I use Luminar Neo. I believe it is the latest and has features other versions others don't.
Sentinel4
Sentinel4 wrote:
I use Luminar Neo. I believe it is the latest and has features other versions others don't.
Sentinel4
Unfortunately, Luminar Neo is also missing programs that Skylum has. $$
Luminar Neo is excellent software that is only going to get better in the future. Neo has HDR built in but I personally prefer to use Aurora HDR. I only use Neo for some finishing touches after processing in Affinity Photo but I would recommend a trial run to see if it's right for you.
I agree with bwana that "Luminar 4 and Neo are different enough not to be really considered related". I use both pieces of software and stopped using my Adobe software for most of my processing.
bwana
Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
alexol wrote:
And those strengths and weaknesses would be?
Neo's strength are the AI features and extensions (if you can afford them).
Luminar 4's strength is its normal processing and sky replacement.
bwa
Thank you.
Do you use them sequentially or in parallel?
bwana
Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
alexol wrote:
Thank you.
Do you use them sequentially or in parallel?
I use them as required but normally use Lightroom/Photoshop for image processing.
Luminar's sky replacement is miles ahead of Photoshop's so it gets used when I go that direction.
Some of Neo's features are better than Photoshop's approach so it gets used as required.
bwa
joer wrote:
This sequence I know for sure. Luminar 4, Luminar AI, Luminar Neo. I don't think HDR is part of that chain.
-------
I know for Windows it was Luminar 2018, Luminars 3, Luminar Flex, Luminar 4, Luminar AI and then Luminar Neo. There have been lots of problems with with all of them.
One issue many of us found with the Luminar series was that between Luminar 3 & 4 they integrated a catalog feature that you had to use. Unfortunately that feature was buggy (in addition to all the other promised but unfixed bugs), it was a resource issue on some computers, and the catalog feature did not work with my workflow so if I need to, I go back to Luminar 3.
Aurora HDR fortunately never was updated with the catalog feature so I still use it. I still have to contend with and work around several annoying bugs but, I normally can get the job done quickly with it. I use it when I have situations that have a larger dynamic range then I can get from a single shot and so I use it to combine multiple exposures. Works fine for that.
I'm sorry to see that all the instructionals on YouTube are now about the Extensions.
In my opinion, NEO is a RAW editor, and its HDR extension is good.
AURORA (an HDR program) is no longer supported by skylum.
If you buy NEO be prepared to be showered with ton of skylum offers. Buy ONLY what you need.
Guzser02 wrote:
In my opinion, NEO is a RAW editor, and its HDR extension is good.
AURORA (an HDR program) is no longer supported by skylum.
If you buy NEO be prepared to be showered with ton of skylum offers. Buy ONLY what you need.
Yes Skylum's money grab is a bottomless pit.
Anyone remember Photolemur 3 ?
I looked at Neo, but am going to stick with Aurora HDR and Luminar 4. I did not find the idea of having to buy an extension for the HDR function in Neo.
Still sitting on the edge with the Affinity upgrade as well...
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.