Search results

The unfortunate reality of software development: it requires time, moneys and expertise even to just maintain software, not to mention active development. That\'s why the most stable tools are those where you pay subscription.

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.

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...

Is that something you couldn't do in Lightroom 3 years ago?

I wouldn't touch Luminar again even for free. It's a dodgy Ukrainian software with tremendous performance issues, poor file handling and absent color science.

To the best of my knowledge it is mainly about a new data compression algorithm

That's really-really good. Skintones are way better than Sony's, and generally the colours are quite well balanced for a digital camera. Here are both pictures processed with Kodak Portra 400 profile from RNI Films CC for Adobe Lightroom:

That's sort of predictable. The DxO film simulation was ok when released years ago but for the last 2-3 years seems to be losing the market to more beautiful things like RNI for Lightroom and Capture One and VSСО.