Luminar 4 Sky Replacement UPD Download Free
Carlie Bhairo
I tried different RAW files, uninstalling Luminar completely. Creating a new catalog etc. I really hope they didn't make it a paid add-on for Neo..... seeing that sky replacement has been one of their big selling points since v4, and the original Neo had it built-in to the base program..
I've even tried photos I did edit and do sky replacements on before and it seems to play dead and not do anything (for sky replacement). Other edits work fine though, incluindg things like Relight AI... I've even tried different files (first tried a Fuji RAW file and maybe though it couldn't read those so I tried a Nikon NEF file with a pretty obvious, dull blue sky -- no clouds). Didn't help.
when I try updating to Luminar Neo 1.13.0 from 1.10.0 It crashes when I click on a tool like sky . So I uninstalled luminar and reinstalled 1.10.0 . I read on the web were it was crashiing for many people . I will wait for another update comes along
I updated Neo a few days ago and tried processing an image and the sky replacement tool wasn't working. I'd add that I normally open it up as an extension from Apple Photos which I use as my main D.A.M. So I tried Luminar 4 (again from Photos) which I also own and that was ok.
I kind of noticed this too, and first thought maybe it was the particular image , so I tried another one that I actually did a sky replacement on previously with Neo, but it didn't work either which is puzzling. Worked a few versions ago, but not with 1.13.0.
Interesting. I wouldn't say it crashed for me. It just wouldn't do sky replacements on handful of images I tried .. many of which had very obvious skies (someone hinted perhaps it is more picky with picking out skies in photos).
As of this date, August 2021, sky replacements are still posing a problem, albeit in different ways for Luminar and Photoshop, the two programs currently offering the so-called easy way to replace skies. (I understand that On1 2022 will offer the same feature when it's released.)
Luminar's big problem is totally getting rid of a previous sky at the horizon line, and fully replacing it with the new sky. Naturally, I've resorted to the usual tricks offered, such as Global and Close Gaps and Positioning, but these don't work sufficiently well. (As for Photoshop, it has two drawbacks: it can't yet do water reflections and it's not always the easiest thing to access your current library through PS, and this isn't mentioning the fact that PS sky replacement requires more training than Luminar.)
Luminar is admittedly at the forefront when it comes to new enhancements, but the company, it seems to me, throws their new features into the marketplace before fully beta testing them, perhaps waiting for customers to start lodging complaints before making proper corrections. This certainly seems to have happened with their sky replacement feature, in more ways than one. Adobe, of course, prospers from this by creating a better program, but can only do so on a limited basis due to patent infringement concerns. This gives Luminar time to perfect their product, which they don't seem to be doing.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Adobe would never have included a sky replacement feature in Photoshop had it not been for Luminar's development of that feature. Adobe did so in a way that did not violate Skylum's patent, and the company found a way to effectively replace a sky without showing a part of the previous sky at the horizon line. I'm reading that Luminar's water-reflection feature has its bugs too, but it's quite popular, so there can be no doubt that Adobe will find a way to mimic that feature as well, and do it better than Skylum. The same will be true for Luminar's bokeh feature. (And all of this doesn't mention what On1 will include when On1 RAW 2022 is released.)
My experiments have shown me that Photoshop isn't yet all that wonderful at replacing skies. While it's true that PS is better at horizon placement, I've noticed that in too many areas the preceding photo bleeds through. The effect is subtle, but it's there, and it's there enough that a savvy contest judge will catch it. A judge would almost have to catch the defect, because most sky replacements are going to be quite spectacular, telling a judge that the photo might not be natural. And of course, once a defect is detected, that's the only part of a photo that anyone will see.
The following sky replacement was done in Luminar, but it certainly isn't perfect. If the blending of the sky and horizon look acceptable at first, it would help to look closer. On the right side of the silos, the original sky has bled through. In attempt to fix it, I used the smudge tool in Photoshop to blend the new sky with the old, since nothing else worked. But it was a lame try, and in any event the sky replacement should have worked properly from the beginning.
A judge would almost have to catch the defect, because most sky replacements are going to be quite spectacular, telling a judge that the photo might not be natural. And of course, once a defect is detected, that's the only part of a photo that anyone will see.
Finally, I think you said something to the effect that a sky can be a little too spectacular to be believable, especially for judges, and signals a sky replacement. If I've got your meaning correctly, I think that you've brought up a good point. It's interesting to note that Nicole Young, with her new sky replacement pack, is emphasizing skies that are far more subtle than those sold by Luminar, which are often way over the top. If a sky replacement is put in place that is more believable, but adds to the beauty of the work, that might be the best choice. Pictures with spectacular skies might be okay to print out and display on walls in a person's house.
Thank you for helping me out with that information. I get the feeling that properly using sky replacements is like walking between skyscrapers on a high-wire line. It only takes the smallest slip. Still, there's no denying that buying skies and injecting them into one's images is very popular--at the moment anyway, until the next big thing comes along--so it might actually be possible that Skylum, Adobe or On1 might provide warning markers against using this or that sky in a particular image. And I won't be at all surprised if that happens within the next couple of years, along with better refinements for blending sky and landscape.
dafc88bca6