internally by year, by date within year, and by location within date.  I have never found any need to segment the catalog.  I’m not a professional photographer.  We just travel a great deal all over the world and take lots of landscape, wildlife and street photography.  We sell nothing, but give away photos to friends as gifts for their hospitality.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    I have bought Luminar 2017 and with the latest Mojave update it stopped working. Luminar 2018 I got refunded because the RAW conversion changed 3 or 4 times in it‘s lifecycle. It‘s conceptually a total failure (or explain to me what a white balance setting of 5500K means to you that is applied at 50% strength - a concept that forces you to use their inept layer implementation where you can‘t make adjustments to the RAW conversion while seeing how the additional adjustment layers affect the result...

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    Then why so much beachballing with a small catalog on a high performance machine?  4.2 GHz i7 (quad core), 64 GB RAM, 8 GB VRAM, 2 TB PCI-e SSD, Mojave 10.14.2, 75% free space on SSD.  This is NOT a consumer grade computer.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    I guess what I’m puzzled about is that you had dozens of photo pros extolling the virtue of the December release, and showing the “blazing” speed of traversing the catalog.  Some of the videos had what appeared to be fairly sizeable catalogs.  Did these pros see a version that wasn’t released?  I can’t believe a working photo pro would not see the major performance hits many of us are seeing, even with small catalogs (< 2000 images).  In effect, what you are saying is that the December 18 release was not really ready for prime time.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    henry lee

    The December release was terrible. I started a brand new catalog so I don't have issues there. All of my issues are actually working with the images (slow) and exporting (slower)

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    I keep such a catalog and see no concern in doing so.  The image catalog is backed up every I exit from LR, and the photo drive is backed up to four different locations nightly.  The worst thing that could happen is that I might lose an hour's worth of work.   With Luminar 3, I've yet to save any work since it crashes every time I try something different.  I regularly blow away my small working catalog of 2000 images, since my confidence in Lum 3 is less than zero.

     

     

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Michael Burns

    I have my photos on remote hard drives which are mirrored.  My catalog is also stored on the remote drive.  Presently the catalog has no photos in it,  I opted to try it this way because with the catalog populated with the contents of the HD it is painfully slow and drag and drop either is not working or extremely slow.  Under this configuration I just tried to bring a folder into luminar but again it is exceedingly slow.  So either I have a misunderstanding of how the db works or it just isn't working. 

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Joe George

    Just ordered and installed Luminar 3 and it is so incredibly slow. It takes at least 5 minutes to start and sometimes crashes while using it. I am running Windows 10 and the computer is nearly new and runs fine. While Luminar is running it sometimes slows down the entire machine. I have no other problems with any other software. Is there a fix to this?

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Joe George

    Mike, Thank you for your response. I went into the Luminar catalog via file explorer and delete all the photos in it's cache. When I started the program up it re-cataloged them. The program is so frustrating to use that I don't, which is a shame because it is brand new.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phillip Rodokanakis

    Marc

    If I recall correctly, one of the videos I watched on Luminar 3 said that there was a limit of 100,000 photos per catalog. That may explain why it slows down on your system. Granted, I don't have that many photos in my Luminar library, as I'm still testing it out. I've only got just over 100 photos, so that might explain the difference. 

    Luminar 3 supports multiple catalogs. Why don't you create different catalogs for your photos? Perhaps segment them by year or create different catalogs that span two or three years. You can also create catalogs by subject (the common example given is for Professional photographers to create different catalogs by client). You can also try increasing the size of the Luminar cache in the Preferences (adjusting the Cache is the only user selected Preference they have included so far in Luminar 3); by default it's set to 10 GB, but given your large library, you many need to set the Cache to a much larger size. 

    Hope this helps. Good luck...

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    And to be clear - 64 GB physical RAM, 8 GB Video RAM, 2 TB SSD with 75% free space and the photos stored on a 4 x 1 TB SSD array arranged as JBOD, catalog stored on internal SSD along with software.  I run a superclean machine.  On more than one occasion Luminar 3 has exhausted physical memory with nothing but the Finder running.  So, either it is the size of the catalog it is working with, or a memory leak, a buffer overflow, or a design issue, I don’t see Luminar replacing Lightroom for those of us with large DB requirements.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phillip Rodokanakis

    Marc & K.G.

    I'm pretty sure Luminar 3 has a limit of 100,000 photographs per Library. At least that's what I recall from watching one of Matt Suess' videos on Luminar 3. Also, Skylum has posted some comments about corruption issues with some EXIF data. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phillip Rodokanakis

    Not really. I can still use Aurora 2017 and didn't need to upgrade if I didn't care about the new features. I'm afraid you're comparing apples to oranges... 

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Marc Feldesman

    If Luminar has a hard limit of 100,000 photos, why isn’t it in any of the release notes or in the “manual”?  Moreover, why would it bother to catalog 150,000 photos?  I was able to get to the last, the middle, and the beginning photographs.  I have no idea how it arranges its internal database, but I could traverse the large database from first to last to middle.  While it was turgidly slow, that doesn’t bespeak a hard limit.  So, if anyone from Skylum is actually monitoring this forum, it would certainly be helpful if they could chime in about this salient and extremely germane issue.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Denis Kotsee

    >So, if anyone from Skylum is actually monitoring this forum, it would certainly be helpful if they could chime in about this salient and extremely germane issue.

    L3's processing speed depends on the amount of RAM and the kind of storage: SSDs are faster than spinning disks. We're not denying that there are performance issues with the current release but we're working on improving the processing speed. You can expect to see better results in 3.1.0. It will also address stability issues, such as crashing and freezing.

    More information about issues and fixes for them is available in these threads:

    https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360035146612-Luminar-3-Update-From-Support-Team-1

    https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360035405452-Luminar-3-Update-From-Support-Team-2

    https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360035231571-Luminar-3-Update-From-Support-Team-3

    https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360035659991-Luminar-3-Update-From-Support-Team-4

    The tests we ran to determine the amount of images L3 can handle concluded that normal operation for most consumer computers would be at around 100K. This is not a hard limit - L3 allows loading as many images as you like because we'll improve the performance and hence the number of images L3 can work with will increase.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Denis Kotsee

    >We're not denying that there are performance issues with the current release but we're working on improving the processing speed.

    In this sentence I was referring not only to consumer-grade computers but to any computer. Sorry if my post was unclear. Performance should be and will be better on your computer in 3.1.0.

    -1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phillip Rodokanakis

    I’ve seen a couple of people complaining about Luminar 3 being slow on MACs, but that’s not the general consensus from a majority of users. On my 2017 iMac and my 2018 MacBook Pro it runs vary fast. I don’t use Lightroom, but the comments I’ve seen on YouTube is that Luminar 3 is considerably faster than Lightroom. Are you perhaps using an older MAC with limited RAM and a spinning hard disk which is pretty full? 

    -3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phillip Rodokanakis

    Well, you can't add or search by keywords, at least for the foreseeable future, so that's a moot point... 

    I hope you don't mind continuing paying for rentware--I hate Adobe products and refuse to use them with their silly monthly fees. I wish the entire product line would go the way of Flash... 

    -3
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.