Tried Luminar Neo - RAW files look horrible?!

[Basti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wanted to try out an alternative to Lightroom and came across Luminar Neo - I used to use the old versions and was actually always satisfied. 

 

 

So I took a few pictures with my Q3, imported the RAW photos as usual with Lightroom and then opened the folder once in Luminar Neo and I was immediately surprised...

 

In Luminar Neo, all the images have a blatant vignette in the corners (see image 1). The image is completely unprocessed.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

The images also appear to be heavily distorted. In the second image (edited) you can see this very clearly in the window frame on the right. It is no longer straight, but strongly curved.

 

 

 

I have compared the RAW in Lightroom and there they look completely normal (no vignette, no distortion).  Does anyone have any experience with Luminar Neo or any suspicions as to the reason for this?

 

Edited March 14 by Basti

[jaapv]

This is quite logical.

The Q series cameras have a hybrid lens the sign. That means that the optical part is designed to shift all residual aberrations into the final one which is distortion. That is corrected in the further digital process. This technique ensures optimal image quality in a compact lens at a reasonable price. It is quite mainstream in the camera world nowadays.
To enable the correction the lens is wider than the nominal (final) angle of view, so vignetting will show up on the uncorrected image (28 mm needs approx. 26 mm optical focal length to arrive at the 28 mm angle of view)

However, if the raw converter is unable to apply the digital correction, you will see the image from an incomplete lens that has one essential element missing. Apparently Luminar does not support the Q cameras properly and is not useable. Although, do check that you have not switched some option like "apply lens corrections" or similar off in the settings.

[PhotoCruiser]

I can remember that there was a similar problem and also a wired color cast when the Q2 came out and i switched from LRC to C1 but after Adobe corrected the problems (including the not correct positioning cursor on some tools) i switched back to LRC and never looked back.

I would not expect that a considerable cheaper than pro editing software will and can put the same effort in programming the import files for each new camera who comes on the market, and they are many.

Chris
 

[fairchild]

There are Lens and Perspective Correction tools in the Develop RAW tool, so you can fix your photo manually. The only reason you do not see these black angles in Photoshop or Lightroom is due to the automatic Lens Correction.

#

Thomas

[BradS]

On 3/14/2025 at 6:15 AM, Basti said:

I took a few pictures with my Q3, imported the RAW photos as usual with Lightroom and then opened the folder once in Luminar Neo and I was immediately surprised...In Luminar Neo, all the images have a blatant vignette in the corners ... The images also appear to be heavily distorted. ... Does anyone have any experience with Luminar Neo or any suspicions as to the reason for this?

 

 

That's not the fault of Luminar NEO. It's the lens.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, BradS said:

 

That's not the fault of Luminar NEO. It's the lens.

No, it's the fault of Luminar, as it does not support Q3. DxO, Adobe, and C1 all know how to handle Q files properly.

[BradS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

No, it's the fault of Luminar, as it does not support Q3. DxO, Adobe, and C1 all know how to handle Q files properly.

Luminar is just not applying the corrections. What it show is what actually came out of the lens. What we see in the OP's example photos is exactly what the lens actually does. 

It is the Lens. Not the software. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, BradS said:

Luminar is just not applying the corrections. What it show is what actually came out of the lens. What we see in the OP's example photos is exactly what the lens actually does. 

It is the Lens. Not the software. 

Camera works in conjunction with post-processors. The post processor must know how to interpret data coming from the camera, including mandatory distortion and vignetting corrections. Otherwise, the camera/lens is not supported by that software.

It is increasingle common in recent lens designs to include a mandatory software step in order to get the best output under certain constraints. In those cases, it is wrong to look at the camera/lens output without incorporating the mandatory software step.

[BradS]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Camera works in conjunction with post-processors. The post processor must know how to interpret data coming from the camera, including distortion and vignetting corrections.

 Yup, make a poor performing optic and fix it in software.  

Edited March 18 by BradS

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, BradS said:

 Yup, make a poor performing optic and fix it in software.  

Nope. Make a better performing optics by not wasting IQ with making it distortion free. This has been demonstrated with various recent lens redesigns.

[LocalHero1953]

The only sensible reason for designing the optically best lens is so it can be used on a Leica M, because it has to be usable for film as well as digital.

The way to design a lens that delivers the best image is to combine both optical and digital corrections.

Me? I prefer the best image.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, BradS said:

 Yup, make a poor performing optic and fix it in software.  

Sorry, complete nonsense. You design the optical part to integrate perfectly with the digital part to reach a better quality than a purely optical lens of the same specifications. 

 

3 hours ago, BradS said:

Luminar is just not applying the corrections. What it show is what actually came out of the lens. What we see in the OP's example photos is exactly what the lens actually does. 

It is the Lens. Not the software. 

Viewing the results without the designed-in corrections is equal to removing one element from a purely optical lens lens and claiming it performs poorly. 
 

This discussion has been resolved years ago when the Q came out. It is far beyond its sell-by date by now. Welcome to this century. 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Nope. Make a better performing optics by not wasting IQ with making it distortion free. This has been demonstrated with various recent lens redesigns.

And not only Leica. The technique has become mainstream with the major lens brands over the last decade. 
 

 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

And not only Leica. The technique has become mainstream with the major lens brands over the last decade. 
 

Yes. I believe there was a new Canon lens for mirrorless with more distortions, which performed much better than its DSLR counterpart with very little distortion.

[jaapv]

Actually the concept of the technique was initiated by Leica when they had to introduce digital lens corrections ( albeit because of sensor-lens mismatch  ) on the M8. 

[Qwertynm]

I don't get what the fuss is about. The Q is a 'closed system'. You'll never shoot that lens on film.

My advice would be to import the images into Lightroom and export them as .tiff to this other raw converter that's not supporting the lens profile and edit from there.

[Chris W]

I downloaded the demo of Luminar a couple of years ago and really disliked it.

I think it's better anyway when using ANY digital camera to use an editor that supports that camera.

I owned the first Q and the images are some of the most stunningly beautiful I've ever shot. Clarity, colour, sharpness. I never futz with editing. If an image doesn't look pretty good to start with I lose heart and don't spend hours trying to fix it.

The dissing of the Q system is funny.

The only reason I sold mine was it really didn't go beyond 28mm, which is my least favourite field of view. The later versions with cropping (or 43mm) are too expensive for me at the moment.