Luminar 4 manipulations

[Gardyloo]

Yesterday on another thread I learned about Luminar 4, an editing program that offers some unusual and fun features. I went ahead and bought it, and have been playing with some of the filters and adjustments it makes possible. It can be used as a stand-alone editor or as a plugin to various other products such as Lightroom and Photoshop, but I've mainly been using it as a stand-alone, or with images that have been minimally processed, mainly with Paintshop Pro, which I've been using for years.

Anyway, I thought I'd open a thread here where people could post examples of images manipulated with this product. If the mods feel it should be elsewhere, go for it.

For my first exercise I'll show a photo of an outdoor sculpture in central Washington State, overlooking the Columbia River and commemorating the region's wild horses.

Base image:

With "sky replacement" and "sky augmentation" (the lightning) from Luminar 4, also less cropping on the sky:

 

[Space Face]

It's a great piece of software ain't it? I had the 7 day trial but think I'll go for it.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

Very good example of what the program can do.

 

[Gardyloo]

Another example. Here's an image scanned off a 40-something year old slide of Unalaska (aka Dutch Harbor) Alaska. The slide is in terrible shape, and I'm still working on trying to get the color balance, fade corrections, etc. done to keep it from looking so artificial. However, dropping it into Luminar and adding a threatening sky (which believe me is commonplace on the Aleutians) makes for a more evocative image, at least to me. I still need to work the foreground lighting, shadow lines, and the halo around the onion domes, but it's fun to play with the filters.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

Here's my contribution to this thread.

Original

Luminar manipulation

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

It's a great piece of software ain't it? I had the 7 day trial but think I'll go for it.

I haven't regretted buying it.

 

[charlie76]

I have played with this as well and purchased it. However, my photographic "morals" always chime in when I'm tempted to do anything with this software. If you've used it then you know why. I found a pretty heated debate on this online. Apparently, there are some photographers who have no problems replacing skies and calling it good. Personally, I think there should be a disclaimer if you "insert" a sky....for obvious reasons. This seems like a no-brainer??

 

[Space Face]

I have played with this as well and purchased it. However, my photographic "morals" always chime in when I'm tempted to do anything with this software. If you've used it then you know why. I found a pretty heated debate on this online. Apparently, there are some photographers who have no problems replacing skies and calling it good. Personally, I think there should be a disclaimer if you "insert" a sky....for obvious reasons. This seems like a no-brainer??

I'd agree with that. Personally I think it's a cheat to replace a sky and not make it clear it's been done. Just my view.

 

[Space Face]

............I've not got round to buying it yet but I will, probably when I get paid at the end of the month.

 

[Jeff15]

I have been using it for a while now, great stuff.......

 

[Space Face]

............I've not got round to buying it yet but I will, probably when I get paid at the end of the month.

I eventually got the full version last week. Yeah, very handy tool.

 

[Space Face]

I've tried a couple of replacement skies from their stock images which look fine but I think I'll build up my own library too, which I believe you can also use.

 

[Space Face]

Here's one just as an experiment. I don't think it's a feature I'll use overly often but it's there if needed. I think the etiquette will to be to declare the PP if posting for crit.

 

[charlie76]

Here's one just as an experiment. I don't think it's a feature I'll use overly often but it's there if needed. I think the etiquette will to be to declare the PP if posting for crit.

I agree, there should be some sort of disclaimer. Should a Luminar sky replacement be considered for photo of the month? I don't think so, and I don't think composite images should be either (just my opinion!). For instance, photographing a night sky, and superimposing another image of tree (or whatever) in the foreground is not a real photograph, but more digital photo-art.

 

[Space Face]

Here's one just as an experiment. I don't think it's a feature I'll use overly often but it's there if needed. I think the etiquette will to be to declare the PP if posting for crit.

I agree, there should be some sort of disclaimer. Should a Luminar sky replacement be considered for photo of the month? I don't think so, and I don't think composite images should be either (just my opinion!). For instance, photographing a night sky, and superimposing another image of tree (or whatever) in the foreground is not a real photograph, but more digital photo-art.

I don't disagree per se but I'm sure others may see the end result as a photograph, therefore, photography. Just playing devils advocate