Recently I've Been Experimenting With Luminar 2018

Sparks Lane, Great Smoky Mountain National Park (click to enlarge)
This was edited in Lightroom.  See below for the differences in the Luminar edited versions.
Fujifilm X-T2, 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 16mm; 1/20th sec. @ f/16; ISO 200

Same file, edited in Luminar 2018 to match the above file, saved as a JPEG, then imported into Lightroom (click to enlarge)

Same file, edited in Luminar 2018 to match the top file, saved as a TIFF, then imported into Lightroom (click to enlarge)
The two Luminar edited files, although edited to match the file at the top of the post, look dull and lifeless.  I don't
know why but it may have to do with different color spaces.  However, Skylum doesn't tell you what color space they
are using.  See text below for more comments on how the images change between programs.

Still being somewhat dissatisfied with my main image editing program, Adobe's Lightroom Classic CC, not for lack of power or features, but for how slow and cumbersome it has become, I have started the process of looking at other available software that can potentially take Lightroom's place in my image editing process.  The first of these is Skylum's (previously MacPhun) Luminar 2018.  Only because Slylum publicly states that they will be adding a Lightroom compatible database in 2018 is the reason I test this software.  If there were no database feature I would not be considering it.  These are only my initial impressions, not a full scale review.  I will continue to use and test Luminar 2018 and report back with my impressions.

I purchased Luminar 2018 a couple of weeks ago and before installing it watched a gaggle of You Tube tutorials as well as read through SkyLum's user manual for this program.  I wanted to be as familiar as possible with best practices, features and shortcuts before installing it on my desktop computer as well as before starting to use it.

To test the program's ease of use, features, speed and capabilities, I picked out several RAW image files from three different cameras.  Being a Fujifilm X-T2 and past X-T1 user, I wanted to test a number of these files for Luminar's ability to convert the unique RAF file.  The Fujifilm RAW files are of keen interest due to Lightroom's past inability to convert the RAF files.  I specifically wanted to look for any artifacts or smeared green foliage.  Also, being an Olympus E-M1 Mark II user, I wanted to test a number of these files as well.

On first glance, the program is visually pleasing.  It doesn't open full screen, for whatever reason, either as a stand alone or as a plug-in.  One has to manually enlarge it to full screen size.  I looked for a preference menus but couldn't find one.  If there is one, they have hidden it well!  I thought maybe a preference change would allow the screen to open full size.  The work space on the right is nicely crafted and a dark gray shade.  The program allows the user to change the background, either lighter gray or darker to black, according to one's preferences.  Looks very professional.

However, if you are a Windows user as am I, Skylum should not be charging us the same price for this software as they charge Mac OS users.  Why?  Many of the features and abilities in the Mac OS version are simply not available in the Windows version.  We are being sold a product that is less capable at the same price as others who are getting a more robust application. I have read where they will be adding the features, but as of today, they have not yet done so.

This was initially an area of confusion for me as when I watched Anthony Morganti's Luminar 2018 tutorials before I installed the program.  I made notes as to various shortcuts, attributes and techniques I wanted to try.  When I looked for several of them in my version of the software, they didn't exist.  At first, I couldn't figure out why I couldn't find things.  Only when I saw Mr. Morganti's follow-up video did he apologize and explain all of what was missing from the Windows version of this software.  Thank you Mr. Morganti.

All of us who bought the Windows version should ask for a hefty discount as we have been shortchanged, in my opinion.  I have heard Skylum plans to upgrade the Windows version in the future, but the fact remains that we Windows users have been shortchanged at this point.  In my opinion, the Windows version of Luminar 2018 is not ready for prime time, as they say.  I wonder if they rushed it to market for the start of the big, end of the year, shopping season?  In any case, they should have put forth the full featured version, not one with many capabilities missing.

Here are some more of my initial impressions.

First, terminology.  Luminar calls all of their editing options "filters."  Whether using an initial RAW Developer filter, a sharpening filter, a Hue, Saturation, Luminance filter, a Structure filter, a Details Enhancer filter, a Saturation/Vibrance filter, they are all filters.  I count exactly 50 of them.

1)  Here are some of the features that are available in the Mac OS version that are not available in the Windows version (according to Anthony Morganti's You Tube channel).

a)  Cannot rotate left/right nor flip an image
b)  Cannot press the ALT key when adjusting the Whites and Blacks sliders to make the screen go black or white so one can see exactly when white points black points are clipping
c)  Two of the four tools are missing; clone and stamp tools
d)  Blend modes are not available for filters
e)  Jhe "J" key does not turn on or off the blue/red white point and black point highlights; (you can click the little triangles located above each top edge of the histogram to engage the red/blue clipping colors but they are hard to find but you still can't fully blacken or whiten the screen to set clipping points.  At least you can see them when you click on the triangles)
f)  Workspaces are not available
g)  The luminosity mask for layers is not available
h)  No options for sizing, sharpening or other options when exporting a completed image as a JPEG file
i)  Cannot create a new stamp layer
j)  Several options missing, such as merging layers, in the drop down menu

There may be others.  Again, I thank Anthony Morganti for pointing these out in his latest Luminar 2018 Tips and Tricks video on You Tube.  Without this video, I was stumped as to why I couldn't find many of the tools and functions that were highlighted in the tutorials I had watched as well as what is stated in the user's manual.

2) It hasn't been fun getting to know this product.  I'm still a bit frustrated in trying to make it work (easily) for me.  Yes, I understand anytime one uses new software the learning curve can be steep.  I just find there are too many options which are repeated in different "filters" and too many options that are a bit "gimmicky" which are unnecessary.  I guess I would catagorize what I see as a combination of Lightroom's Develop panels and NIK Color Efex's enhancing options.  There are many editing options that are offered under different filter selections which tend to confuse and clutter and give more choice options than are really necessary.  I'm a simple and straightforward kind of guy.  I don't need clutter or excessive choices.  Excessive choices, to me, degrade the experience.  Again, that is just me.  You  may love lots and lots of choices.  But at least eliminate all of the duplication.  That would cut down having to find what you are looking for a good bit.

3)  The program always opens small on my monitor screen and I have to physically expand it to full screen size.  I don't understand why it does that and I have not yet found a setting or preference that allows it to open at full screen without having to physically enlarge it each time.  This applies to both using the program as a stand alone application or as a plug-in to Lightroom.

4)  It takes more than 20 seconds to open a single 24mp RAF file as a standalone; over 30 seconds when used as a plug-in from LR; and I thought Lightroom was slow. (I have a state of the art computer with 24gb of RAM and am using SSD drives.  Can't get any faster so it isn't my computer).  It takes about as long to "export" an image, whether saved as a JPEG or a TIFF.  That is agonizingly slow, in my book.

5)  Almost as slow to open an Olympus 20mp ORF file; just under 20 seconds.  I can't imagine how long it would take to open a Nikon D850 45.7mp files or a Canon 50.2mp file!

6)  The plug-in to Lightroom has limitations; fewer options than the standalone version.  I would think that all capabilities would be available in whichever way you would choose to use the program.

7)  The image size at 100% in Luminar is not what I'm getting as 100% in LR or PS; It appears that 300% in Luminar is closer, but not exact, to 100% in LR and PS.  I thought that 100% would be 100%, no matter what program one would use.  I'm using the same computer with the same monitor, but getting difference sizes for the same size designations.  Confusing.

8)  I find it hard to see subtle changes when editing a file even though I have a 2560 x 1440 screen, which should allow me to see fine detail and subtle changes.  For example, when applying clarity or sharpening, it really is difficult for me to see the changes without large movements of the adjustment sliders.  Another issue I have found is that when looking at an edited image in LR, it is clear that too much clarity and/or too much sharpening had been applied, but it didn't appear as too much when actually working in Luminar.

9)  After editing images in Luminar to my taste and saved as a TIFF file, when imported into LR and the images look entirely different than they did in Luminar.  I tried this both as a standalone and as a plug-in to Lightroom.  I have no idea why the edited images look totally different since the files were saved as TIFFs and the look should be pretty much be universal as TIFF is a universal standard file.  I haven't heard anyone else mention this but I saw this on all my files.  Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB color space and all of my Photoshop images are saved as ProPhoto RGB as well.  I'm not sure what color space Luminar uses and that might be the difference.  In fact, thinking back, I don't think Luminar gives you an option as to what color space in which you can save your photos.


I tried an experiment.  I opened LR and brought up a couple of my favorite RAF files, already edited.  I then opened the same unedited RAF files in Luminar and edited them to match the LR files.  I did a back and forth comparison to get the two looking as close as I could.  But then when then importing the Luminar edited images into LR, they look way overdone as far as clarity, sharpening, contrast, etc.  The color saturation was significantly lower, almost as though I didn't apply any vibrance at all.  Also the blue skies in Luminar look way oversaturated.  Again, I'm wondering if there is a color space difference when editing.  That could account for the differences.

10) When returning a TIFF from Luminar back to LR, the file has "Luminar" in the name.  I don't care for that but haven't yet figured out a way to eliminate that.  It would be too cumbersome to go in and change every file name at a later time.

11) There is no eyedropper tool in the basic RAW Developer filter with which to pick a neutral color for white balance correction.  That is something I use in almost every image and I miss it greatly.

12) When using Luminar as a plug-in to LR, it won't open RAW files as RAW files.  It won't give me the "RAW Develop" filter, which, according to their user's manual, appears anytime a RAW file is opened. The program only shows the "Develop" filter, which is used on files other than RAW. I can only open an RAW file as RAW if Luminar is used as a standalone application.  That shouldn't be and may just need a software correction.  Happened on both RAF and ORF RAW files.

13) Whenever you close an image the entire program closes. There doesn't seem to be a way to close out a particular image and keep the program running so you don't have to reboot it to open a second image.  You can leave the first image open and open a second, but not close the first, then open without the program closing.

14) I find most filter adjustment sliders have a greater effect (more change in your image with less slide, so to speak) or have different marked scales than comparable sliders in LR. You will have to get used to a new way to think about editing when using them.  But that is not surprising as every programmer does things a bit different.  I tried to expand my right hand panel so the sliders were longer, thus allowing me greater fine tuning, but I couldn't find a way to expand the panel as you can on LR.

15) This is a bit irritating to me.  After every adjustment, or even when you move around an image with your mouse/tablet pen (left/right or up/down at a high magnification, for example) the image on your screen blurs momentarily then has to regenerate to once again become sharp.  It takes more than a second to regenerate the sharp image.  To me, this makes it a bit difficult to move a slider and watch the effect in real time. I found I had to move the slider a little, take my mouse arrow off the slider, then wait for the sharp image to regenerate. If the adjustment wasn't to my liking, I had to continue to repeat this process—move the slider again, wait, assess, move it, wait, assess, etc.  I don't like that at all.

16) The blues, especially the skies, seem to be way oversaturated in all of the images I tried with blue skies.

17) As I mentioned above, you can't press the ALT key to easily see and set your white and black points as we can do in the Adobe programs.  This is pretty much a standard editing procedure, as far as I know.  I use this quite often and it is a pain to try to do it by clicking on the small triangles (almost couldn't find them they are so faint) in the upper corners of the histogram.  You then have to visually search through your image to find any blown highlights or totally black shadows instead of having your screen go totally white or black. 

18) I don't see anywhere on the work space where it gives me the file name, format, shutter speed or aperture of the image on which I am working.  It may be there somewhere, I have just not yet found it.  It does provide the pixel dimensions, ISO and focal length of the lens above the histogram.  I know I've referred to those items while editing an image many times.  For example, if I find some unexpected movement in an object, I might glance at what shutter speed I used to make a mental note that that shutter speed was not sufficient to stop the movement.  I would think they are an easy addition.

So what do I like about Luminar.  Lots of things, it turns out.

1)  No artifacts or smeared green foliage with Fujifilm RAW files—even X-T1 files I edited.  That is a very good thing.  Luminar seems to do a pretty good job demosaicing the RAF files.  Why can't Adobe do this when everyone else seems to get this right?  Maybe Adobe, only having only $5.74 Billion US in sales last year, wasn't enough to invest in improving their software for all of us Fujifilm users?  Do you think?

2)  I like the idea of layers in a program such as this.  Layers allows you much more flexibility to add, remove, change, etc., without tediously having to go back through a history panel.

3)  I like the way they have the brush tool set up for each of the filters so you can easily apply what you want only where you want.

4)  I like the idea of creating my own work space with only the filters I would normally use instead of the default listings or "all" 50 filters.

5)  I like the ability to display each individual RGB channel separately in the histogram and make adjustments according to each color being either blown out or detail lost in shadows.  In most digital cameras, you can see all three color channles as well as the luminance channel on the LCD after you have made the exposure, but Fujifilm doesn't give you this option.  Either does Lightroom.  It is welcomed here.

That is about it for my initial impressions.  I will keep experimenting, reading, learning, etc. until I can master this program.  It certainly has potential.  I could get to like it, I believe.  I await Skylum's additon of the rest of the missing features as a first step.  Also, I will need to understand why the images don't translate visually from Luminar to Lightroom.  The deal maker or breaker for me will be the addition of a database that is compatible with my LR catalog.  I cannot see me leaving the LR/PS ecosystem if I can't retain all of my keywords, edits, ratings, etc.  I have over 135,000 images in my LR catalog and refuse to start all over again!  Time will tell.

UPDATE 11-25-2017:  I received notice that a new version of the software was now available which addressed/added/fixed the following issues for Windows users:

• • Added Workspaces
  • Added Luminosity Mask
  • Added RAW support for Nikon D850
  • Added Image Resize and Sharpen on Export
  • Added Hotkeys
  • Fixed RAW Denoise on opening files (OpenCL issue)
  • Fixed issues with . DNG converted files
  • Fixed pixelization issue with low res image previews
  • Fixed issue with low res image on layers with masks
  • Fixed issue with non-system disk as installation destination
  • Fixed progress bar for opening images
  • Fixed bug when launching Photoshop with a blank image
  • Fixed crash on exit
  • Improved Performance
  • Updated large number of RAW camera file formats

I applaud Skylum as this is a good first step.  Now let's get the database function out as well as the other things I mentioned above.  Thank you Skylum.

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook 

All content on this blog is © 2013-2017 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.