I've been on Windows since spring 2018 and it hasn't been all that great. It smoothed out until update 1809 and 1909 was even more rocky. The most recent updates managed to eat my drive data. Even after a visit to a repair service, I ended up with a reset all the way back to factory. At this moment, I can't really use the machine and it's a shame with all those games.
For two years, I haven't had my music or a recent backup of my music, which has led me to some frustration. I also left some projects undone and I just wanted to get an inexpensive Mac that would allow me to revive things. I've been searching a very long time.
On OfferUp, I wasn't sure whether the machines were stolen or not but the prices weren't all that good for the damged look of some of the machines and the distance I'd have to travel. Apple, of course, has only machines three years old or newer, which would be too much money for minimum wage me. Newegg has had machines, but they often have third parties with poor ratings, and I'm not very trusting.
A couple of weeks ago, I came across a mid-2012 quad core i7 with a GeForce 650M, almost like mine--one step down. The price was acceptable, but the 4 GB of RAM left me unsure as to whether it would be able to restore my final backup, although the 500 GB 5400 rpm disk drive was sufficient.
I ordered it on a Sunday night. By Tuesday, they had finished packaging and its status was "Label created". It stayed that way, even after it arrived several days later.
The machine looked almost new. The display hinges are a little weak, but since I've got my (dead) machine, I can probably have those switched. The machine has only 512 MB of VRAM, in contrast to my machine having 1 GB. It probably doesn't matter a lot because how many games are available for an 8 year old machine? GOG has some, though. What's more important is using that GPU to speed up photo and video processing.
Getting the machine up and running was a struggle. It complained about the backup being from a newer version of the operating system. Sadly, the Mac App Store pointed me to the current, rather broken, Catalina/10.15.4. I didn't realize that it was completely 64-bit, so nothing 32-bit would run. I complained about Apple not doing this in the past, so it's amusing that it was such a kick in the pants.
Loading Catalina wasn't awful. The 500 GB hard drive had to be converted from HFS+ to APFS. It didn't take long to be downloaded. The installation wasn't horrible, either. Trying to boot it with a hard drive from 2012 and only 4 GB of RAM was difficult, at best.
Once it was running, I was tossing out software and hoping that upgrades would be simple. Several upgrades were extremely expensive and I'm considering them still. Those things purchased through the Mac App Store didn't come with upgrade fees. However, getting things to run was almost impossible. Firefox would initially run and would fail, apparently because of the 4 GB of RAM restriction. It displayed some sort of dialog box, but I couldn't manipulate it to see the contents.
There were some system functions that were running constantly, possibly because the hard drive was converted from HFS+. It disabled the machine for all intents and purposes, especially with a file system that wasn't happy on a hard drive and a system with a shortage of RAM.
Enhancements Matter
I bought a 1 TB Western Digital SSD (2.5 inch) and 16 GB of RAM. Considering that eight years have passed, the total for the enhancements was negligible. I remember that the Other World Computing 6G Extreme SSD was something around US$500 for 480 GB and the RAM might have been about the same price in early 2013.
Just inserting the RAM made a huge difference in performance with macOS Catalina. I wanted to get an external enclosure in order to clone the drive and the enclosure had not arrived at that time. I ended up finding a compatible enclosure and macOS did all the cloning, once I could get the SSD partitioned and formatted properly. There was some error at first, which isn't a surprise with 10.15.4.
Making sure the SSD was set to be APFS made a positive difference. When I booted from the drive, the previous system tasks from when the hard drive was present were not taking over the system any longer. The system seemed about as fast as my Windows 10 system with the 7th generation quad-core i7 and 32 GB rather than the Mac from 2012 with a 3rd generation quad-core i7 and 16 GB of RAM, just as my other machine had been. Obviously the GeForce 1050 GTX versus the GT 650M difference is really displayed in applications which use hardware acceleration.
It's taken some time to update applications to current versions, but everything runs quite well. Most games are not possible because time has left the 650M with 512 MB in the past, and those games that could run need to be converted to work under 64-bit operation. I tried to get The Witness to work, but it got just past the graphics settings and died. The Epic Games Launcher seems flaky. Steam won't run even though it's the 64-bit version and ran once. GOG Galaxy 2.0 runs occasionally. MacGameStore can run. Obduction runs, if a bit glitchy! Things are running somewhat better and I've found more games.
Thankfully, the Affinity suite by Serif seems fine, along with Capture One Pro 12, Luminar 2018, Swift Publisher 5 and more. I was concerned with being able to retrieve projects, photos, and music. My music is up to date on my phone, but it's been tedious getting Finder (not iTunes) to sync things. My TV and movie downloads are currently not on the phone because Finder had them removed.
I didn't think that a machine from 2012 would be so useful in 2020, but for graphics work, it seems quite capable.
Update 2020.05.01: Is it sad that a mid-2012 MacBook Pro with flaky 10.5.4 is more stable than a late-2017 Omen by HP laptop computer with the latest Windows 10?
Showing posts with label Luminar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luminar. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2020
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
Luminar (2018) is the quickest way to huge edits
I've used a few raw development applications by now:
Phase One Capture One Pro
Ichikawa Software Labs Silkypix DS
Olympus' free Viewer
Adobe Lightroom (original beta)
I started with Capture One 3.x way back in 2006. Good raw development application software was difficult to find. Thankfully, Olympus bodies produced fine JPEG files. If I had been using Canon or Nikon, I would have been in more of a hurry.
When Luminar became available on Mac OS X, I had already been using the company's Creative Kit 2016, which had a single application for a major functionality. Luminar put those together in a simplified way.
Thankfully, Apple created CoreImage functionality and that took away some of the complexity, especially when dealing with raw files--if Apple got it right.
The company's software gave me a reason to experiment and it made it quick and interesting. With Luminar, many transformations became so quick simply because I didn't need to switch from application to application. I could have dramatic results within minutes.
If you look at Capture One Pro or Silkypix DS, they both support saving a group of settings to give photos a certain look quickly. Those in Capture One Pro especially tend to be holding to a less dramatic upheaval than Luminar. Given the target type of photographer, that might be appropriate. I appreciate some restraint, but I'm learning that my audience may want a bit more spice.
Now that I'm using the Windows version of Luminar, things are less certain than on the Mac but just as interesting. They have many things planned but I would just like to be able to switch quickly between a number of files within a folder. I photograph sports, so I might end up with hundreds (or more) of photos from a meet or tournament. I can't guess at which one is which, especially when Windows doesn't support the raw files.
At this point, I will have Capture One Pro open and switch to Luminar for special edits, which is difficult to do with the current 8 GB of RAM. (I'm working on that, but don't know whether I will be okay with "only" 16 GB or need 32 GB, especially for video projects.)
I'm looking forward to more experimentation with Luminar. Hopefully, they can provide a healthier interface to files, so it's easier to use in a professional workflow.
Update 2018.11.02: The company released the AI Sky Enhancer filter. It's supposed to only work on sky and clouds. I'm not certain how wonderful it is because I have yet to make extensive use of it.
Included is a side-by-side sample of a fairly busy sky at sunset photo to show the differences. This may be a bad example but it does show differences.
Update 2018.12.06: Skylum have announced that the update to Luminar that adds Libraries will be available on December 18th.
Update 2019.01.08: For anyone interested, I've been trying to use Luminar 3, with the updates, and it is miserable. I am certain that everything will be much better in time, but I don't even feel it's worth using at this time.
The first time I started it, it took forever, as if it was an early (alpha/beta?) release of a product. It asked what I wanted to have in libraries. What I selected was completely duplicated, but with a current date, so that it made a mess of searching and use of the Photos application. After the fix update, I tried a few photos and with each style I tried, it created an image.
They have a great many things to handle. Until they get them under control, I will use Luminar 2018.
Update 2019.02.19: Luminar 3.0.2 is out. I updated but will continue to use Luminar 2018 because I don't have to guess at how it will work.
Update 2020.01.22: Luminar 3.2.0 is out, even though the company has moved to version 4 of the software, featuring Artificial Intelligence sky replacement and portrait enhancement.
I appreciate that they went further to fix version 3 a bit, but I'm still not ready to move to version 4. Luminar is a great tool for huge edits BUT is in no way essential to my workflow. Until Luminar 2018 becomes incompatible with a future Windows 10 update, I will continue to use it when I feel the need for more stylish editing. I would say that they're fighting Adobe Photoshop Elements, which is using AI in their latest version, but it seems multiple applications are trying AI at some level.
By the way, Affinity Photo, Publisher, and Designer all work together quite well, if you're looking for a light suite of applications that tackles quite a lot, but is rather inexpensive. They all work with Windows, Mac, and iPad. I haven't been tied to Adobe since 2006 and don't like that they pile on enhancements without fixing bugs first. The people at Skylum seem to be doing that with Luminar, but they're not entrenched as Adobe are.
Update 2020.02.17: I receive e-mails from Skylum practically every week. They apparently need me to purchase Luminar 4. I'm not interested. They'll be sad. I'm sad that I paid for Luminar 3.
The best way for them to make money now is to make all those Mac-only apps into style packs and sell them. They did a set for the black and white application that I used to use and those styles helped me recover part of what I had felt I lost.
I appreciate that they want to move into AI, as did Adobe, but I'm not that interested. I haven't even bought the latest Phase One Capture One Pro update. It has a lot to offer, especially since the year ago version, but I'm not really in the mood and I don't photograph nearly as often.
Phase One Capture One Pro
Ichikawa Software Labs Silkypix DS
Olympus' free Viewer
Adobe Lightroom (original beta)
I started with Capture One 3.x way back in 2006. Good raw development application software was difficult to find. Thankfully, Olympus bodies produced fine JPEG files. If I had been using Canon or Nikon, I would have been in more of a hurry.
When Luminar became available on Mac OS X, I had already been using the company's Creative Kit 2016, which had a single application for a major functionality. Luminar put those together in a simplified way.
Thankfully, Apple created CoreImage functionality and that took away some of the complexity, especially when dealing with raw files--if Apple got it right.
The company's software gave me a reason to experiment and it made it quick and interesting. With Luminar, many transformations became so quick simply because I didn't need to switch from application to application. I could have dramatic results within minutes.
If you look at Capture One Pro or Silkypix DS, they both support saving a group of settings to give photos a certain look quickly. Those in Capture One Pro especially tend to be holding to a less dramatic upheaval than Luminar. Given the target type of photographer, that might be appropriate. I appreciate some restraint, but I'm learning that my audience may want a bit more spice.
Now that I'm using the Windows version of Luminar, things are less certain than on the Mac but just as interesting. They have many things planned but I would just like to be able to switch quickly between a number of files within a folder. I photograph sports, so I might end up with hundreds (or more) of photos from a meet or tournament. I can't guess at which one is which, especially when Windows doesn't support the raw files.
At this point, I will have Capture One Pro open and switch to Luminar for special edits, which is difficult to do with the current 8 GB of RAM. (I'm working on that, but don't know whether I will be okay with "only" 16 GB or need 32 GB, especially for video projects.)
 |
| Left-original, Right-altered |
I'm looking forward to more experimentation with Luminar. Hopefully, they can provide a healthier interface to files, so it's easier to use in a professional workflow.
Update 2018.11.02: The company released the AI Sky Enhancer filter. It's supposed to only work on sky and clouds. I'm not certain how wonderful it is because I have yet to make extensive use of it.
Included is a side-by-side sample of a fairly busy sky at sunset photo to show the differences. This may be a bad example but it does show differences.
Update 2018.12.06: Skylum have announced that the update to Luminar that adds Libraries will be available on December 18th.
Update 2019.01.08: For anyone interested, I've been trying to use Luminar 3, with the updates, and it is miserable. I am certain that everything will be much better in time, but I don't even feel it's worth using at this time.
The first time I started it, it took forever, as if it was an early (alpha/beta?) release of a product. It asked what I wanted to have in libraries. What I selected was completely duplicated, but with a current date, so that it made a mess of searching and use of the Photos application. After the fix update, I tried a few photos and with each style I tried, it created an image.
They have a great many things to handle. Until they get them under control, I will use Luminar 2018.
Update 2019.02.19: Luminar 3.0.2 is out. I updated but will continue to use Luminar 2018 because I don't have to guess at how it will work.
Update 2020.01.22: Luminar 3.2.0 is out, even though the company has moved to version 4 of the software, featuring Artificial Intelligence sky replacement and portrait enhancement.
I appreciate that they went further to fix version 3 a bit, but I'm still not ready to move to version 4. Luminar is a great tool for huge edits BUT is in no way essential to my workflow. Until Luminar 2018 becomes incompatible with a future Windows 10 update, I will continue to use it when I feel the need for more stylish editing. I would say that they're fighting Adobe Photoshop Elements, which is using AI in their latest version, but it seems multiple applications are trying AI at some level.
By the way, Affinity Photo, Publisher, and Designer all work together quite well, if you're looking for a light suite of applications that tackles quite a lot, but is rather inexpensive. They all work with Windows, Mac, and iPad. I haven't been tied to Adobe since 2006 and don't like that they pile on enhancements without fixing bugs first. The people at Skylum seem to be doing that with Luminar, but they're not entrenched as Adobe are.
Update 2020.02.17: I receive e-mails from Skylum practically every week. They apparently need me to purchase Luminar 4. I'm not interested. They'll be sad. I'm sad that I paid for Luminar 3.
The best way for them to make money now is to make all those Mac-only apps into style packs and sell them. They did a set for the black and white application that I used to use and those styles helped me recover part of what I had felt I lost.
I appreciate that they want to move into AI, as did Adobe, but I'm not that interested. I haven't even bought the latest Phase One Capture One Pro update. It has a lot to offer, especially since the year ago version, but I'm not really in the mood and I don't photograph nearly as often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)