It was one of those editing nights where nothing feels finished.
I was tired, impatient, and honestly close to exporting a photo I wasn’t happy with. The image was a night street shot, with neon signs, wet roads, and a subject standing under artificial light. The AI edits looked impressive, but they flattened the mood I actually felt when I took the photo.
So I did what most exhausted editors do: I searched, experimented, failed a few times, and finally slowed down.
That’s when I properly learned how to use the Brush inside Luminar Neo for a neon glow.
This article is written exactly how I experienced it:
What I did, what worked, what didn’t, and how it compares to Photoshop in real use, not theory.
Luminar’s AI tools are powerful, but late at night, they can feel like:
What I needed wasn’t more AI, it was control, without opening a complex layer stack.
The Brush gave me that control.
The Brush is technically a masking tool, but in practice it feels like:
I don’t think in menus when I use it. I think in areas:
“This part needs glow. This part must stay untouched.”
That mindset is why the Brush quietly became central to my workflow.

This is not a “perfect preset” method. This is how I do it when I want realism.
I never begin with heavy adjustments.
If the base photo is broken, glow will only exaggerate the problems.
I usually start with:
I don’t apply anything globally yet.
Inside the tool:
This visual feedback matters more than people realize.
Size: Medium to small, depending on light source
Softness: High (this avoids hard, fake edges)
Opacity: Low
Low opacity is the secret.
It lets me build glow slowly instead of flooding the image.
I brush over:
Highlights on clothing or surfaces
I deliberately avoid:
Only now do I move:
Because the mask is already in place, nothing spills into unwanted areas.
If glow leaks:
This is faster than fixing mistakes after the fact.
I toggle the tool on and off.
If I can immediately see the glow, it’s probably too strong.
If I feel the mood instead of seeing the effect, it’s right.
This approach doesn’t feel like applying an effect.
It feels like painting light where it naturally belongs.
That’s the difference between:
My regular workflow looks like this:
AI gets me close.
The Brush gets me exactly where I want.
I use both. This isn’t brand loyalty, it’s practicality.
Photoshop gives microscopic control.
Luminar gives practical control.
For most photos, Luminar’s brush is enough without technical overhead.
In Luminar:
In Photoshop:
Fine-tune edges
Photoshop is powerful, but slow when I’m tired or working in volume.
Photoshop assumes you already understand layers and blending.
Luminar assumes you want results first.
At midnight, that matters.
Photoshop feels like engineering.
Luminar feels like editing.
Neither is wrong. They just serve different mental states.
Commercial retouching
Composite-heavy work
Pixel-perfect demands
Portraits
Night photography
Creative glow
Fast turnaround edits
Luminar is heavier than it looks.
High-resolution RAW files
Multiple AI tools
Several brush masks
This combination demands RAM and an SSD.
On weaker systems, patience is required.
But compared to manual masking elsewhere, it still saves time overall.

Ease of Learning: 9.5 / 10
Creative Control: 9 / 10
Speed in Real Projects: 8.5 / 10
Neon Glow Quality: 9 / 10
AI + Manual Balance: 9.5 / 10
System Performance Efficiency: 8 / 10
Overall Experience with the Brush: 9.1 / 10
That night taught me something simple.
AI is incredible at guessing.
But editing isn’t guessing, it’s deciding.
The Luminar Brush lets me decide:
Where light lives
Where it stops
How subtle it feels
I still use AI.
I just don’t let it drive alone anymore.
If you enjoy fast results but still care about mood, realism, and intent, this tool isn’t optional, it’s foundational.
Be the first to post comment!