Can Luminar Neo Compete with Photoshop's Exposure Blending? Surprising results!

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Into architecture photography and editing? Check out my dedicated channel bit.ly/ATArchitecture I'll go over editing techniques, pricing and licencing and other tips to help you on the road to becoming a successful architectural photographer! 😀👍

[@scherge]

That's a very close one, but I think I actually like the LN version better for the color of the ceiling, and for the details on the floor boards outside the door and over the fire place. Great job, and I bet, much faster than the PS route. Again, super helpful, thanks a lot!

[@RedRedRedRed]

Thank you so much, Anthony! Your tutorial is a blast!

[@michaelhale416]

Thank you for that tutorial. I tried my hand at PS in the early 2000's and being a hobbyist with little time on my hands, it was too high a learning curve for me. It is great to know I can get similar looks from Luminar Neo. I fully understand that as of today, having PS skills offers better results, but not having critical clients I am enjoying Luminar Neo. Have a great day. Cheers.

[@Santamike212]

Hard to tell the diff. WoW, thank you

[@TechnikMeister2]

Starting out in Real Estate photography at age 71! Portraits don't pay the bills. I really do not want to go through the PS/LR learning curve, let alone the monthly subs, so this video answers just about all my questions. Luminar Neo for me.

[@rogerbehymer4412]

Since the whole idea of Luminar is getting fantastic results with a minimum of work it's nice to see how it compares with PS. Even after adding the costs of the new plug-ins I'm happy to stick with NEO over Photoshop.

[@Sven-R]

Very interesting to see all the steps you used for editing, a lot to learn to improve the workflow.

[@PhotoSnapMedia]

Great video! Thanks!

[@SantyG176]

Tu canal siempre me ha ayudado un montón para editar mis fotos de Real Estate. Esta herramienta de Luminar era lo que estaba buscando, y más cuando tienes muchas imágenes para editar cada día. Me gusta mas que Ps incluso, el reemplazo de los cielos, simplemente es espectacular. Gracias por este video y sobre todo confío mucho en ti que sabes de sobra, cómo es editar en Lr y Ps.

[@dronesiviews]

They both look good to me. Thanks for the nice tutorial!

[@kevinfarrell9037]

I liked the Luminar Neo HDR version.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Thanks Kevin!

[@filippeo85]

Amaizing, I am working with similar HDR Pictures, and this is a very big help.

[@arpearce4416]

Neo version preferred- thanks for your clear guidance

[@AnthonyTurnham]

No worries! 😀 thanks for your continued support!

[@philyoung4804]

As a Luminar user has to be the winner

[@jlopez7596]

Most excellent comparison. I think most people if they received either of the files would be very pleased with the results. But definitely with side by side comparison as you stated the PS version looks more realistic while the Neo looks slightly over processed even if you remove the two unnecessary steps. I had a similar situation with a portrait where a very good friend of mine was trying to save me time and sent back a proof with a filter adjustment and then I sent her my final edit and she realized why i invested the time. You responded very quickly to the requests from the PS version video. Again the nuances of your work flow keeps me on my toes and progressing in my own work noticing and refining the details.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Thanks 😀😊 I always appreciate your comments.

[@MewsicalMiqo]

For someone who only has experience using PS/LR It's interesting to see what you can do in Luminar Neo. Do you use a CPL filter when shooting HDR brackets in order to cut down on glare? I find that the halos and flares produced by bright exteriors will ruin some of my brighter frames. Although using a screw-on CPL would make it impractical to also use flash to do flambient where appropriate.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Hi. No I don't usually use polarising filters when shooting interiors.

[@TheOneLin3]

I have both versions PS / Neo The big difference for me is that PS works so much faster. Putting 50 tiff files into Neo... OMG, the time it needs and the memory of the pc going to 95%. PS + lightroom... So much faster. Thx for all the videos 🙏

[@panan7777]

With M2 6Gb/s disks and 64GB 6000Mbit RAM still any difference? Hardware might kill the overpriced PS for most.

[@djcruse]

I find Luminar's Dust Spot Removal works flawlessly. I wish I could say the same about its ability to Remove Powerlines. Any tips?

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Hi Dale, probably just a return to the tried and true clone tool.

[@martinhorn1131]

Very interesting workflow, what you’re demonstrating certainly does remove some of the less appealing aspects of tone compression in the HDR image. However it seems to me that adjusting Radiance with the Mystical Tool, and applying a mask to adjust strength of the effect would accomplish much the same. Your thoughts on this approach would be appreciated.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Hi Martin. I think the extra effect of Mystical needed to soften off the tone compression would be too aggressive for architectural photography. It may be a fab solution for landscapes though where we can get away with a more artistic application.

[@volkerwehres5917]

Why don‘t you transferm the final HDR-photo? Any reason? Good comparison!

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Yes that's an option. But I'd need to match the transform between the hdr and the additional layer. Visually I prefer working on a geometrically true image from the beginning. Just easier on the eye. Probably easier to watch in the video too.

[@projektphat]

I like ps more cuz of you can stack more thing together also better plugins thats make your job easier and faster way to get your work flow done faster

[@robertatwell7615]

Wonderful comparison. I think that in the end it is a matter of preference and how much time you spend in each product. Knowledge of PS is important when doing this work and the same in NEO. The workflow order may sometimes be important. Thanks again!!!

[@raymondgonsalves2138]

Is this an example where I would use bracketing ( I've never used the bracketing feature before ) on my Nikon to get the get the multiple shots with different levels of exposure?

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Yes, absolutely! 😀

[@clifhellner1493]

I see you are on a PC. Any issues running Luminar? Thanks!

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Hi Clif. No issues. Luminar AI was known to hog resources and slow 🐌 things down as more tools were added. Neo has been written in a way so that this doesn't happen. But of course the newer AI tools still require a half decent system to perform well.

[@clifhellner9592]

@@AnthonyTurnham Thanks for letting me know!

[@Pad13]

Great vid! Just starting real estate photography. I already have photoshop and Lightroom. I think I’ll get luminaire as well to speed up work flow. Just wondering… if my 3 exposures are all on the dark side… would you lighten the over exposed image in Lightroom before merging in luminaire?

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Thanks. TBH I'd put them into Luminar Neo and just see how it handles the original. Putting in raw photos gives the HDR merge tool more info to get its teeth into for the final result. But I've had good results with both raw and pre-processed photos. If getting Luminar make sure you get the latest version (bit.ly/NEO-best-deal) that includes the merge tool as standard rather than an extra plugin.

[@HolyBeardedOne]

When covering the part about exporting in between filter usage, after making an edit and before the next. I actually think is a super useful tool. This allows to save in-between edits, in case you don't like or want to redo the 2nd or 3rd edit or do it in a different way. Really find that useful. Maybe they did that on purpose, maybe not.

[@jvkperspective]

I liked the Luminar Neo HDR version better (but as you said that may just be a question of taste, and not having seen the real room means no mental image from what it looked like when the photos were taken). And for complex editing I use Affinity Photo.

[@SeaBeeDave71]

I really like the HDR merge in Neo. Is there a way to batch process HDR images with it?

[@AnthonyTurnham]

No batching at the moment.

[@MrJohnnyMel]

That was fascinating, side by side the PS version may have it, but both impressive. I loved what the mystical tool did 😊Could the tilt tool be used on a later or final version to save that early step?

[@Sven-R]

Exactly the question I had in mind too. Any specific reason to do this before putting it into HDR Merge or was it more for demonstration purposes of how to apply the change on all 3 images?

[@jlopez7596]

This is a very good question. Typically he has a method to why. It will be interesting to see the reply

[@Slipsch]

@@jlopez7596 I think it's because of the the base layer that he has to add after he merge them

[@jlopez7596]

@@Slipsch good point. I remember seeing that step but had not factored into the equation.

[@Sven-R]

@@Slipsch Yes, but still this could be done after getting having a 'final' image. That said, I also do geometrical corrections before doing lighting adjustments.

[@sittymaha3741]

The result is pretty close but it seem the Ps method has more pop in the contrast

[@landonp629]

Would it not be less work to do the merge FIRST, and then correct the tilt in the final image? Seems like it would save the step of having to render out the pictures and bring them back in.

[@markroberttaylor]

Thank you for the comparison, great video. However, which process was faster? I think the PS/Luminosity version is slightly better, but while the Luminar option looks a tiny bit “HDR” it still looks great. However, if the purpose of Luminar is to get great results in a quicker, simplified fashion, did it really save the time? It honestly seems a bit more complex and cumbersome saving all the new flattened images and steps, while the Luminosity blending technique seems fairly simple and straightforward - and consistent once you get your head around it. So based on that I am completely in the PS camp.

[@ericprouzet3851]

Thanks again for sharing this video. I think that both treatments gave wonderful results and it’s mostly a question of personal taste. I take this opportunity to ask you a question. What would you recommend for HDR? 3 or 5 photos?

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Hi Eric. Totally depends on the range of contrast in the scene. If you CAN capture it in 3 then do that. Better still 2! BUT if you need more exposures to capture a greater tonal discrepancy then that's when you should go for more. If you're unsure, I'd say, air on the side of caution and shoot more until you get a better feel for what's needed.

[@kevinw7044]

Not much in it. I actually think the Luminar version is better. I saw some “dirtying” creep into the PS version. This can best be seen in the uprights between some of the windows, although this is down to the editing process itself and I suspect you would have taken more time if not for the purpose of this demonstration. I think this great video demonstrates the capabilities of Neo well.

[@Slipsch]

Could you please do another video on how to do window pull but without using HDR merge? I assume, you would just layer them, then place the base layer on top and erase the windows?

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Send me a set of files featuring a window pull frame to [e-mail] and I'll see what I can do!

[@kristjanvittori1611]

Luminar Neo!

[@ArminHirmer]

yeah not bad :) esp for me a non PS user :D

[@go-to-the-beach]

Thank you so much for sharing these methods. I usually shoot flambient and blend in PS, although in this case I understand why you decided on HDR. The results are awesome with both. Still think PS looks a tad more natural, but it's close. I wonder how Neo HDR module would do with a flambient blend? Have you tried it? If so, a quick video showing the result would be good! New subscriber btw :)

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Thanks David. I don't think the flambient frames would be handled too well with the HDR Merge extension. Purely because the lit frame(or frames) change the luminosity so much whereas in a standard bracketed set the light ratios stay the same even though the exposure changes.

[@stephenday1520]

Is it worth using luminar on pages or is it only good for RAW

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Sorry mate, not really sure what you mean by pages? It works well for raw, jpeg, tiff, basically all photo file formats. I prefer to work with raw though as you can push those files further.

[@stephenday1520]

@@AnthonyTurnham sorry auto correct I meant "PNG's" I would use the program to edit/improve renders from a render engine, so no RAW INFO '

[@AnthonyTurnham]

@@stephenday1520 ah yeah, that makes sense. Yes absolutely 💯 for png too.

[@burrdaddy]

Is there a downside to correcting the geometry last? I always worry that I’ll lose sharpness or introduce artifacts by correcting the aspect of images prior to editing. I always do that last.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Doing it first is fine. You're working on a raw photo in develop raw so you may as well do that geometric adjustment then as part of your initial workflow. However... I don't see leaving it until the end to be a big deal either. I just prefer to be working on a file that looks true to my eye right from the outset. Just personal preference really.

[@trscsaeg]

They should add an option to retain adjustments when bringing them into hdr merge

[@chase5860]

I recently purchased Lumenzia as well as Greg's exposure blending master course. I have always been a bit intimidated by Photoshop but there is no feeling quite like when you finally master something so that is what I have been working towards. Although a lot of time and effort is put into making a final product in Photoshop, it is such a gratifying feeling. For us as the artists as well as feeling like outw clients really get their money's worth. I'm highly impressed with AI tech. I just find it a bit worrisome as just HOW good it is getting which is more than I would care to admit. To people with a very keen eye, we can easily tell which was made in Photoshop and which was made in Luminar. But many clients out there won't be quite as fussy and just want a good looking photo. I hope that AI has its place but will still stay in its lane and that photographers won't think that the easiest and quickest solution is always the best solution.

[@GAEVKA2011]

Detali 12 12 12 Sharp 5-12 Luminar NEO 100%

[@michaelroach3553]

4:00 and this is why HDR Merge needs freaking work lol. You can't even select multiples in Lightroom like you can in Aurora.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Yep, it's got some features that could benefit from some developer time for sure!

[@reneabela1744]

Neo makes more sense to me

[@Slipsch]

Luminar need to add the flatten feature, so we don't have to keep exporting and importing.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

Yes! A big fat yes to that!

[@rogerjakko]

Both massively impressive, but after much thought ....................... Photoshop wins 54/46. For me, the PS version around the furniture and TV look more natural. Also have a preference, albeit slight, for the lawn, bushes, estuary and land beyond in PS. I'd still use Neo to be honest - basically 'cause I lose the will to live with PS.

[@macrobinson5457]

The greater question is “With ON1 Photo RAW 2023, why is anyone still using Luminar Neo?”

[@LetFreedomSPK]

Subscription based software is a cancer. I rather own the lísiense to use it indefinitely. I’ll go for Luminar

[@meditationstorytime]

I think the PS version is better, but I will definitely be using the Luminar method with my more quick turnaround clients. They'll never know the difference. The one downside in Neo is exporting the corrected distortion images before sending them to HDR. Either way, everyone in our industry would benefit highly from having Luminar Neo in their toolkit.

[@AnthonyTurnham]

True true! 👍

[@Slipsch]

Just wish that Luminar Neo or Skylum will add a slider to adjust how "HDR" the image should be.

[@chk3811]

Comment for the algorithm

[@vmafarah9473]

I loved HDR effect on clouds few years back , now Im not a fan of those.

[@cardin14]

Luminar

[@felixthecat1882]

Hi Anthony! I ignored your previous video because I think Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom are very, very overrated! I don't know why so many photographers rave over how wonderful Photoshop is, in most imaging software videos and in the photo magazines I read, about 80% are dedicated to Adobe users, while so few, maybe less than 20% use other products like PaintShop Pro, Topaz, ON1 or Skylum Luminar software. I suspect that Photoshop and Lightroom are no longer the leaders in imaging software, but snobbery continues! Your video demonstrates that in many cases Luminar Neo not only competes with but can also exceed Photoshop and Lightroom in the quality of its editing and results. What do you think Anthony? Are Adobe uses simply being snobbish regarding their use of these overpriced and overrated products? Regards from Felix the Cat. 🐱 Ps. I will now look at your earlier version to see whether Ps and Lr are any easer to use than Luminar Neo! 😼

[@The831Z]

For the most part it seems like photoshop had been used for so long and has been getting updates while program's like neo get worked on and then get discontinued and the company make a new program. I stop buying for that reason. I don't know if the company is going to keep going with neo for long term or discontinue it later on and make a new one. Are there paid programs better then photoshop yes but are there paid programs like neo that keep getting updated over the years like photoshop that will be around for years to come that will keep getting updates not really.

[@felixthecat1882]

@@The831Z Hi Zeke, yes that is the problem with smaller image editing companies like Skylum, but then again, you never stop paying for Adobe Ps and Lr, whereas because imaging software, in general, has advanced so much over the years, especially with the introduction of AI technology, there may not be much more to offer. I can now decide not to update anymore, because I found software like Skylum Luminar Neo more than adequate for my needs, so in short, I need not keep on paying for the software, whereas Adobe's subscription method means you will have to continue paying for software updates that you may not need. Felix the Cat. 🐱

[@The831Z]

@@felixthecat1882 adobe has photo shop Elements that you can always do most of the things you can do photoshop and you pay once and you have adobe photoshop paid version that keeps getting updates. If adobe would lower the price a little it would be basically the same cost on keep buying all those programs that get made and then discontinued. I got like 4 or 5 programs that they came out with and then stop working on and came out with a new one so people can buy again. It's basically almkst the same cost if you really look at how often they make programs and have to learn a new program.

[@rebeccamoore4177]

Affinity seems to be the one non subscription stable product that competes with PS. That said Luminar Neo is easier to use for close to pro results for an amateur enthusiast like me.

[@felixthecat1882]

@@The831Z Hi again Zeke! Yes, that is also true, however, but doesn't Adobe also have a number of imaging software products. Apart from Ps and Lr, they also have Adobe Raw, Adobe Bridge and DNG converter, some like the latter may soon be discontinued. There was also a time when Photoshop and Lightroom could be purchased with a single payment, although I have to admit that by costing over £600, it was well out of my price range. Luminar Neo has includes a catalogue library (like Adobe Bridge), Raw tools (like Adobe Raw) and is adding new plug-ins like: HDR Merge (incorporating Aurora HDR into Neo), Noiseless and it will soon include: Upscale, AI Background Removal, Focus Stacking, Supersharp AI and more. I believe that Skylum is here for the long haul. Skylum's other main product, Luminar AI, with its ability to create basic adjustment and texture layers, is targeted towards more experienced users. However, I do believe Luminar Neo could eventually replace Luminar AI. Felix the Cat 🐱

[@dalegreer3095]

Photoshop wins, I think. The window views have much more depth, and the floor details and colors are richer.

[@iandobson8846]

Funny you should say that you don't like the idea of the simplification of photo editors over the behemoth that is Photoshop. The news is, that all this will very sound be, if not already to a point, be done with the AI in the latest and near future, smartphones. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@AnthonyTurnham]

One thing smartphones can't compete with is the higher quality optical capture of a dedicated lens. Also larger sensors in cameras will still yield better results. I'm all for achieving results with easier methods. It just hurts that I spent 25+ years working with Photoshop and a lot of that expertise is now redundant. One thing AI can't do (yet) is emulate or replace our creative vision.

[@iandobson8846]

@@AnthonyTurnham oh I agree with you, definitely but someone, can't remember who right now, said that the AI in smartphones will get better by using technology to get around the shortcomings of smaller lenses and sensors. Time will tell I guess. My answer to that though is that dedicated cameras will probably take the same technology on and still produce a better result. It already happens to a point in the latest mirrorless cameras. I'm thinking, Live Composite in Olympus cameras for starters. P.S. I still want to improve my postprocessing skills, but Photoshop does intimidate, hense my interest in Luminar Neo, despite having an Adobe CC account. 😆

[@rigidhammer7376]

beat? lol

[@AnthonyTurnham]

?

[@thelastninja4825]

photoshop result is much better

[@felixthecat1882]

Is it? Especially as you never stop paying for it. 😾

[@thelastninja4825]

@@felixthecat1882 I was referring to the image results and not the software, screw adobe and their price system.

[@panan7777]

@@thelastninja4825 It's the same as with the guitar FX software. When comparing real pedals and simulated the likes were evenly split. Maybe not now, but PS and new programs will be at the same level soon or are there already. I can bet, that results for the blind tests of 10 different pictures. would be very revealing.

[@andreybagliy2176]

let's be real. both look the same and hardly discernible. I am new to this for real estate photography and I will bet that 98% of my future clients will be delighted with HDR merge and some colour correction

[@AnthonyTurnham]

As photographers we love to analyse and breakdown images and pick on things that often a client is oblivious to. So yes, you're right, the difference in terms of a client, are minimal.