Luminar and Topaz (Page 2): I also have all of these programs, but typically use Luminar 4 first. Topaz Studio 2 is also good. The other Topaz programs such as Topaz Mask AI, Sharpen...

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

Curmudgeon wrote:

No they are not one or the other plugins. Because I am lazy, I use Luminar 4, Topaz, and NIK as well as Lightroom and Photoshop. I had used Luminar exclusively for easy sky replacements but I now am starting to use more of the features. I use them as plugins with Photoshop. Using layers I mix and match them as necessary

Hope that helped.

I also have all of these programs, but typically use Luminar 4 first. Topaz Studio 2 is also good. The other Topaz programs such as Topaz Mask AI, Sharpen AI, DeNoise AI, etc. frequently are helpful. There are times that Photoshop features are needed. Lightroom is the least used by me.

Phil Steele Photography website has a fairly in-depth video review of Luminar. Also you can get a discount on Luminar going through his website. Other have this too.

Enjoy!

DrSteve Loc: Connecticut

I have used Luminar4 as a stand-alone for about 4 months. Very pleased. There are many 1 click fixes and adjustments for photos, but if you're like me and want more control, the editing features are powerful. It uses AI for many of them. I've been pleased with the portrait adjustments, sky replacement (you won't believe it!) and other features. They both have YouTubes that give overviews. Another program to consider, also very powerful that uses AI in a masterful way, is OnOne. It can also be a plugin or stand alone and you buy it, don't "rent it" from Adobe.
Luminar has been updated, for the better, twice since I purchased it in November.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

UTMike wrote:

I notice throughout the posts on UHH references to using Topaz and Luminar. Are these "one or the other" plug- ins? If so, what are your thoughts/reasons for preferring one over the other?

Luminar may be used as a plug-in, or stand-alone program. I use Luminar 2018 as a stand alone and really like the program. I also have Luminar 3 on my Mac, but like 2018 better.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

I have never used Luminar so I can't comment to that. Topaz used to be primarily plugins for LR PS etc. They may still offer some plugins, but their primary programs are standalone programs. They may be used as filters in LR and PS like Adobe RAW and NIK. Topaz programs do not require you to have LR or PS and can do amny if not most of the editing like LR and PS. They do not have the management and cataloging capabilities of LR no do they have all of the other graphics capabilities of PS. They are very system demanding, especially for graphics controllers. They have 30 day free trials for all of their programs.

rcarol

NCMtnMan wrote:

I have never used Luminar so I can't comment to th... (show quote)

And as I’ve stated in a previous post it is not a RAW processor.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

rcarol wrote:

And as I’ve stated in a previous post it is not a RAW processor.

I don't use Luminar as a RAW processor. Instead, following advice from a very good local camera store, I open my RAW files with Nikon's proprietary software, convert to tif and then use Luminar. The store owner - a very knowledgable photographer, himself, said that proprietary information in the RAW files from my D7100 would be lost opening the files in Luminar. This work flow seems to be very effective for me.

rcarol

adamsg wrote:

I don't use Luminar as a RAW processor. Instead, following advice from a very good local camera store, I open my RAW files with Nikon's proprietary software, convert to tif and then use Luminar. The store owner - a very knowledgable photographer, himself, said that proprietary information in the RAW files from my D7100 would be lost opening the files in Luminar. This work flow seems to be very effective for me.

I apologize I did not make myself very clear. I was really referring to Topaz more so than luminar.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

rcarol wrote:

I apologize I did not make myself very clear. I was really referring to Topaz more so than luminari.

Okay, I understand.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

rcarol wrote:

No, they can both be used but not simultaneously. They are independent plug-ins and while each offers a different set of capabilities there is some overlap. I like and use both.

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

adamsg wrote:

I don't use Luminar as a RAW processor. Instead, following advice from a very good local camera store, I open my RAW files with Nikon's proprietary software, convert to tif and then use Luminar. The store owner - a very knowledgable photographer, himself, said that proprietary information in the RAW files from my D7100 would be lost opening the files in Luminar. This work flow seems to be very effective for me.

FWIW, Luminar doesn't open the RAW files produced by my RX100 VII but does the Nikon RAW files from my old D3 and current D810 and D7000. Skylum said they were working of solving this difficulty. I haven't tried opening the Sony file using 4.2.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Doc Barry wrote:

FWIW, Luminar doesn't open the RAW files produced by my RX100 VII but does the Nikon RAW files from my old D3 and current D810 and D7000. Skylum said they were working of solving this difficulty. I haven't tried opening the Sony file using 4.2.

That is interesting information. I am going to double check with our camera store, as well as e-mailing the question to the Skylum team. Perhaps the owner just wasn't that familiar with Luminar.

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

adamsg wrote:

That is interesting information. I am going to double check with our camera store, as well as e-mailing the question to the Skylum team. Perhaps the owner just wasn't that familiar with Luminar.

FWIW, I cropped tightly a photo of the bricks of a neighbors house located about 200' distant using a D810 with a Tamron 150-600 G2 lens set at 600mm. Camera was on a tripod and shutter was triggered by the camera timer. The captured jpeg and RAW were input into Luminar 4.2 and not processed, just cropped to 1250 by 1250 pixels. The resulting jpegs from Luminar 4.2 are shown below. The first is from the RAW file and the second is from the captured jpeg.

The jpeg imaged created by Luminar 4.2 from the RAW file appears better (more clarity) than the captured jpeg output by Luminar 4.2.

(Download)

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

adamsg wrote:

That is interesting information. I am going to double check with our camera store, as well as e-mailing the question to the Skylum team. Perhaps the owner just wasn't that familiar with Luminar.

I have had no problem opening my Nikon NEF files in Luminar (currently using v4). I use it standalone to directly edit my photos. I've also at times used ViewNX-i to review a series of photos and convert selected ones to TIFF.

Also, since I use ThumbsPlus Pro from http://cerious.com/ for catalogging and keywording, I don't use LR.

Bill in Gold Canyon, AZ

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

I am pleased to report that Luminar 4.2 is now opening Sony ARW (RAW) files correctly whereas 4.1 and older did not.

I reported the problem several weeks before the 4.2 was issued and Skylum told me that they were trying to resolve the problem. Congratulations to them for a great response.

This saves the time of converting to TIFF and then opening with Luminar.

grichie5

dpullum wrote:

just a few words explaining why to use Luminar first would be helpful....

Is there a trial version of Luminar 4 available. I have searched but no success so far!