This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Luminar 2018 Raw conversion of X-T2 files?

Discussion in 'Post Processing Forum' started by bestefar, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. bestefar

    bestefar Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    San Francisco

    -Return to Top-

    I've been using Iridient Developer for RAW conversion to TIFFs. This has seemed to be the best alternative, as it was much better (to my eyes), than LR. However, I have been using Luminar more and more to further process the photos because of all the additional flexibility and presets. Tonight, I was playing around with an image that I want to print fairly large, comparing the TIFF from Iridient to a direct RAW conversion from Luminar. I have to say it was a toss up. I'm wondering if anyone has noticed a big improvement in Luminar RAW conversion of X-Trans files with the 2018 version of Luminar. I think I did a similar comparison awhile ago and thought Iridient was much better.
    Thanks for your comments.
     
    Boudewijn Vermeulen likes this.
  2. bobjar

    bobjar Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    481
    Location:
    Augusta, GA

    -Return to Top-

    Might check Thomas Fitzgerald Please login or register to view links. Not sure if he answers your question.
     
  3. Dan Bailey

    Dan Bailey Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    392
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska

    -Return to Top-

    @bestefar, I've been using Luminar for over a year now, and I've been really happy with how it handles the X-Trans RAW files. It does a much better job than Lightroom. Compared to Iridient Developer, it's pretty close. In my experience, ID does a slightly better job with sharpness right out of the box, but that's without any sharpening and Luminar has very good sharpening tools. So, it's not really fair to say that ID is "sharper," because Luminar can get you there with minimal effort.

    The other huge difference is that Luminar has a much better UI. I like ID, but I never use it anymore, because Luminar does a great job and it's so much more enjoyable to use. Also, I love the creativity it inspires. The new 2018 version of Luminar has even more tools, better demosiacing and it's considerably faster when opening/processing RAW files than the previous version. So yes, it's a big improvement.

    Please login or register to view links
     
    bobjar likes this.
  4. bestefar

    bestefar Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    San Francisco

    -Return to Top-

    Thanks, Good stuff. I'll read your full review.
     
  5. MikeHuff

    MikeHuff Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    California

    -Return to Top-

    I’ve looked at the product a few times. There are so things that pushed me away for the foreseeable future.

    Very, very slow load times for Fuji raw files. Well equipped computer and it would take 25-30 seconds per file. Unacceptable.

    Second is that they probably have the worst support I’ve ever had to deal with. Quite literally weeks to get an answer for even the most basic inquires. This was repeated several times.

    Given the two things above, it’s something I could never recommend to anyone.
     
    Mahasamatman and Richard_Reich like this.
  6. Mahasamatman

    Mahasamatman Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    241
    Location:
    Highbridge, Somerset

    -Return to Top-

    My experience was somewhat similar. An early adopter I found it unacceptably slow and a resource hog. The response from the support team was that the developers were aware of the problem and were working on it. Watch this space. There were some minor improvements over last year but nothing earth shattering. Until the rewrite that is the 2018 version which I would have to pay for. It sort of soured me on the whole thing.
     
  7. Richard_Reich

    Richard_Reich Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    17

    -Return to Top-

    Along with the overall slowness and missing essential features in the 2018 Windows release (which may be included by now, I don't know), I noticed that when making adjustments the displayed image would pixelate (to make keeping up with real-time slider movements easier) then when the slider was released it would again display in full resolution. This, once noticed, could not be unnoticed, and drove me nuts.
     
  8. jknights

    jknights Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,622
    Likes Received:
    3,193
    Location:
    Oliva, Valencia, Spain

    -Return to Top-

    Never had any issues with my Luminar 2018 installation until recently when its plugin would cause an error message from LR v6.14 but disabling the Luminar plugin has solved that.
    The support staff gave me some options to solve this and were fairly responsive to my needs.
    I guess it depends on needs and expectations. I am an ex-IT consultant so am able to track down system problems between programs fairly well so I only require support when there is a serious problem that I cant solve.
    I have heard about these issues with support response times but people tend to provide generalisations rather than specifics so their rsponses are difficult to assess.

    I run my software on Macs which are not top of the range units but which are high specification from 3-5 years ago. I find that less and less we are CPU or RAM but possibly disk I/O limited and our desire for speed is a false one of trying to 'time scrape' in situations where in reality a few seconds more can be used for creative considerations!
     
    merosen likes this.
  9. jknights

    jknights Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,622
    Likes Received:
    3,193
    Location:
    Oliva, Valencia, Spain

    -Return to Top-

    I can understand the need for this program behaviour and also you finding it unsatisfactory. I agree that it is horrible but it is done to prevent the CPU having to recalculate the changes continuously and represent them which could make for extreme slowness. The alternative is to only re-render when you stop dragging the slider which is equally unsatisfactory as you get no preview of the change.
    Adobe did a great thing in Photoshop which was to only show a rerendered small part of the image - very clever as it reduced CPU usage but provide real time change preview.
    I think that we need to better manage our expectations these days as we want instant everything.
     
  10. MikeHuff

    MikeHuff Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    California

    -Return to Top-

    Your response is bordering on an insulting lecture. Essentially telling us we don’t know what we are talking about and have crazy expectations. Smh

    Let me tell you something, I am an educated technology professional. I have spent the bulk of my 30 year career in computer technology, as well as a background in other electronics and avionics. I have a very firm grasp on this subject.

    I have (several) well equipped devices in which this was tested. It failed, and the company failed even more. Multiple tested files with a statistical basis clearly showing a 25-30 second Fuji RAF load time. There were many performance issues once it was opened.

    When it came to their support, the last attempt to get something resolved actually never did close...they simply stopped responding. There was an initial response saying it might be a little slow because they were backed up. Okay. 12 days later I got a response telling me how important I was and I want forgotten. I got another a week later suggesting I’d get a response soon. It stopped there.

    I provided plenty of detailed information. Your response suggesting otherwise with nothing to back it up is where the insulting part really comes into play. While I appreciate your role as a moderator here, you should think about what you are saying.

    Now, I am totally open to the idea that of the newest releases being better. I truely hope it is. But this suggestion to reset expectations is also crazy. This is a competitive product category wit a bar set very high by a highly capable product set from Adobe. This is their target and it will be hard. I commend any company that can do this and provide a viable solution. It won’t happen by getting people to reset expectations and accept a lower result.

    It doesn’t take much looking around to hear many people saying these same things. This product, while full of great potential, is not a professional tool. It’s countless often cartoonish presets, the interface and approach may be suited to some. But not me or several working photographers in my circle of friends.

    Sorry for this rant. Maybe I’m just grumpy this morning.
     
    FORUM USER likes this.
  11. bestefar

    bestefar Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    San Francisco

    -Return to Top-

    Hi Mike, Forgetting about Luminar:), I'm curious what you use to process your Fuji raw files? I didn't see it in any of your posts and apologize if I missed it.
     
  12. rmd

    rmd Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    145
    Location:
    Canada

    -Return to Top-

    After reading about your experience and @Dan Bailey review I decided to download a trial version and I did not find the .raf load times slow, about 10 sec from an attached to motherboard spin drive and about 5 sec from an attached to motherboard SSD. I also run a well equipped computer, 8 core i7, 32GB ram and 256mb video ram. After using Luminar now for a couple of days I am impressed with the layout and ease of use and speed along with the implementation of layers. The filters are plentiful which allow you to fine tune an image to get the right look plus provision to use LUT's. Fine piece of software which will only get better once they add a DAM to it.

    Having gone through a recent trial of Capture One Pro and Irident X transformer I find using Luminar does a fine job also with .raf files compared to Lightroom 6.14 and at it's price point and feature set it's a great deal to be had. I purchased Luminar today. Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you Mike.
     
  13. MikeHuff

    MikeHuff Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    California

    -Return to Top-

    Glad to hear you are getting much better results than what I’ve seen. It may very well be that the improvements the company has spoken of for some time now have been delivered.

    I agree completely that they are offering a great deal, and that is a big part of why I looked at it several times. Personally, I found much of the functionality to be nearly silly with the presets and interface. I hope that too has improved.

    All that said, it is very likely I will never return as a customer. I base it solely on the way my multiple inquiries were handed. Or more accurately, not handled.

    Best of luck with it and thanks for sharing your experiences. I hope it serves you well.
     
  14. MikeHuff

    MikeHuff Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    California

    -Return to Top-

    I’ve looked at a lot of alternatives, but in the end I find it hard to beat the value I get from 2 solutions; Photo Mechanic and the Adobe photographer bundle we th PS and LR.

    The ingest speed for RAF objects is dreadful, but there have been improvements. I’ve not had a chance to run through an ingest with the recently updated version. It is getting some pretty good feedback.

    Prior to ingest I use PM to quickly cull, tag and keyword. From there it goes to LR

    A lot probably comes down to habit for me as well. I’ve used PS for many years and jumped into LR with the very first release. Once the files are ingested the work flow for the vast majority of what I do now days is super quick and easy. I’m a minimal processing kind of person. If I need to I can get into PS for more heavy lifting.

    I’ve not been crazy about the whole subscription model but it works out well and it’s easy to deal with. I’d probably pay that much in the end for upgrades with the old model. The solutions I’ve looked at just don’t provide enough of a compelling reason to make a move
     
  15. rmd

    rmd Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    145
    Location:
    Canada

    -Return to Top-

    I wish you luck as well in finding the right software to suit your needs. Many good bits out there and I've been through a few as well. TBH when I decide to move away from Lightroom for lack of future camera support, Capture One Pro will win out for me.
     
    MikeHuff likes this.
  16. MikeHuff

    MikeHuff Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    California

    -Return to Top-

    The combo I’ve mentioned serves me well for now. The ingest speed has seen incremental improvements and the x-trans sensor processing has also improved.

    Only time will tell. I’m honestly considering a massive consolidation of what I shoot with now and Fuji may end up out of the picture at some point.
     
  17. Dan Bailey

    Dan Bailey Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    392
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska

    -Return to Top-

    @MikeHuff I'm with you, Photo Mechanic is always at the front end of my workflow. It's simply the fastest way to ingest photos for initially culling and browsing. I actually use PM as much as I can, and sometimes I find myself holding off on importing into LR simply because I'd rather use PM to browse through my images.

    Also, regarding RAW opening times in Luminar. The previous version was pretty slow, around a minute to open a RAW file, but the Luminar 2018 update is MUCH faster. As @rmd said, depending on what kind of system you're running, it's pretty quick. I'm still on a mid 2010 Mac Pro and I find the Luminar performance to be quite good, certainly adequate for my workflow.
     
    MikeHuff likes this.

Share This Page