# Skylum shows off adaptive templates for Luminar AI



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 2, 2020)

> NEW YORK, NY — October 1, 2020 — With traditional photo editors, creating the perfect photo is a time-consuming process that involves moving dozens of sliders. Many seek to use presets to speed this up, but there are severe limitations. Presets tend to only work on images that are virtually identical to the original.
> To change this tedious and frustrating process, innovative companies race to embrace Artificial Intelligence. But some creatives have been sceptical about its effectiveness and limitations. Their fears center around a loss of control and homogenization of creative output. This does not need to be the case if AI is properly trained.
> *Learn more about Skylum’s LuminarAI*
> 
> With Luminar AI, Artificial Intelligence is woven throughout the entire editing process. The AI has been trained with expert input from artists, photographers, colorists and scientists. Luminar AI offers creatives the ability to save time and...



Continue reading...


----------



## Schumey (Oct 2, 2020)

I was excited about this product until I read it would be subscription-based.  Now . . . . not so much.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 2, 2020)

Schumey said:


> I was excited about this product until I read it would be subscription-based. Now . . . . not so much.


Read more carefully. Luminar AI has a perpetual license. There is a program called Luminar X which is subscription based. Its a optional extra feature package.


----------



## LesC (Oct 2, 2020)

I bought Luminar 4 mainly to make sky replacement easier - my one sky shots that is, not Luminar's. I have no interest in Luminar AI; Skylum should concentrate on getting Luminar 4 to work first; it's still painfully slow at times.

As to sky replacement; Adobe are bring something similar to Luminar's soon which will no doubt be just as effective & much quicker.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 2, 2020)

I know things like sky replacement are common, but feels like ... cheating? the sky didn't look like that!


----------



## elephant-19210 (Oct 2, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Read more carefully. Luminar AI has a perpetual license. There is a program called Luminar X which is subscription based. Its a optional extra feature package.
> 
> 
> View attachment 193085



Don't be silly. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Software development costs money and they will make you pay or leave in a couple of years time by ceasing support for new camera gear, high-cost upgrade offer and many other tricks. 

Luminar is notorious for costing more in a long run compared to Lightroom, even despite being a much more shittiеr software when it comes to rendering and performance.


----------



## elephant-19210 (Oct 2, 2020)

After trying every new version I can tell you that Luminar is one awful tasteless and buggy piece of crap which is only good at spending its investors' money.


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 2, 2020)

This is not AI, but ML as in machine learning. Total different thing... The term AI is so much abused nowadays


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 3, 2020)

elephant-19210 said:


> Don't be silly. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Software development costs money and they will make you pay or leave in a couple of years time by ceasing support for new camera gear, high-cost upgrade offer and many other tricks.
> 
> Luminar is notorious for costing more in a long run compared to Lightroom, even despite being a much more shittiеr software when it comes to rendering and performance.


I did not reply to you, I pointed out that it was not a subscription model as the poster said. That is a fact. As far as overall cost over the years, If you think $70 every year or two is going to kill a person with the high cost, then watch out for the cost of a camera, lenses and accessories. The cost of the software is peanuts.


----------



## Ben Sparrow (Oct 3, 2020)

I was very excited about Luminar 4 since I own a Luminar 3 license. However, I downloaded Luminar 4, installed it and the program never comes up. I only see the splash screen and that's it. I tried all kinds of things, multiple installations before and after uninstalling Luminar 3, updating Windows 10, etc and nothing. I waited about a month, downloaded the latest update and same deal. I finally gave up. I honestly do not use it very often. LrC does most of what I need. I will keep an eye for the next update because the demo videos from their site were quite cool.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Oct 3, 2020)

COBRASoft said:


> This is not AI, but ML as in machine learning. Total different thing... The term AI is so much abused nowadays


Actually, AI is a broader term than ML. ML is usually considered a part of AI.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Oct 3, 2020)

I have Luminar 4 and have been using Luminar since the first release of 3 but stopped using it since it is too slow as compared to others.

I'm running 32gb of ram and an AMD 3900x so I have plenty of processing power and Ssd's and nvme drives as well.

One thing is for certain..Luminar needs to get GPU's into the mix when it comes time to process images.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 3, 2020)

What do they say about insanity? Trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

This has been my exxperience with this software. I’ve tried version after version and have never found it to be anything I would want to use on a regular basis. It just isn’t very good.

That’s just me. YMMV.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Oct 3, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> What do they say about insanity? Trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
> 
> This has been my exxperience with this software. I’ve tried version after version and have never found it to be anything I would want to use on a regular basis. It just isn’t very good.
> 
> That’s just me. YMMV.



I received Lum 4 free when I purchased a couple Fuji lenses. I would otherwise not own Lum4 because of the lack of GPU processing


----------



## RickD (Oct 4, 2020)

I use Luminar 4 and quite like it. It does fall short on small usability aspects, like using arrow keys to navigate through the filters and make incremental slider adjustments, but I can work around that. It can also be a little slow processing images, especially some of the large panoramas I shoot, but then I'm using it on a 7 year old PC. 

All in all, a decent program, you just have to scale back on the full effect of the filters, and be willing to play around a little more to really get what you want out of it


----------



## chrisgibbs (Oct 4, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> I know things like sky replacement are common, but feels like ... cheating? the sky didn't look like that!



I know what you mean. Many years back, Aperture Priority and Matrix Metering with Nikon's FA felt like cheating too. We're heading into a different artistic paradigm, photography will become more akin to illustration going forward.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 4, 2020)

Mixed feelings about Luminar. I've supported it from version 1. Upgrades have got more expensive, not much feature improvement. It's more of a platform for selling presets (which are not great). I think presets maybe suit the image it was set up for but doesn't work so well for other images. Sky replacement is good but Adobe have spotted that and are at last reacting to it. Sky replacement is a bit of a moral quagmire. It's been around a while and maybe we've been fooled by images that we thought were real but are actually sky replacements. Going forward we won't believe authentic images as we will be swamped with swapped skies. For me personally Abode Photoshop / Lightroom is good value for money as I use it all the time. It's better value for money that Luminar because I don't use Luminar that often. The switch to Luminar AI has left a little bit of bad taste in Luminar 4 users. There are certain issues unresolved in Luminar 4. They could have called the next version Luminar 5 and had their normal upgrade charge but they are charging alot more for switching, got it months in advance of being ready and we have bought a pig in a poke. Its jumped on the bandwagon of AI but may not turn out to be much of an improvement. I can't see myself ever upgrading with them again. I much prefer working with Luminosity Masks with the Lumenzia Panel in Photoshop. Topaz Sharpen AI is excellent (if very slow). Sky replacement in Photoshop will be there soon. I'm not seeing what value Luminar will give me.


----------



## Fischer (Oct 4, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> I know things like sky replacement are common, but feels like ... cheating? the sky didn't look like that!


You mean like processing a RAW image? You're right!


----------



## RickD (Oct 4, 2020)

Fischer said:


> You mean like processing a RAW image? You're right!



There are people who believe this. A good friend of mine (the one who convinced me to get my first DSLR) was horrified when I discovered LR and started processing my images. She always thought that images seen on the web were straight out of camera RAW files, and the contrast and lighting effects were 100% natural.

She doesn't really shoot anymore as she finds post processing a boring task.

It's all about perspective I guess


----------



## mpeeps (Oct 4, 2020)

LesC said:


> I bought Luminar 4 mainly to make sky replacement easier - my one sky shots that is, not Luminar's. I have no interest in Luminar AI; Skylum should concentrate on getting Luminar 4 to work first; it's still painfully slow at times.
> 
> As to sky replacement; Adobe are bring something similar to Luminar's soon which will no doubt be just as effective & much quicker.


Me too and I agree!


----------



## LDS (Oct 5, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> but feels like ... cheating? the sky didn't look like that!



Depends on what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve. It's an ad photo? Really, who cares, we know they are all "fake". You're known for heavily manipulating your photos for artistic purposes and you do it openly? Fine. You're trying to make your portraits more appealing to make your customers happier? It's OK.

You trying to sell me the image "documents reality"? Let's talk...

The bigger risk with these tools is most manipulations will look alike - when you have to achieve them yourself your experience, taste, etc. will make them different, even if it's still some algorithms beneath.

But when the algorithms takes control of everything...


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 5, 2020)

LDS said:


> Depends on what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve. It's an ad photo? Really, who cares, we know they are all "fake". You're known for heavily manipulating your photos for artistic purposes and you do it openly? Fine. You're trying to make your portraits more appealing to make your customers happier? It's OK.
> 
> You trying to sell me the image "documents reality"? Let's talk...
> 
> ...



I am more of a fan of photography, and less 'digital art' - which in this case I use as a term meaning heavily processed images. I like to capture the moment as it was. With the technology, this requires some post processing of course, but there is a line where too much processing has suddenly created an image of something that never really existed. A with any artistic endeavor, where that line is is pretty personal. 

But you're right. Machine learning will tend to make them look alike. Much like the 'hit music forumla' makes all the songs on the radio sound alike. 

-Brian


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 5, 2020)

Fischer said:


> You mean like processing a RAW image? You're right!



processing a RAW can go either way. You can get more accurate / real looking results with processing RAW vs say outright replacing sky.. it is a personal preference, just feels weird to me... period  if you love changing skies or putting flying squirrels that weren't there.. cool  just not my preference

and yes from time to time I like doing changes, but usually its obvious that its a manipulation (like making one if my kids an ooompa loompa)  and as person above said, for advertising makes perfect sense..


----------



## Valvebounce (Oct 6, 2020)

Hi Snappy.
I think advertising is one place where manipulation only makes sense to the seller, for the buyer advertising should show the truth.
I know it never will, which as someone else said, we know (or at least assume) they are lying!
Local to us we have a holiday home park, the way they are selling it on the radio makes it sound like it is on a tropical Island, not the dreary place just south of mainland Britain that we know it is!

Cheers, Graham.



snappy604 said:


> and as person above said, for advertising makes perfect sense..


----------



## Fischer (Oct 6, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> processing a RAW can go either way. You can get more accurate / real looking results with processing RAW vs say outright replacing sky.. it is a personal preference, just feels weird to me... period  if you love changing skies or putting flying squirrels that weren't there.. cool  just not my preference
> 
> and yes from time to time I like doing changes, but usually its obvious that its a manipulation (like making one if my kids an ooompa loompa)  and as person above said, for advertising makes perfect sense..


Putting skies that were blown out back into the scene can easily be less of a change in the scene captured than the end result of a manual RAW processing makeover.

Just because its an automated tool it will not take away all control from the user. Meanwhile current RAW processing does not prevent people from altering their captures to something far removed from "reality".

These are all just tools and they can be used to alter the scene a little or a lot or to something completely unrecognizable from what an observer could see at the time of the capture. I have seen plenty of "squirrels" magically appear or disappear in LR and PS - just look at their own advertising.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Putting skies that were blown out back into the scene can easily be less of a change in the scene captured than the end result of a manual RAW processing makeover.



Indeed. To me that is "legit" post processing even for "documentary" purposes, restoring the picture to make it look like what you saw with your Eyeball Mk I (no word on when Canon is going to upgrade that).

Art, on the other hand, is a selective recreation of reality--there's choice in the selection, and choice in the recreation and artists take liberties.

I think part of the reason that people argue over whether photography is an "art" is because photography serves more than one purpose. The policeman taking pictures of a crime scene had better _not_ be doing art. But in order to not get blown highlights and enough detail, and doing everything he can to take pictures that can be used as evidence, he must have a great deal of _skill_. In those sorts of situations, "photography" is NOT an art.

We can probably all think of examples where it is, so I'll stop there.


----------

