Sky’s the limit: Luminar 4 introduces the first automatic Sky Replacement technology

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,650
338
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Skylum will be releasing version 4 of their hugely popular Luminar software in the fall of 2019, preorders for the new version have gone live today.
There are two ways to preorder Luminar 4:

Skylum  Luminar 4 + Signature Looks bundle for $59 (Reg $138)
Skylum ​Luminar 4 + Signature Looks + Luminar 3 bundle for $99 (Reg $208)

Press Release:
Utilizing the proprietary technology based on machine learning, Luminar 4 will be the first photo editor to have a fully automated Sky Replacement tool to save the artists hours of editing.
BELLEVUE, WA – July 23, 2019 — Today, Skylum announces the upcoming release of Luminar 4, set to ship this fall. Skylum continues to push innovations forward through machine learning tools. In addition to the new AI Sky Replacement tool, Luminar users can expect to see more...
Continue reading...
 
Last edited:

JuanMa

Canon New F1
May 10, 2018
59
46
Spain
I don't want to deride digital composition as a separate art form, but I think we've reached the point where we need our cameras to digitally sign our RAWs so that we can prove a photograph is a photograph and not a CGI image.
That makes me think that we will soon no longer need cameras. Photo software will do all the job. Photography as testimony is coming to an end.
 

knight427

EOS T7i
Aug 27, 2018
98
113
That makes me think that we will soon no longer need cameras. Photo software will do all the job. Photography as testimony is coming to an end.
I want to replace my sky with Skylum’s software, and then replace my ground with Groundlym’s software, and then insert a highly photoshopped image of myself in a straw hat reaching back to the camera with one hand then automatically iterate variations on the sky, ground and my stupid poses and have them auto post to Instagram using multiple accounts to share each-others content while cross tagging the brands of my various shell companies which purchase ads on each-others accounts so I can get free artisanal pickles in exchange for exposure. That’s just how photography works now.
 

R1-7D

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 25, 2012
685
24
Canada
Seems like Luminar 2 & 3 just came out. I've enjoyed using the Luminar software, and I've upgraded every year since the original. However, as of right now, the software does everything I need it to do. So, I don't think I will be buying into this version this time around.

I also feel like they're developing new features too quickly without optimization. Luminar 3's performance is still terrible and I'm using a 10-core iMac Pro. If Luminar 4 really is a worthwhile upgrade, and I decide I want to buy it, I'll at least wait until performance and bug fixes have been carried out.
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
377
75
52
I would like Skylum or some company to introduce an AI tool to remove people from images. It's exceedingly hard these days to get 'clutter-free' images of the various waterfalls in the Columbia River Gorge (especially on the Oregon side) without an over-abundance of people in the pictures. A few is fine but a crowd that is blocking too much of the image is not my idea of a pretty shot. I know one can set up on a sturdy tripod and use a 10-stop ND (& a CPL) for a long time exposure to get some of the people out of the image but this has its limits for functionality. :)

I don't know where everyone on here is from, but in the Pacific Northwest (USA) it is getting harder and harder to be out in nature without the crowds (especially if one is within 1-3 hours of the major metro areas (Portland, Vancouver, Seattle-Tacoma, etc...).
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,728
816
119
I come from a purist school and learned to shoot with slide film, so what you saw was what you got, having said that I can see very reasonable uses for this given the time constraints most people have with regards their photography.

If I went on a once in a lifetime national park trip and the skies were just not doing it then I don't see why it isn't perfectly fine to swap them out and having a simple tool to do that seems obvious. I shoot real estate sometimes, I never have control over the sky and have had to do reshoots on occasion to get better scene setting images, an easy way to replace skies is going to be a time and money saver for those that aren't fully versed in the longer PS techniques.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,757
1,315
Irving, Texas
I come from a purist school and learned to shoot with slide film, so what you saw was what you got, having said that I can see very reasonable uses for this given the time constraints most people have with regards their photography.

If I went on a once in a lifetime national park trip and the skies were just not doing it then I don't see why it isn't perfectly fine to swap them out and having a simple tool to do that seems obvious. I shoot real estate sometimes, I never have control over the sky and have had to do reshoots on occasion to get better scene setting images, an easy way to replace skies is going to be a time and money saver for those that aren't fully versed in the longer PS techniques.
I took a job once to shoot a high end house inside and out. Hardest thing I ever did. It takes some special skill for that work and I didn't have it. The sky outside was terrible no matter what I tried that day. A quick tool for that would have been nice. You obviously have many skills in your quiver. :)
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,173
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I come from a purist school and learned to shoot with slide film, so what you saw was what you got, having said that I can see very reasonable uses for this given the time constraints most people have with regards their photography.

If I went on a once in a lifetime national park trip and the skies were just not doing it then I don't see why it isn't perfectly fine to swap them out and having a simple tool to do that seems obvious. I shoot real estate sometimes, I never have control over the sky and have had to do reshoots on occasion to get better scene setting images, an easy way to replace skies is going to be a time and money saver for those that aren't fully versed in the longer PS techniques.
I certainly understand the need for commercial photographers to produce the image a client needs and given all the digital manipulation that is now a part of commercial photography, it's unavoidable.

That said, I come from a photojournalism background and passing off a manipulated photo as real remains unethical and unacceptable in any documentary/journalistic capacity. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that traditional modifications, such as burning in, dodging or otherwise enhancing or muting areas that already exist in the image is acceptable, but completely replacing portions of the picture with something that did not exist at the time the picture was taken is unacceptable.

It bothers me a bit that we are becoming so accustomed to picture postcard, lowest common denominator images that we can miss the beauty of the real world and the challenge and joy of producing a memorable image using what is before us. For me, the real joy and challenge of photography comes from discovering the world as it is and trying to convey that in an image without resorting to cheap tricks and cliches.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,728
816
119
I certainly understand the need for commercial photographers to produce the image a client needs and given all the digital manipulation that is now a part of commercial photography, it's unavoidable.

That said, I come from a photojournalism background and passing off a manipulated photo as real remains unethical and unacceptable in any documentary/journalistic capacity. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that traditional modifications, such as burning in, dodging or otherwise enhancing or muting areas that already exist in the image is acceptable, but completely replacing portions of the picture with something that did not exist at the time the picture was taken is unacceptable.

It bothers me a bit that we are becoming so accustomed to picture postcard, lowest common denominator images that we can miss the beauty of the real world and the challenge and joy of producing a memorable image using what is before us. For me, the real joy and challenge of photography comes from discovering the world as it is and trying to convey that in an image without resorting to cheap tricks and cliches.
I agree 100%.

However I am an active member of two camera clubs and I see where the hobbiests are coming from, they are comparing themselves and their images to their favorite blogger/vlogger. At least we have gotten away from the horrendous HDR 'style' so popular a few years ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valvebounce

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,173
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...However I am an active member of two camera clubs and I see where the hobbiests are coming from, they are comparing themselves and their images to their favorite blogger/vlogger. At least we have gotten away from the horrendous HDR 'style' so popular a few years ago
Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, people have become so accustomed to manipulated photos that they now feel their own experiences aren't good enough, they have to enhance them. Even worse, their own faces and bodies aren't good enough. While I love photography, it's frustrating that taking the picture seems so often to outweigh the actual experience. I know I can succumb to this and have to consciously work on vacation and travels to just enjoy the experience and not make the picture more important than the reality.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,182
229
Davidson, NC
That said, I come from a photojournalism background and passing off a manipulated photo as real remains unethical and unacceptable in any documentary/journalistic capacity. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that traditional modifications, such as burning in, dodging or otherwise enhancing or muting areas that already exist in the image is acceptable, but completely replacing portions of the picture with something that did not exist at the time the picture was taken is unacceptable.
I find that the Brightness slider in ACR is usually more than adequate to to make the sky look at least decent. If overdone, it makes the sky look stormy on an overcast day, so don't go too far.

But then my manipulations are intended to make the scene look like how I remember it looking in real life, not to make it look like a Mediterranean beach scene.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJP and Valvebounce