KelbyOne, bastion of Adobe, adds Luminar support

[mcasan]

Oh the times, they are a changing...

KelbyOne and Macphun have a deal that will evidently bring Luminar training to KelbyOne. Scott already has released presets for Luminar.

Macphun newsletter


I think it is time for some serious changes at Adobe for Lr. Compare Lr and Photo RAW and you will see that their respective Develop modules are very similar. But look at how easy it is to move to RAW's Effects module and continue to work non-destructively. No need for a PSD, TIF, or DNG to be created. And if you compare the Macphun apps (Luminar plus Aurora) you far more extensive set of filters available. What Lr has going for it is long term market presence, a DAM, plus pond and HDR handling.

My point is, I start to seriously wonder if Adobe gives much of a care about photographers (and the same goes for Apple). Why don't we have a non destructive path from Develop to world of advanced filters? Why should we have to go to Ps?

OK, my rant is over. I will leave the soapbox to others. I can't want for Macphun to release their DAM. Once that is in place, maybe no need for CC. Anyone even heard any good rumors on a Lr 2017 release?

 

[PhilBurton]

Oh the times, they are a changing...

KelbyOne and Macphun have a deal that will evidently bring Luminar training to KelbyOne. Scott already has released presets for Luminar.

Macphun newsletter



OK, my rant is over. I will leave the soapbox to others. I can't want for Macphun to release their DAM. Once that is in place, maybe no need for CC. Anyone even heard any good rumors on a Lr 2017 release?

From one of the FAQ answers, about a comparison with Lightroom:

Truth to be told, at this moment Luminar doesn't include an image library or any kind of photo browsing experience. So Luminar for Mac can not be considered a LR alternative for those who host photos with LR, or have an established workflow with Adobe CC. But in the future we plan to add the browsing and asset management capabilities to Luminar.

We have to assume that "future" here means post-2017, since they have also stated that there will be a Windows version in 2017. I wouldn't be surprised if Macphun simply acquires an existing DAM vendor.

Phil

 

[Jimmsp]

......... But in the future we plan to add the browsing and asset management capabilities to Luminar.

We have to assume that "future" here means post-2017, since they have also stated that there will be a Windows version in 2017. I wouldn't be surprised if Macphun simply acquires an existing DAM vendor.

Phil

I have been down that road with Phase One and Capture One - the journey was a rough one. Phase One acquired a 3rd party DAM, and never could integrate their products successfully.

 

[mcasan]

Much depends what you mean as a DAM. I can import/ingest with Photo Mechanic into folders and subfolders in the file system; no database required. DxO Optics or Photo RAW can easily read, open, and edit the files, no database needed. Lr can be painfully slow to import, generate previews, and store the info in a database. I was naively thinking, hope springs eternal, that Adobe just might serious redo Lr for 2017 and take serious advantage of GPUs and other techniques to deliver renders on the fly with more than a second delay. If On1 can do that with their limited resources, Adobe should be able to do an even better job.

 

[Ian.B]

not sure on1 is faster over all mcasan .. LR still rules the roost imo although I do use on1 on most files now . Lots more options coming through but I feel adobe are too far ahead to be worrying too much about the new kids on the block; although they mustn't get complacent either . If the kids got together it would be a different story. I gave ON1; and coral paint shop a good go --- lightroom is still used 1st and last on this computer

 

[PhilBurton]

not sure on1 is faster over all mcasan .. LR still rules the roost imo although I do use on1 on most files now . Lots more options coming through but I feel adobe are too far ahead to be worrying too much about the new kids on the block; although they mustn't get complacent either . If the kids got together it would be a different story. I gave ON1; and coral paint shop a good go --- lightroom is still used 1st and last on this computer

Yes, Adobe is ahead now, but with software, market positions can (and do) shift dramatically over in only a few years. Anyone still use Yahoo for search?

IF on1 would support Lightroom plug-ins, (and I have no idea what is involved technically) and directly import Adobe lrcat files, then suddenly Adobe could become really exposed. Especially if on1 offers "switchover" pricing.

Of course, all that would require a lot of programming resource, and I have no idea about on1's corporate strategies and goals.

Phil

 

[mcasan]

Yes, Adobe is ahead now, but with software, market positions can (and do) shift dramatically over in only a few years. Anyone still use Yahoo for search?

IF on1 would support Lightroom plug-ins, (and I have no idea what is involved technically) and directly import Adobe lrcat files, then suddenly Adobe could become really exposed. Especially if on1 offers "switchover" pricing.

Of course, all that would require a lot of programming resource, and I have no idea about on1's corporate strategies and goals.

Phil

Photo RAW can now act as a plugin to Lr or Ps. Please RAW can send files to plugins that are designed for use with Lr or Ps. This year On1 is supposed to release a migration tool/feature to help migrate folks from Lr DAM to RAW. I imagine Macphun has the same idea when they release their DAM. So things should be very interesting by the end of this year.

 

[PhilBurton]

Photo RAW can now act as a plugin to Lr or Ps. Please RAW can send files to plugins that are designed for use with Lr or Ps. This year On1 is supposed to release a migration tool/feature to help migrate folks from Lr DAM to RAW. I imagine Macphun has the same idea when they release their DAM. So things should be very interesting by the end of this year.

If this all happens, then things should become very "interesting" for Adobe. Competition is good for us, not so much for Adobe.

Phil

 

[Ian.B]

Of course, all that would require a lot of programming resource, and I have no idea about on1's corporate strategies and goals.
Phil

and that is one reason I bought on1; not that my $$ alone would make a great impact on on1 resources
You can send a files to on1 in similar ways a files are sent to PS/nik and the likes -- when edited, it returns to lr beside the original file . To open in on1 layers: >file >plugin extras. The open in the on1 develop can be done via export ---- I just use the plug in way . Until I opened the forum just now I have been fiddling around in ON1 to get a better/fuller understanding of it . One of the big dramas with ON1 is the lack of online info and books (compared to adobe) . They have a forum with the subscription to ON1 PLUS, but I'm don't really want or need ALL the other stuff they offering with the subs. I have dropped a few hints to Victoria about a forum, perhaps something like the 'photoshop for lr uses' section would do (??).
the more copies ON1 sells the more they can offer --- like a grid and ruler cry: PLEASE On1-- the more worried adobe will be. The old rule of competition

 

[mcasan]

On1 has made huge progress in Photo RAW since it was released at Christmas. I have had many a message exchange with Stevie, James, and Terry at their support desk sending in crash dumps and other data. For me what is important is go go from Develop to Effects and back with a simple click and still use the same raw file and sidecar, no creation of TIF, PSD, or other new file. I can't wait for them to update Layers so the same is possible with that module. Seeing that On1 is doing with a raw file plus a sidecar makes me wonder why can't there be a version of Ps that does likewise. Is there any filter or effect that could not be an instruction set sitting in a sidecar?

 

[Ian.B]

are you in on1 plus mcasan? (if so; is it worth it)
on1 crashes have dramatically reduced for me
large psd files that I have mentioned before -- they are 16 bit; not the my usual 8 bit :humble:

 

[mcasan]

I have both CC and RAW. My CC subscription renews late this summer. So if On1 continues the progress, and Adobe continues to sit on its arse, I will drop CC. I am totally underwhelmed by what Adobe has done in Lr since Dehaze.

 

[Oleg Macphunian]

Hi All, Macphun has just revealed and confirmed the info associated with moving to Windows platform, the official dates are this Fall. However many of you Windows users can help greatly by participating in beta testing, which is expected to launch in mid summer. Here's a link to leave your email Celebrate: Macphun photo editors are coming to #Windows

 

[PhilBurton]

I have both CC and RAW. My CC subscription renews late this summer. So if On1 continues the progress, and Adobe continues to sit on its arse, I will drop CC. I am totally underwhelmed by what Adobe has done in Lr since Dehaze.

I agree, and that's why I have not yet switch from perpetual license to cc. With the right set of new features I probably would switch. However until Luminar are includes a DAM it is not a replacement for Lightroom.


Phil

 

[mcasan]

I agree, and that's why I have not yet switch from perpetual license to cc. With the right set of new features I probably would switch to season. However until Luminar are includes a DAM it is not a replacement for Lightroom


Phil

I dropped On1 Photo RAW after they backed off their commitment for the migration tool from Lr to Photo RAW that was to port raw sidecars from Lr to Photo RAW. Waiting to see exactly what Macphun does about their DAM. If they port Lr raw sidecars to their DAM, that makes the decision much easier. The same goes for the lonely souls still hanging on to Aperture.

 

[PhilBurton]

I dropped On1 Photo RAW after they backed off their commitment for the migration tool from Lr to Photo RAW that was to port raw sidecars from Lr to Photo RAW. Waiting to see exactly what Macphun does about their DAM. If they port Lr raw sidecars to their DAM, that makes the decision much easier. The same goes for the lonely souls still hanging on to Aperture.

I hope Adobe doesn't fall victim to the "We are untouchable because only we have ..." disease. I have seen that many times now (and worked at a few of those companies). Right now they have a DAM and a third-party ecosystem that their challengers don't have. But in this business, a year is a long time, and change can and will happen.

I'm rooting for the challengers to be very successful. Either Adobe feels the heat and invests more in LR development, or I (and many others) switch. Either way, we will win.

Phil

 

[mcasan]

Exactly! Competition is good for the consumer. The biggest danger for any company is being successful and believing your own hype.

Look at the Effects module of Photo RAW. Why can't/won't Adobe offer similar or better editing features on Lr that are all non-destructive? If Photo RAW had do the migration tool for sidecars, good chance I would not be renewing my CC subscription in June. Let's hope Macphun steps up to the plate with their DAM for Luminar.

 

[Oleg Macphunian]

Hey guys, I'm happy to inform you that those on Windows PCs can now try our open beta of Luminar for Windows!
Get a download link here: Luminar for Windows (beta) is live! Try it free today.
Your feedback and cooperation with us are highly appreciated!

 

[CloudedGenie]

This is the first time I started browsing The Lounge...
This post seems strangely more relevant and interesting now!

 

[d200_4me]

I've been looking at that product and from what I've seen so far, they're blowing a lot of smoke up and making some very misleading statements. An example is how they say they have dodge and burn but Lightroom doesn't. Really?! Ever heard of the adjustment brush and the drop-down menu there? Good grief. It says dodge and burn right there on the list of options in the adjustment brush, for Pete's sake. So for me, I'll classify that one as a big fat lie in their advertising.

I'm not at all happy about Adobe forcing me to pay $10 per month for something I don't want (Photoshop). There's no option for Lightroom Classic CC ONLY, which is what I want, at a lower price. PS is great for anyone that needs it and a good bargain for people that need both LR and PS, but I neither want nor need PS and I don't want the extra cloud storage or any storage at all. I still haven't subscribed. Still looking at my options.

There are many reasons why for me it would be hard to find an acceptable alternative to LR...
- So far I've seen nothing close to how LR organizes photos with the catalog (keywords, folders, uploading to SmugMug and other sites, etc, etc)
- Apps like Luminar seems to be heavy on 'presets' they create. Ok, I do use some presets, but they're mostly presets I made for simple things like applying the correct camera profile, lens profile, etc). Oh, Luminar has a 'Sun Rays' filter...but that's not the sort of thing I want.
- There's no way to keep all my edits (that I know of) if I move all my DNG files to some other program. I'd lose all my previous work and my only real option is to keep the DNG but also export a JPG version to have the edited version also.
- Workflow is very fast and easy from the library over to the develop module.
- Adobe has tons of pre-existing camera profiles and lens profiles. Yes, you can make lens corrections in Luminar, but you're on your own to do that manually. No lens profile like Adobe has.
- Wonderful and very easy to use tools like the adjustment brush and gradient thingy. Maybe Luminar has some of those features but it's not as extensive as LR.

The thing that irritated and turned me off from Luminar the most was the misleading advertising (the dodge/burn statements they made are a perfect example). You can check their comparison page. They still claim LR has no dodge/burn: Luminar vs Lightroom That's just not true. There may some technicality that makes it 'technically true', but LR does indeed have dodge/burn and by the way, all that really is anyway is just lightening or darkening a certain area and even without knowing the dodge/burn terms, everyone already knew you can brighten or darker specific areas in an image with LR anyway.

Pardon my attitude. I got a little worked up, maybe...

That said, I'm still not happy with Adobe's new $10 plan for both LR and PS. I'll say it one more time...I don't want PS. Don't make me buy it. I DO want LR (only) I'll probably download the final release of Luminar and try it, but I'm not very optimistic that it will satisfy me (and what I need/want). I'll keep an open mind about it just in case.

My LR edited images live here: The Photography Hobbyist

 

[d200_4me]

IF on1 would support Lightroom plug-ins, (and I have no idea what is involved technically) and directly import Adobe lrcat files, then suddenly Adobe could become really exposed. Especially if on1 offers "switchover" pricing.
Phil

I think that's the big issue right there...being able to import/migrate all your LR edits and so on to some other program. But since LR has various features that are unique to LR, I think it's not likely that you'll be able to ever have an option to import to some other program...but who knows. Maybe in the future there would be an to at least import anything that CAN be imported and ignore any LR-specifc edits. I don't know.

If Adobe would simply get rid of the requirement to buy PS along with LR for $10 and drop the price to $5 or $6 per month, this would immediately be a dead issue. It baffles me as to why they don't do that. They'd have thousands of people subscribing today.

 

[PhilBurton]

I think that's the big issue right there...being able to import/migrate all your LR edits and so on to some other program. But since LR has various features that are unique to LR, I think it's not likely that you'll be able to ever have an option to import to some other program...but who knows. Maybe in the future there would be an to at least import anything that CAN be imported and ignore any LR-specifc edits. I don't know.

It's very common with software to "reverse engineer" the features of a competitor, to create either a "LR compatibility mode" or a one-time conversion.

If Adobe would simply get rid of the requirement to buy PS along with LR for $10 and drop the price to $5 or $6 per month, this would immediately be a dead issue. It baffles me as to why they don't do that. They'd have thousands of people subscribing today.

Agreed. It all comes down to the yearly spend.

 

[Ian.B]

On1 2018 has been released -- beta 4 seemed to be Ok or at least a lot better. I still need a closer to the Lr library before I would consider On1 only so I feel I will be using Lr and then On1/pse12 for the more advanced editing. Not sure I could use a single list of key words although I have been fiddling with more words in a single keyword instead of a hierarchy. Not been able to delete keywords in On1 is big minis Imo; although it seems they have sorted the annoying problem of hierarchy keywords being returned to Lr as a single list. I still hate keywords until I want to find a photo LOL
As I have said before; long term Lr CC uses could consider; or should consider buying Lr6 while they still can; even if only for the Library.
Yep; interesting days for photographers and editing