Photographs vs Snapshots? Luminar 3 vs 4?

Answered

Comments

11 comments

  • Avatar
    Donald Wyllie

    If you look you will find many comments in similar vein. Many who post here are fed up with Skylum for they want to go down the AI route before they have an adequately working L3 program. Luminar 4 seems to be aimed at people who can't take a decent photo and need all the AI help they can get to produce a half decent image. It is certainly not a replacement for Lightroom and, judging from the progress on L3, it never will be. L4 is apparently aimed at people who post online and while there is nothing inherently wrong with this it is not my, or many other's, idea of photography. Given the backward state of L3 how can we expect Skylum to make L4 a  working program. I just hang about waiting to see whether the next update Skylum releases will produce real improvements. I certainly don't use the program. Having said that, L3 is certainly not worse as a result of the updates which, unfortunately, fail to address the  most basic problems. The good bits in L3 are still more than outweighed by the bad bits. Lack of control over Printing is one of the bad bits and it certainly isn't mentioned as a feature in L4.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mario Titton

    The print form is essential for photography. Without this function you should always forward to other programs and it is never good. Too bad because post production works very well.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Anastasia Davis

    Hi guys! Thanks for your feedback. We do take time to read all the comments of our users so to pass them to our developers. This way, they could consider your suggestions. We appreciate your honest opinion. Thanks!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mark Barnes

    I use ON1, Topaz and L3 and will probably add L4 . All points above are valid. However I take exception to the statement that "people who can't take a decent photo need all the AI help to produce a decent image". AI is just another tool in the tool box and if used properly, with restraint, there will be situations that it will be useful. In LR, PS, ON1 and others photographers replace skies, crop out or erase distractions, adjust color and tone, etc. I don't think they do that because they can't take a decent photo. That's just opinion, not wanting to offend anyone. Great discussion overall tho.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Donald Wyllie

    Well, Mark, I'm not sure about restraint. You replace a sky or you don't. But one of the great lessons from 'world class' (ugh, a horrible term) photographers is patience. I've just read a book by Charlie Waite and he talks of taking hours and maybe days to get the image right in the camera. Sometimes it is waiting seconds for the cloud pattern to become  'right.' So, to my mind AI sky replacement is for people who can't be bothered. I do my limited best, shoot raw and use the tools in Lightroom to crop, remove a blemish, adjust levels and so on. Sometimes because I'm too lazy to get it right in the camera. I quite like the Lightroom HDR which I tried the other day handheld with my E M1 II. I suppose if someone said it was AI HDR I'd be horrified! AI, as you say, is just another tool. But we are getting the AI tools before we get an adequately working program

    So, I am annoyed at Skylum spending our money developing AI enhancements before the program works to a level similar to the fairly clunky Lightroom 6. Then there is the fatuous advice from Skylum - if you want more speed cut down the size of your catalogue - which bits should I discard? Similarly, go and make a cup of coffee while the adjustments catch up with the sliders.

    Finally, I wouldn't worry about giving offense for Skylum offends us on a daily basis. They are now as bad as Adobe but take larger lumps of money less frequently than once a month. As a result I'm seriously considering paying Adobe $10/month for a working program rather than the $80/year with Skylum for a program that doesn't and wont cut it. But it will give lovely AI enhanced sky - if you are prepared to wait.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mark Barnes

    Well said. Getting it right in camera is always best. Dating myself, but I learned that many, many years ago in the film days and developing my images in the dark room. If it was right out of the camera, the work in the darkroom was so much better. Thanks for your response and good to hear from another Olympus user!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    John Robinson

    Good points, Leander, that get to the heart of why we take pictures.

    I'm happiest when I get a shot just right without the need to edit. However, I'm not one of those who crosses the mountains to camp on a rocky outcrop just to get the perfect shot with the light at some awful early morning time. Most of my photos will be snapshots taken with friends and in Britain, that often means the light is poor during the daytime and my photos are drab.

    I've taken some photos to help dementia sufferers remember days gone by. These were edited to bring a smile to the face. I've taken some to remind me of 'moments'. Sometimes I will keep the original and also an edited version to reflect how I felt. And I keep some where my artistic taste has, according to others, gone absent without leave.

    Overall, my aim is to have photos that interest my audiences and to do that, I need luck and easy to use software. Being able to easily add different skies to a photo will be a big plus for me providing the skies are typical of those we see in Britain; a 'Wuthering Heights' moorland landscape with a Sahara sky is not going to work! 

    Creative Kit and Luminar have always worked on my iMac (I don't use Luminar Libraries). Adobe products don't always work. Luminar doesn't give me better images than Adobe but it does make life easier.

     

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Leander Branham

    Precisely, John...photography is one art form which can be used in different ways or for various goals. As long as someone doesn't try to pass off a photo in whch sections have been replaced as an actual representation of what was there, then there's nothing wrong with that, any more than a painter putting in a different sky or leaving out buildings and trees, etc...everyone knows people who paint and draw often pick and chose what goes into their artwork. You do something similar with your photos, which makes them your artwork because you say you altered the photos to show what your mind wanted to show. I think that is just as valid as the person who never post-processes, or who heavily post-processes and admits it.

    It's all part of owning your art and defining your methods. What an interesting world we live in.

    But I still prefer my photos show what my eye saw. ;-}

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Eje Hultén

    I have been with this program since it first appeared several years ago. I was made to believe it would develop into a replacement for Aperture. (and Lightroom 6) But as it looks now....this will never happen.....When asking Skylum about a future DAM for Luminar, as a replacement for Lightroom 6 and Aperture, they recommend me to use Photos with Luminar, Aurora and Noiseless CK plug-ins. Spending a lot of money on Macphun and Skylum programs now seems as a dead end for me.

    I now have two options, stay, for the time being, with Aperture and Mac OS 10.14 or go back to Lightroom and use the upcoming OS 10.15      At least I can move my Aperture Library to Lightroom in a nearly acceptable way. I´m waiting for Avalanche by Cyme to help me make this move.

    I am, of course, proceeding my evaluation of other options, there is a lot of photo-editing programs out there to chose from. But few, if any, has a DAM function comparable with Aperture and Lightroom.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    John Robinson

    Eje

    I am a snapper of photos, at best a hobbyist, but definitely an iMac user. I am nowhere near being a professional. I used to use Adobe but the bugs etc made it increasingly difficult to have a smooth process from import to edit and beyond.

    In 2015 I switched to Apple's Photos and Creative Kit. Now I have 5,000 images. Apple Photos with Creative Kit and up to Luminar 3/Flex as Extensions have all worked well together. I have not used Luminar's library because it is not what I want or even wanted. I like Apple Photos because it works consistently, integrates with Apple products and the few other non Apple products I use, it is a simple but informative DAM, and has easy backup with iCloud and Time Machine. Problems are rare with my set up and usually self inflicted.

    My average spend over the last 4 years with Apple Photos/iCloud, Creative Kit, and Luminar equates to £57pa. I tried both Lightroom products but found they didn't suit my current approach to photography. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Robert Constantine

    I have now been using Luminar for a few weeks, and in my opinion, post-processing will make a good photo better, but IT CERTAINLY WON'T RESCUE A DUD !!  The comment therefore about " people who can't take a decent photo need all the AI help to produce a decent image ", is quite wrong, in my opinion.  You will not manage to do that I am afraid .  You MUST know your trade first, and start with a good image out of camera first, before post production helps. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.