frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Curious whether any UUH’s have made the switch from LR to Luminar (3 or 4) as their stand-alone editing software. Not asking about the use of it as an add-on to LR.

My main concern is the ease or difficulty of moving all of my image files from LR to Luminar. And, will Luminar keep the edits performed in LR? How it is done, etc.?

Any info on the process from someone who has experienced this switch is greatly appreciated.

wsnyder Loc: Illinois

I now have Luminar 4, also 3 plus older versions. Am really liking Luminar for it's gentle learning curve. I basically started from scratch. Have not as yet figured out how to move LR files to Luminar. I use a Mac, so I have used Photos for some time using Luminar as a plug in. I haven't added anything to LR for sometime. If I need to go back to an old file in LR ,I correct it with a Luminar plug-in, then export it to Photos. Kinda long work around. Would like to find a simpler way. I would like to move everything into one system. Will be watching this. Surely with the expertise of the hoggers, some one can help us.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I think Luminar's publishers designed the software to work as a plugin for Lightroom, not a replacement. At $69 for an upgrade from Luminar 3, I don't see a whole lot of benefit to buying it. For $120, you get a complete editing an image file management solution, that runs rings around Luminar, and you don't need to be concerned with putting up with upgrade costs with each new release. I would not trade down from Lr/Ps to Luminar. The $50 savings isn't worth it.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I have used Luminar 3 and, now, Luminar 4 as stand-alone programs. I am and have been quite happy doing so.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Thanks for the input.
Did you move to Luminar from LR? If so, was there any issue importing your LR catalog to Luminar?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Luminar in its current version cannot import a Lightroom catalog.

These articles may be helpful:

https://shotkit.com/luminar-vs-lightroom/
https://www.digitalphotomentor.com/good-lightroom-alternative-luminar/
https://fstoppers.com/originals/will-new-luminar-3-let-you-ditch-lightroom-321654

For now, it's best not to stop using Lr. The alternative still has too many inadequacies.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Thanks. I believe my research and study confirms your point. Until there is something that replicates (or close) the LR image management, I’m staying with LR.

BillA

I just converted from LR6 to ON1 2020. They have a migration process to go from LR and recreate any edits you have made to your files. It has a few warts but nothing serious. You can download a fully functional version and try it for 30 days. I did the 30 day thing then bought it - $99. It's organizational capability is as close to LR as I have found and the edit capability is more.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Thanks, I’ll take a look.

eadler

Extremely easy. The Library module of Luminar shows the folders that are included. Click on the + sign which will take you to Finder on a Mac. (not sure on where it takes you on a PC) Select the folder(s) where your photos are stored and then click on "add folder" Those folders will then be added to the Luminar Library. It's only a virtual link as the folders always remain where they were on your computer.
Once your photos are in the Library you can edit them.

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

But it isn't just $50 savings, its more than that over time. LR costs $120 per year ad infinitum versus $69 for Luminar one time and then your choice if you upgrade from there.

Depends on what you want doesn't it? I agree that LR/PS is probably a better all around solution but that PS does come with a steep, steep learning curve.

secular

I quit using LR a while back and now use Luminar 4. In LR I selected all edited photos and exported them to preserve the LR edits. All of the raw files still remain on the drive for any future editing with Luminar and the exported LR edits are also available. That does leave you with duplicates (Tiff or jpeg and raw) of the exported files though.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It would have the edits performed in LR, though.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The "choice" is key, and misleading. Lifecycle cost is what you pay, over time, for ownership of a "permanent" license - and this costs varies from user to user. My cost is fixed at $120/yr, for both Lr and Ps - pretty much the best software out there for professionals and enthusiasts alike.

The Lr/Ps bundle - a raw editor AND a raster image editor - makes a big difference for many. Raw editors are not engineered for lots of local editing, while raster editors excel at it.

Photoshop is admittedly a complex application - however, there are dozens of things I do on a regular basis that just can't be done in a raw converter alone - Lr, C1, On1, Luminar, etc - just can't cut it.

Among the things I do are photo restoration and high-end retouching (for another photographer that works in the fashion industry) so my needs are a bit more advanced. However, trading a little "learning moment time" for struggling trying to make something happen in an application that isn't designed for what I need to do is an absolutely better use of my time.

Here is a simple little restoration I did a few years ago. It was scanned (not by me) and provided as a jpeg. None of this is possible in Luminar, On1 etc.

In my experience software with an easy learning curve provides a correspondingly mediocre result. I have used Photoshop since the mid-90s, and I also used Paint Shop Pro for a bit, when I couldn't justify the cost of upgrading my Photoshop. I still don't know everything there is to know about Photoshop, nor do I need everything that it does. But things like Luminosity Masking, restoration, accurate masks made by using channels, custom brushes to paint in hair, fur (on animal portraits), frequency separation for evening out skin color and editing facial flaws without affecting skin texture - the list goes on. These things are indispensable to me, and not easily duplicated in other software. I regard the output out of most raw converters to be excellent quality proofs - but true photo-finishing needs the pixel-level accuracy of a raster editor - something that Luminar and others lack.

For what I get for some restorations or retouch jobs, that $50 is nothing.

I do cabinetmaking for a real hobby - and while I can get most things done with a cheap Ryobi contractor saw, I much prefer the accuracy and speed of setup of my 12" Powermatic that I picked up when a woodworking shop went out of business. Set up with a Forrest sawblade, it cuts through rock maple like it was balsawood. There is something to be said for quality tools - physical or software.

(Download)


(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It would NOT have the edits performed in LR. You are just importing folders, not the catalog by doing it this way. The only way you can get your edits into Luminar at the moment is to export from LR/import to Luminar one by one.