Processing techniques by different programs: Two photos from post-processing, one from Lightroom, one from Luminar. In Lightroom, I did what I am capable of doing with the program.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Two photos from post-processing, one from Lightroom, one from Luminar. In Lightroom, I did what I am capable of doing with the program. Then I processed the same raw file using Luminar. I’m sure some will prefer one photo; some the other.

Please view the downloads for sharpness.

The results:

Lightroom

(Download)

Luminar
Luminar...

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I think the team at Luminar would be rather concerned about the color tint and pixelation in the sky ... They would suggest you revisit your WB work on this image before presenting it as a specimen for comparison. They'd ask whether this image in Luminar started from the RAW file and what color space you used.

I'd expect Luminar to also ask about the noise reduction settings used and the missing correction to the sensor dust spot to the left of the tree, just below the pixelation band in the sky.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

It was from the raw file, and the sky is my fault--I got a little carried away there.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

jaymatt wrote:

It was from the raw file, and the sky is my fault--I got a little carried away there.

The team at Adobe would ask about your NR decisions for an ISO-400 image where no Luminance NR value was used and a +25 Color noise reduction value was used, both defaults rather than customization to what the software can accomplish or is needed for this low ISO value and camera.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'm not trying to rip up your image ... But, you've left a lot on the table relative to the capabilities of LR and I'd assume from Luminar as well. For Adobe (whether LR or ARC), the defaults applied to RAW files are truly generic defaults that apply with ZERO INTELLIGENCE to the image characteristics. The defaults don't account for the camera model nor the ISO level of the image. I've provided a UHH post earlier in 2019 showing how the human should (must) take control of the NR settings (and Sharpening) when working in LR for RAW processing to correct these default values applied at import.

Basics of noise processing

What is useful from this discussion is your own personal assessment of whether one is easier than the other? It would seem Luminar, in your hands, is harder to achieve the same relative result. Is that your assessment too?

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

My personal preference is for the first option. It might be better if the shadows were lifted just a bit for more detail in the tree. The colors in the first one are very pleasing and this is a nice shot.😊

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Luminar appears over-processed.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

As someone who started with and continues using Photoshop, I would be very interested if any intensive users of both programs mentioned here have noticed any significant superiorities deficiencies in one over the other.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

artBob wrote:

As someone who started with and continues using Photoshop, I would be very interested if any intensive users of both programs mentioned here have noticed any significant superiorities deficiencies in one over the other.

That not having happened yet, I share one of the better sites found as I looked for answer myself. 10 programs are compared, and actual results shown with explanations of strengths and weaknesses. https://petapixel.com/2017/12/15/tested-10-photoshop-alternatives/

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

UTMike wrote:

Luminar appears over-processed.

Yeah, I agree.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

artBob wrote:

That not having happened yet, I share one of the better sites found as I looked for answer myself. 10 programs are compared, and actual results shown with explanations of strengths and weaknesses. https://petapixel.com/2017/12/15/tested-10-photoshop-alternatives/

Interesting. I still use LR as a base because of the catalog, which none of the others seem to have. More and more, I’m delving into Luminar, ON1 10, and Nik to get done what I really want.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

CHG_CANON wrote:

I'm not trying to rip up your image ... But, you'v... (show quote)

“But . . . .” Sorry, couldn’t resist

Seriously, thanks, Paul, for the constructive criticism. I’m pretty much a novice at post-processing, especially beyond Lightroom. Comments like those of yours are what I am looking for so that I can make feeble attempts to better myself. Again, thanks for being constructive in your comments rather than destructive.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

jaymatt wrote:

“But . . . .” Sorry, couldn’t resist img src="htt... (show quote)

I think LR is the best of the bunch, but it really takes some time to learn and to use, especially for what it does to your RAW images automatically that require your (the photographer's) corrective action. I'll send you my email. Email me back to set-up a drop box and then export an DNG version of your image and post into the dropbox. I'll send you back a DNG with edits so you can compare, slider by slider, various areas to consider. I had dumped the EXIF from the LR image to see some of the settings, like the NR defaults, but the DNG is the best way to pass the edits back n forth.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

In addition to Paul’s great suggestions, you might consider posting to the ‘Post Processing’ or the ‘For Your Consideration’ section and ask others who use different PP software to edit your images. BTW, I’m in the LR/PS camp after purchasing oN1, Luminar and Affinity. For me, Affinity is the next best editor.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Paul obviously read the metadata file, a skill beyond my interest and ability. It is hard to comment after his inciteful observations other than to say by my standards I like the first one best. I am a Lightroom to Photoshop user. I used Photoshop long before there was a Lightroom so I am more comfortable there. I do all my PP except WB in PS.