Version 3.1 Ratings - Still not Sharing

Comments

15 comments

  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    I can see why some users my want XMP files implemented as part of the Luminar 3 DAM. Personally I have no need and I hope they will be optional. Personally I hate the things!

    Good news that speed is better.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Zach Wagner

    Agree with Phil. Sidecars no thanks.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Rodney Brown

    So how do you move/share all of your ratings from/between your existing DAM?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    I don't!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Zach Wagner

    Well speaking for me personally, I'm no pro so my needs aren't that great. I still have quite a lot of photos (about 40k). I use Luminar 3's dam simply because I wanted a way out of Lightroom and Skylum provided the most interesting path. ON1 generally works better still, but Luminar is more fun to use and has unique filters no one else has.
    At any rate, I originally had all my photos cataloged but it was taking quite some time to start Luminar, so I did two things. One I deleted the cache folder that Luminar creates, as suggested by another user, and have now only loaded the relevant folders I'm in the most. All of my stuff is cataloged by camera, so I'm 90% in current camera folders, and if I need to go back I just add the folder I want. Takes very little time to open Luminar, but it still is slow to load photos into the editing module, and exporting photos is abysmally slow. Also can't use the software while exporting, which is annoying.

    The short answer is: I don't have a need to move/share ratings as my dam needs are very simple. Were I still shooting weddings/events as I once did, there is absolutely no way I could use Luminar at all. But as it is, as a hobbyist currently, I'm not bothered by it.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Zach Wagner

    I would say I agree with Phil in that it should be an option, so those of us who don't want the extra files running around don't have to have them. But those who need them should have it available. I also appreciate Phil's succinct response above. ;)

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    Blimey Zach, couldn't have put it better myself. I too want to find a way out of Lightroom and I agree I like the Luminar editing functionality.

    I actulay did re-organise my images in Luminar 3 bacuse it needed doing anyway but I tend to have a very simple system and the album structure suits me fine.

    Writing to XMP is an option in Lightroom catalogue settings and I have it un-ticked.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Zach Wagner

    Well, just tried the new 3.1 update, and I have to say that I'm finally starting to run out of patience and hope for this software. If possible, it is even slower than previously. Using the brush tool (while showing the mask) has slowed down immensely, and loading photos into edit seems even slower than it was before, if that's possible. What a bummer.

    I will say AI 2.0 does work pretty darn well. Much better than before. But if that's the only place the real effort is going, I just don't know if I can stand it. Love the filters but ON1 is just so much faster to use, and they are doing a major update next month that is supposed to increase speed quite a bit as well.

    I suppose I could go back to LR and try the Flex plugin. It pains me to even think of going back to Adobe though. Ugh what a 1st world annoyance.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    Over 2 minutes for Luminar 3 to launch on a 32Gb iMac using the Library module. Its not looking good

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Rodney Brown

     Unfortunately I invested time in Lightroom and loved the PUX flagging to get to the good images, then used ratings to further refine.

    When I jumped to L3 for the DAM I cancelled LR but couldn't see of my ratings and there were so many issues witht L3 I bought ON1 and now I use the free version of Capture One to refine the Fuji Xtrans files to TIFFs so I get a good de-mosaic of the raw files to start from.

    I believe I have heavily over-complicated the plumbing but it does mean that a) I need to share the ratings in XMP files; and b) I need to get my act together and simplify.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    As I said previously . . .  . I can see why some users my want XMP files implemented as part of the Luminar 3 DAM. Personally I have no need and I hope they will be optional.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Zach Wagner

    Well, I spent the last two days editing photos and comparing them in Luminar, ON1 and Lightroom. I used to think Lightroom was slow. Luminar makes it look like a frigging Formula One car. ON1 still pretty fast too, but Lightroom overall is the fastest. Rebuilding my catalog sucked big time ass and took forever (why Adobe can't just browse folders quickly like Luminar and ON1 is beyond me). But once that was done, I have to say there simply is no comparison on key issues.

    1) Sharpening. Lightroom basically takes a katana to the other two programs. ON1 comes in second, but it still can't touch the fine detail of Lightroom. Luminar is basically a shit show. Massive haloing unless you keep the slider pretty low, no matter the threshold setting, and even if you max out the slider and only go to say... 50 in Lightroom, all you get from Luminar is a still far less sharp file with absolutely horrendous halos. It is abysmal.

    2) Chromatic Aberration. Lightroom uses the baked in profile from the manufacturer to do automatic corrections to the file. People have argued that you don't have total control this way, and while that's true to a degree, who the hell wants all the aberrations, especially from non-pro lenses. I've used many pro lenses in my time but currently am relegated to the Fuji XC 15-45mm kit lens, which while quite sharp at 15mm also has massive distortion and wicked bad CA. Luminar and ON1 simply CANNOT correct for this, and it is completely destructive to color editing. The chromatic aberration and defringe check boxes, in any combination, are just not even close to what I would call 'good'. Even on the supported raw files of my Sony RX100 VI, there is still CA visible and if it does get rid of it the artifacts are not worth it. ON1 pretty much just doesn't even try and their defringe sliders are all but worthless. Unless the lens profile is supported, you are shit out of luck.

    3) Distortion. Again, Lightroom here uses the profile baked into the raw file from the manufacturer to correct the distortion and you have to do nothing in addition. If it is supported, there is a check box in Luminar for automatic correction, which works... okay. I find I still have to do further correction, and when that happens the corners get a little wacky so cropping is necessary. LR may crop a bit based on the profile, but I'm still getting more of the frame with that correction than I do with Luminar with automatic correction applied and then additional manual and then crop. ON1 is superior to Luminar in their manual correction, but they do not have profiles for the lenses I own so I can't say how good that might be in comparison.

     

    The new Accent AI is really good. Golden Hour has no other equal, period. Detail Enhancer is fantastic (though it is only enhancing the detail that Luminar can pull out of the file which, believe me, ain't much). Sunrays again has no equal but it's a filter I'd only use maybe 1% of the time. 

    All of these things can be had in the Luminar Flex plugin (except that Accent AI is still 1.0, which is nowhere near as good).

     

    After many comparisons on image quality, usability and speed, I have to say there is still no real competitor to Adobe besides Capture One (which is better in a number of ways), and I really don't like using Capture One. So begrudgingly, resignedly, somewhat hatefully, I've returned to Adobe and will utilize the Flex plugin on an as-needed basis.

    Just thought I'd share my thoughts. My apologies if I've over-indulged myself where it's not wanted.

    Cheers.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tony Collins

    I agree that L3 still has a long way to go. I'll probably use Libraries where I want to work quick and dirty for sharing images online, and lightroom with flex where I want to do a proper job resulting in a print. (This is where L3 - without any usable print module - will never be suitable)

    Horses for courses.

    This assumes 3.1 (as appears to be the case so far for me) is stable and doesn't regularly mess up my catalog, losing edits as the previous version did.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jack Larson

    Zach, your last post is exactly the kind of post that I find helpful.   I have talked to pros, even ones who write books on Luminar and ON1.  They still use Lightroom as their DAM.  So I have stuck with Lightroom which’s works great for me.   I have not done all of the comparisons that you have, but, for the most part, my experience has been the same as yours.   I really like Flex, but temporarily have returned to Luminar 3.1 as a plug-in (primarily to be able to use Accent AI 2.0).  There are certain areas where Luminar excels, just as is the case with ON1.   I am very grateful that I talk to the pros about what they use as their DAM.  Thus,  I have avoided most of the problems the people are having with Luminar as an all in one.   Thanks again for your post. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Zach Wagner

    Appreciate that Jack, and I'm glad my experience could be of use.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.