Luminar 3 vs CaptureOne 12

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't find govindkumar's review useful: it's more of a listing of features than a review and the fact that the article contains repeated offers (advertisements, that is) with coupons for the purchase of Luminar does not add to its credibility. The example pictures of "before" and "after" applying Luminar edits are the same type of pitch that you find on the Luminar website. There is no real comparison to Lightroom or other software in this respect.  

I've just spent about a half an hour — not enough for a real evaluation — reprocessing with Luminar Flex some M10 DNG files into somewhat high-contrast B&W — and find it difficult to get to a look I like that I got with Silver Efex. Actually, I used some "formulas" in AnalogEfex and ColorEfex (for B&W) that I've developed to get the type of look that I want. That it to say, for these particular looks, I find it easier (quicker) to get to than in SilverEfex, although the latter can get me there as well.

I spent also spent another half an hour reprocessing color images  in Luminar Flex. I found that, consistently, I couldn't get a look as good as I get with several presets/plugins that I get in Lightroom. Maybe I could get there if a spent a lot more time than I had used in my original edits. The "inventive new ways of working" in Luminar don't do much for me, despite the slick interface. There's a lot I don't like about the Adobe subscription model, but I don't see Luminar as a replacement for Lightroom Classic.

I hasten to say that I start with a mistrust of Luminar because a couple of years ago I tried out some modules of the predecessor MacPhun app: I used the MacPhun Intensification module on some color images in an attempt at selective edits of parts of the images. The problem was that the resulting processed images had applied to a much larger, and even different areas, of the images than I had selected in the MacPhun view. When I wrote to MacPhun they conceded that this was a problem that would be fixed in the next update. But that update still had not fixed the problem.

Generally, it's difficult to find useful reviews of image editing software or of VSCO-type presets of plugins: most of seems to be written by shills. I'm not saying that this is the case of govindkumar, but the coupons don't help and the review is not particularly useful. In the end, these are things one has to try for oneself. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rob_w]

5 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

I've just spent about a half an hour — not enough for a real evaluation

Evaluation time is a problem.  I have probably spent 15-20 hours so far and I'm still discovering things -- particularly where I try to use it like LR without thinking afresh the way Luminar is designed to work.  It took me many months and a couple of good books to become  skilled with LR when I first acquired it.  So why should Luminar be different?

I don't know how much to trust Luminar.  It is obviously a 'young' application with more maturity and refinement needed, just as LR was in its first few years.  When it comes to trust, Adobe has set the bar pretty low, esp. now they have declared the "perpetual" licence will become unusable with 64-bit MacOS.

Edited August 19, 2019 by rob_w

[rob_w]

Just to add,  I have been evaluating Luminar in comparison to LR for the most part.  As a result I made little use of aspects of Luminar which are NOT in LR.  On reflection, it might be fairer to use Luminar the way its designers intend.

As Luminar 4 is due for release shortly, there have been some early examples of the features which are coming.  Here is one posted by DPReview which gives a flavour.   https://www.dpreview.com/news/2941631635/luminar-s-ai-structure-selectively-enhances-textures-and-detail-in-your-images?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2019-august-28&ref_=pe_1822230_429564350_dpr_nl_387_41

What do forum members think -- are we ready yet to move on from the 20+ years paradigm of manual adjustments, to embrace AI?

 

 

[otto.f]

I just pre-ordered. Not because I believe in AI per se, but because thus far Luminar has proven to be worth the small cost. I trust them a whole lot more than ADOBE. 

[marchyman]

I just got a free copy of Luminar 3 for being a SmugMug user.  Will I use it?  Don't know.  I'll certainly play with it.

[rob_w]

Luminar 3 just won the EISA award for best photo software: https://www.eisa.eu/awards/skylum-luminar/

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kiss me, Please kiss me.

[rob_w]

🥰

[jaapv]

I've just been playing with the public beta of ON1 2020. Pretty impressive, especially for those of us who like presets. I'm not sure I like the adding weather feature, but you don't have to use it. The printing module looks very useful. Decent DAM too.

 

 

[frame-it]

https://skylum.com/luminar-l4

 

looks interesting

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, frame-it said:

https://skylum.com/luminar-l4

 

looks interesting

I hope it will not be as demanding on hardware as other AI image processing software - min. 16 GB and 4 GB videocard but deadly slow, or acceptable with  32/8 even better 64/8.

[frame-it]

i wonder if this box would help with speeds while using LR/C1/Luminar etc

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicegpu/

 

[AndreasG]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb frame-it:

looks interesting

I am afraid, finally Luminar-4 selects an internet photo on behalf of you and applies all AI improvements - no need for an own photo anymore? I admit, I am a user of Luminar-3 and I like the functions and performance, which I feel I am able to control. I even preordered Luminar-4, but meanwhile I doubt it was a wise decision.

[frame-it]

2 minutes ago, AndreasG said:

I am afraid, finally Luminar-4 selects an internet photo on behalf of you and applies all AI improvements - no need for an own photo anymore? I admit, I am a user of Luminar-3 and I like the functions and performance, which I feel I am able to control. I even preordered Luminar-4, but meanwhile I doubt it was a wise decision.

you mean its working like this ? https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-p30-pro-moon-mode-controversy-978486/

[AndreasG]

Thank you for the link, frame-it, that frightens me indeed! Certainly it helps millions of  people to create photos that otherwise would have been impossible - accepted! But it is not what I need or prefer, maybe eventually I am part of a minority - those, who want simple control of self-made photos? Right now, I keep in front of me an old Nikon F3, there is a good chance someday I return to film.

Edited September 28, 2019 by AndreasG

[rob_w]

Admittedly, a lot of the features are OTT in modern competitors, but can be toned down as required.  With Luminar 3 I find applying a basic ‘Look’ gets a whole lot of small adjustments done quickly. And sometimes just a 20% is enough to get it right with no further adjustment.

[frame-it]

im happy with C1pro 12

[Gobert]

Different price ...... factor 4 or so.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom.w.bn]

Luminar software is really putting me off with the ads that show their main features sky replacement and face "optimization". What the hell is this? And the intensive use of the buzzwort AI is also irritating. I'd probably look at Exposure X4/X5 if I needed an alternative for Capture One.

[zeitz]

6 hours ago, frame-it said:

i wonder if this box would help with speeds while using LR/C1/Luminar etc

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicegpu/

 

See the thread  "2018 Mac Mini with Lightroom 6.14?".   Towards the end there is a discussion of eGPUs, the performance differences I measured, and why I picked a Sonnett eGFX breakaway box instead of a Blackmagic eGPU.  Adobe is improving its use of GPUs; I don't know what C1 or Luminar does.