I wanted to test out Luminar with the big pano to see how it performs with a much larger image. In this case, a panoramic image that's over 97 megapixels. I figured that would be a really solid test of Luminar, pushing it far beyond what I've done previously with my 16mp images from my Fuji X-T1.
I took this image as a stitch of 12 portrait-orientation images with my 90mm f/2 lens. I had the camera locked down on a tripod so the pano was pretty easy to create and there were no problems with stitching it together. It's shown the quality of the 90mm lens; you can see how many people are standing at the top of the Duomo when you zoom into 100%.
This was a fairly simple edit in Luminar, employing most of the methods I'd been using in previous images. I'm not going to bother with a Lightroom vs Luminar comparison for this image. I feel the Luminar version is stronger, and that's becoming a consistent theme with these comparisons, and given the size of this pano, I'm not sure there's much point in posting the Lightroom version. It's worth noting that Luminar doesn't have any tools for pano stitching, so what I've done in this case is taken the merged DNG file that Lightroom created and used that as the original for this edit. I've also been able to confirm that even when using Luminar as an external editor from Lightroom in this manner that you can still save out the lmnr file from Luminar as well, so you can preserve the non-destructive edits in Luminar as part of a Lightroom to Luminar workflow.
Similar to previous edits, I did sync the final edited version's settings with the Lightroom copy to get the crop the same. In this case, I also used the spot healing tool in Lightroom to clean up the spots in the final image. It's one area where I'm not as happy with Luminar; there are retouching tools in the program, but it creates a processed version of the image on a new layer, so it's not the same kind of non-destructive workflow that you get in Lightroom. Worse, I've also found that the quality of the healing doesn't seem as good. Lightroom is pretty good at filling in the spots seamlessly, and if I need more robust corrections, then Photoshop's content-aware fill is amazing. Sadly, Luminar lacks in this aspect, even when dealing with simple spots that would clean up in Lightroom without issue I'm noticing that Luminar's healing brush leaves a more noticeable trace. Because of this, I expect to modify my workflow so that I do any clean up of spots at the very end in either Lightroom or Photoshop. It's a minor issue and not one that's enough to deter me from using Luminar for my editing.