Is Luminar non-destructive? (Page 2): okaaay ... you seem nice. In any case, for those focused on the question at hand: So far the process in Luminar sounds cumbersome. Lightroom just...

dhowland

leftj wrote:

Then you obviously can't comprehend.

okaaay ... you seem nice.

In any case, for those focused on the question at hand: So far the process in Luminar sounds cumbersome. Lightroom just leaves the original RAW files alone, no renaming or copying etc. In Luminar, does it have to be as cumbersome as what people are describing or does it have Lightroom-like functionality? If not, that's a big plus for Lightroom in my book.

leftj Loc: Texas

dhowland wrote:

okaaay ... you seem nice.

In any case, for those focused on the question at hand: So far the process in Luminar sounds cumbersome. Lightroom just leaves the original RAW files alone, no renaming or copying etc. In Luminar, does it have to be as cumbersome as what people are describing or does it have Lightroom-like functionality? If not, that's a big plus for Lightroom in my book.

Luminar does not disturb the RAW file. It is always there. You don't have to do any renaming or copying unless you want to.

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Mark1948 wrote:

Is Luminar non-destructive?

Yes. Just watched a short video by serge ramenelli

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

gkuep1945 wrote:

I don't know of any software which can format a ph... (show quote)

What you say is true, but know that LR gives the option to export to DNG, which is a raw format. You can also use PSD, TIFF and JPG.

dhowland

Mark1948 wrote:

Is Luminar non-destructive?

The answer is yes. Thanks for the question.
https://macphun.com/luminar/compare

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Affirmative

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Good grief-if you shoot raw it is always non destructive as you cannot change a raws file. You can change the way is is processed, but the underlying file is unchanged. Non-destructive editing is more hype than real.

Mark1948

With a bit more research I found a chart comparing features reporting that like LR, Luminar in non-destructive. Sorry but I did not save the link.

dhowland

CaptainC wrote:

Good grief-if you shoot raw it is always non destructive as you cannot change a raws file. You can change the way is is processed, but the underlying file is unchanged. Non-destructive editing is more hype than real.

Jeez some of you guys are grumpy on this topic, huh?

Please keep in mind that your comments reveal a lack of appreciation of how extremely easy Lightroom and now some of its rivals have made it to retain the original RAW image data, without expending time and effort. Some of us contemplating a switch from Lightroom find this to be an essential aspect of any replacement -- and they're not all necessarily non-destructive in the way we've come to appreciate in Lightroom.

I for one am grateful for the question and (most of) the answers found here.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

CaptainC wrote:

Good grief-if you shoot raw it is always non destructive as you cannot change a raws file. You can change the way is is processed, but the underlying file is unchanged. Non-destructive editing is more hype than real.

To me, non-destructive means you can process a file, and then change the processing after it is saved. I use Photoshop non-destructively by doing everything on layers with masks. I still have the processing I have done, but I can change any aspect of it, and the underlying image remains the same. That is not hype. Going back to the original RAW file and starting over means you lose all the processing you have done.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

JohnSwanda wrote:

To me, non-destructive means you can process a file, and then change the processing after it is saved. I use Photoshop non-destructively by doing everything on layers with masks. I still have the processing I have done, but I can change any aspect of it, and the underlying image remains the same. That is not hype. Going back to the original RAW file and starting over means you lose all the processing you have done.

OH sure. I agree.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

JohnSwanda wrote:

To me, non-destructive means you can process a file, and then change the processing after it is saved. I use Photoshop non-destructively by doing everything on layers with masks. I still have the processing I have done, but I can change any aspect of it, and the underlying image remains the same. That is not hype. Going back to the original RAW file and starting over means you lose all the processing you have done.

John, if I may, let me give my concept of what non-destructive means.

Let's say you have a TIFF file of an image that you really like. Exposure and composition are very good and you want to edit it in PS. So you load the image and you start to work. You make all the changes you want to make, on layers or otherwise, then you click Save. You've just destroyed that original TIFF file. Can't get it back. It's gone.

You have that image with your edits (and that's likely good enough), but this is not an example of non-destructive editing. For me, non-destructive means I ALWAYS have the original image file, giving me opportunity to edit in a different way at some subsequent date.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

brucewells wrote:

John, if I may, let me give my concept of what non... (show quote)

If you do all your editing on layers, you still have the original unchanged file as the background layer. If you were to delete all the other layers you would have the exact same file you started with.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

JohnSwanda wrote:

If you do all your editing on layers, you still have the original unchanged file as the background layer. If you were to delete all the other layers you would have the exact same file you started with.

Very well.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

I always us "Save As" on edited versions.