Luminar 3: when will it be really usable?

Comments

22 comments

  • Avatar
    Philippe Castagna

    Hi Mike,

    Thank you for your answer.
    Definitely will use it as a plug-in until the launch of a working version.

    I even more appreciate your message that at this time skylum support didn't even answer me.

    Best regards
    Philippe

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    Mike, I have PhotoLab. Don't want to jump on peoples threads but if you want my views/experiences please shout :-)

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Philippe Castagna

    Mike, I never used Photolab.
    Colin no problem to jump on ;) I m interested on your feedback with Photolab too!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    Got to go out now but will post tomorrow. In the meantime, did you know there is a free trial?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Kert

    The answer to that question probably depends on how you define "really usable".

     

    Presumably he upcoming patch will make it at least able to launch, but I would not hold my breath over it actually fixing all or even most of the issues currently present. "Early February" is pretty close, though so we do not need to speculate, we will probably see within few weeks.

     

    Longer term, specifically for the DAM module, based on how it currently behaves I'm expecting them to have to rewrite entirely some algortithms they are using as the ones they are currently using do not seem to be scaling at all as soon as the number of images gets anywhere near the number where having DAM starts actually making sense. If they actually do any Q&A as well for that rewrite then maybe half a year to year or so?

     

    All the currently existing programs on the market have some kind of issues if you throw 100k images at them. Lightroom 6, ACDSee, etc - every one of them - even if their marketing texts make kind of a deal out of it how "fast" they supposedly are. So in this context Luminar 3 does not need to be "really fast" with massive library sizes, it just needs to hit at least in the same ballpark features and performance wise as competition.

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Philippe Castagna

    Hi Kert,

    I'm agree with you on most of your points.

    However with the 90k+ library that I had at the time I was still using Lightroom, I never had any issue with the performance and reliability of the program, on the excat same computer I have actually.

    Since I moved to Exposure X4 which is catalog free, I do not have any issues either.

    Right now, it takes 3 minutes to Luminar 3 to start on and the browing and opening of images is pretty slow also.

    If they can makes simple things as open the program and browse the folders faster I will be an happy camper ;)

     

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Kert, Lightroom 6 is whoefully out of date, recent versions scale much better and work with collections of images in the millions with no objectionable slowdown as the numbers rise. So Luminar has a very steep uphill struggle and it's conceptually completely botched (they messed up the RAW conversion to a degree that I would never ever entrust an image to them, unfortunately friends of mine have bought it on my recommendation (of Luminar Neptune) and thus I am stuck with supporting this POS)...

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Kert

    The problem with the "CC" version of lightroom is the subscription model. It is still the 400 pound gorilla on the scene. So all the rest RAW deleopment programs are fighting it out in the niche of people who are not OK at all with the subscription model.

     

    That is why I used Lightroom 6 for the comparison and not Lightroom CC. As its the last standalone version of the Lightroom working without having to have a subscription. Performance wise - lightroom 6 is not very impressive. It took about a week to run facial recognition for ~110 000 image library. i7 at 4 GHz, 32 GB RAM and 1070 gfx card at its disposal. It also starts to slow down noticeably once the library size moves to tens of thousands images.

     

    ACDSee is a little snappier with the same amount of images, but lacks some features in its DAM module, no facial recognition (in my version, the current one has it but I'm not spending 70 on upgrade only the get that) and geotagging support is rather limited, at best, as it cant use .gpx or .kml track logs but allows only manual geotagging by dragging the images to a map by hand. It's also database based like lightroom and you have to trigger manual database maintenance to handle orphaned files if your workflow involves moving them by hand in windows explorer.

     

    The others I have not used enough to have a personal opinion on.

     

    Luminar 3 DAM implementation is clearly bugged to hell atm. I observed what it actually does when it tries to start for several minutes. What happens is that it establishes file lock to its database file over and over again at high frequency, so it creates the lock, then releases it short time afterwards and repeats that process ad nauseum. Until it eventually seems to determine this is hopeless and finally starts. This seems to be a pretty obvious bug so presumably they will fix it in the upcoming patch and it will be at last possible to at least start the program. Before that happens its not really possible determine how fast it is.

     

    Fortunately none of my friends have bought it. One downloaded the trial (same as myself) based on me pointing it out for him that this thing seems to be promising quite decent feature list but uninstalled it fortunately really short time afterwards after determining that the program does not work with his RAW files (even though the camera he has is in the list of supported cameras) and is otherwise spectacular failure as it currently stands (he tried the MAC version).

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    Re PhotoLab. It is a raw editor with some very nice masking via control points. Its lens correction is probably second to none. PL works well with outside applications and the software is without doubt capable of superb results. That said, I do not agree with those who say the auto correction is something wonderful. It can be but more often than not I find auto in Lr gives a better starting point. This may be because Lr is getting better whilst PhotoLab is new and is to an extent a development restart of the old Optics Pro software. As I said, optical correction is brilliant as is noise reduction (especially when using Prime). The UI is very cluttered (imo) and I find it rather geeky and hard to use. It feels old fashioned in its approach and I found the learning curve very steep. Indeed I have still not cracked it and consistently get better results out of Lr/Luminar, but then I have used Lr for years. PL does not have a dam, not yet, but they are currently adding that functionality to the current image browser. The good news is that they involve their users and the forums are very helpful and constructive.

    I am sure that once the mysteries of how to use PL are cracked excellent images will follow. BUT, it is really just a raw editor so all the bells and whilst like LUTS and Looks are not there. You can though build your own presets if you have the inclination. DxO also of  course own the Nik Plugins now and they play nicely with PL. Together they create a very powerful and  useful tool without doubt. And again the Control Points in PL and Nik are very, very powerful and well beyond the capability of Luminar.

    PL comes in different flavours but to get the best out of it you really need the Elite package. I would recommend a free trial run. If you can get over the learning curve then you probably have a winner. Be warned though DxO have no intention of supporting Fuji - why escapes me!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    Kert, the subscription model is only a problem if it is a problem for the individual. It is purely a personal choice thing and at GBP10 (just under) per month it certainly does  not worry me. There are those that hate it and there are many, many who embrace it. I really do not think all these developers fighting it out worry Adobe in the slightest. In fact debacles like L3 probably have Adobe staff rubbing their hands in glee believing their future is secure :-)

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Vereslavska Anna Veres

    Hi,

    We are sorry for the inconveniences.

    Most of the performance and speed issue will be fixed in the upcoming update that will be released within 10 days. 

    Your patience is highly appreciated. 

    -2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    I go along with that Mike. What I like about Lr these days is the auto develop function. It really does give a very good place to start  90% of the time. I tried Capture1 a while ago and was reasonably impressed but preferred the Lr way of doing things. C1 is good though, but boy at a price. Like you really not sure about Luminar's raw develop module - L3 seems to me less effective than 2018 but may be that is just me. Either way I always run my raw through Lr - or if feeling experimental through PhotoLab - first. Interestingly, those videos Jim Nix does are, it seems, always on tiffs that have come from Lr!

    I do not like the raw module in ON1 particularly either, but I wonder if that is a trade-off for trying to be an all in one solution. Maybe the concept of a separate raw editor still holds good. It certainly does for me.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Colin, the RAW develop module in Luminar is woefully unpredictable due to an insane automatic noise reduction you can’t alter or disable if the program detects “objectionable noise”. That’s the reason I would never again recommend this program to anyone trying to base a workflow on it!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    All except Luminar are more reliable and trustworthy with regards to the RAW conversion. Both darktable and rawtherapee are using improved libraw derivates - the same library Luminar uses, I used to dabble a bit in ideas regarding demosaicing myself and did so in rawtherapee, as does On1 for those cameras it doesn’t support with their own optimized RAW conversion. None of these employ any such unpredictable automatism, on some you can activate the very same noise reduction Luminar uses when you think itis warranted but all manuals I read (which is quite a few) advise against doing so (it was a bright idea to integrate a noise refuction in the demosaicing step but that was before demosaicing was improved to contain edge detection while not increasing noise unduly). Early noise reduction and sharpening are things that belong more or less side by side as a development step and must be configured to match the subject, having an even earlier noise reduction which you can’t control makes sharpening a tricky business...

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mikhail Kozlov

    I just found out that L3 is unusable on my Win10/i7/16Gb RAM/SSD machine if imported pictures remain in OneDrive synced folder. As soon as I import new folders from attached SSD drive - processing performance increases tenfolds. When I checked thru this forum about performance issues it also poped up couple of times that Windows Pictures folder is a really bad place to store L3 stuff. This is weired bechavior as LR has no such issues, but might be a workaround for someone...  

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    Hi Mike, thanks for the video. Interesting stuff.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Colin Grant

    @ K.G, as I believe I have said before, I do not do my raw conversions in Luminar and probably never will. Let's face it Luminar is cheap software so expect compromise.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Geoffrey Hahn

    Thank you, Anna, for letting us know a time frame for the next update.  "Within 10 days" - I'm looking forward to it!  If only everyone would calm down a little bit, it would make these forums much more pleasant to read.  Please remember that Skylum does not have the resources of a Microsoft, and more than likely weren't expecting this release to be as popular as it obviously has become.  I've had my own issues with it, but I don't complain - I just tried to give Skylum as much information as I could about the issue that I've noticed, and when asked for more information (in less than 4 hours!  Amazing!) I gladly and readily provided it.  Work with them, as they do care and will do their best to help you out.  And finally, no, I have absolutely no better relationship with Skylum than you do, but I have worked in small software shops before, and know what it's like to release new software.  If you truly want the software to be successful, take a deep breath, let it out, and calmly report the issue.

    -2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Philippe Castagna

    Hi Geoffrey,

    As you can see I'm the one who started this post and this without any bad intention except to ask about timeframe info that you renew just now. Some others members post some personal critical insight and I didn't answer them because I'm not in this spirit.

    I was during 9 years technical support manager of an ISP in the caribbean. So I fully understand what means under-resources and customer pressure, on both senses.

    I do not blame the Skylum/Luminar 3 support team. I just regret the lack of global vision of the customer service. They have a fantastic product with a serious issue that I didn't knew when I bought it 3 weeks ago but that apparently the entire community is aware of. Maybe this situation could be handled a bit better to contain the frustration and, most important, keep high the image of the company and the confidence that a customer could have for it.

    I opened another post, regarding plugin, where Anna answered really quickly. By nature I want to keep faith and confidence in Skylum team. 

    Best regards,

    Philippe

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Helena Carter

    Hi Everyone!

    @MIkhail, These performance issues should be fixed in the next update. If you're still experiencing them after the update, please, don't hesitate to reach us here: https://skylum.com/support

    @Geoffrey, @Philippe, thank you for your feedback. We really appreciate it. 

    Have a great day!

    -1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Philippe Castagna

    Hi Helena,

    You are really welcome!

    I have an update for you from this morning. 

    I have Windows 10 Professional and yesterday I updated it to vers 1803 build 17134.556 (maybe this info is not relevant but just in case).

    After the update, I deleted, again, the entire folder Luminar catalog which is located in C:\Users\Philippe\Pictures.

    Then I restarted Luminar 3 and add my folder 2018/2019 which contain 252Go of images (around 26k+). I leave it process through the night.

    This morning I close then re-open Luminar 3. And here surprise. The program opened like a charm in a few second.

    If I take folder by folder, the browsing is good. But If I select a folder with multiple folder in it (the entire 2018 folder for ex.) then the images takes minutes to appear.

    This is my little experience but I know that more we have feedback from the base better is to find solution.

    Best regards,

    Philippe

     

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Karol Wieczorek

    6 month later luminar 3 still is crappy

    1
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.