Jump to content

What's the book on Luminar?

Chris Werner

By Chris Werner
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chris Werner Newbie

Chris Werner

Posted
Posted

I just purchased an X-T3 (yay!) to replace my dated X-Pro 1 and apparently get a free copy of Luminar as a result of a rebate someone is offering. Before Adobe went subscription I used Lightroom, and after (which has mostly been a period of photographic inactivity) I went back to using ACDSee, which I had also used before Lightroom. I'll obviously take a free copy, especially since it's apparently a lifetime license, but I try to be minimalist in my software and use as few programs for a given purpose as I can manage. So I'm curious how users feel about it, and the extent to which they consider it a one stop shop. Thanks!

 

Chris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mawz Enthusiast

mawz

Posted
Posted

Buggy, gimmicky crap. And I'm being polite. Their business model is to release new paid options rather than patch their current release, and hope suckers pony up for the new gimmicks (and old bugs)

If you want free, Capture One Express for Fuji is FAR superior, so are Fuji's two free options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris Werner Newbie

Chris Werner

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ha! Say what you really think! 😂

Thanks for the honest feedback I don't care a whit about free. I just want a good comprehensive package but no subscriptions please - that's why I dumped Adobe. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. In the meantime, I'll get up to date on ACDSee.

Thanks again!

Chris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris998 Newbie

Chris998

Posted
Posted

Fully agree with mawz,

Luminar is crap, in my humble opinion,

slow, buggy, the so-called library is not thought through, and useless if you have more than handful of photos. A few years ago I used some limited Macphun (that is how they were called before switching to Skylum) products and gave Luminar not one try, but several, and paid for at least three versions, to no avail. Skylum's Aurora HDR was the same sad story. Will never touch any of their software again.

I have been using Capture One for many years now. I gave Lightroom and Photoshop a try as well, but they didn't work well with Fuji X, at least at that time.

For Fuji X, Capture One works really well, especially if you shoot RAW, which you should with a Fuji X, and if that is the only camera brand you own, Capture One Express for Fuji is even free, if I am not mistaken. I also use CO with Leica, Sony and Canon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mawz Enthusiast

mawz

Posted
Posted
On 8/5/2020 at 6:34 PM, Chris Werner said:

Ha! Say what you really think! 😂

Thanks for the honest feedback I don't care a whit about free. I just want a good comprehensive package but no subscriptions please - that's why I dumped Adobe. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. In the meantime, I'll get up to date on ACDSee.

Thanks again!

Chris.

Capture One Express for Fuji is free and quite capable. I use the paid version personally, but the free version covers most needs if you don't batch process and don't mind not being able to make your own styles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
khollister Rookie

khollister

Posted
Posted

I use Luminar quite a bit for specific things, but I agree that the Library features are pretty poor - no keyboarding or searches of metadata for one. I use Capture One to do fundamental editing and RAW conversion and will send TIFF's to Luminar (Or Color Efex Pro and Silver Efex Pro) for specific creative effects. Luminar also does compositing, which C1 doesn't have presently. 

I'm on a Mac and have not found it to be buggy.

I still use Lightroom to maintain my catalog of "finished" images since the catalog functionality in C1 is hideously slow IMHO. When I finish an image in C1, I create a TIFF with all the adjustments baked in and then import that into LR. I would love to ditch Adobe altogether, but LR is too damn good at cataloging and searching thousands of images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      First post here but long time fuji shorter. I use the XT2 with the 23mm f2 / 35mm 1.4 / 16-80mm f4 I'm considering the 23mm f1.4 r (Non-WR) About me: - I shoot black and white only. - I like macro details to wide open landscapes and everything in-between. - I shoot mostly for art, intrigue and creativity of the image. My question - is the 23mm f1.4 going to offer me any meaningful difference over the f2 for the above scenarios Thanks and sorry for bringing it up again...
×
×
  • Create New...