The Sound of Crickets

Comments

7 comments

  • Avatar
    Leslie Gibson

    I totally agree with Tom. I was so hopeful after the last update that the Windows version would finally be comparable to the Mac version, but to no avail. I purchased the software with the understanding that it would be equal to the Mac version in early 2018. Some improvements have happened but it is still not even close to the Mac version capabilities, in my opinion. I quit using Luminar shortly after the latest update and have been using On1 Photo Raw and Affinity Photo. I want to love Luminar, but the current state of the Windows version is making this seem like an improbable happening. I’ll keep hoping......

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Konstantin Zolo

    Hi Tom,

    These are reasonable comments and I fully understand your point here.

    We keep our promises and never give up on our users. The thing is that tools and features mentioned above are being developed and believe me, we want them released as much as our users do. You've probably heard it hundreds of times but high-quality and well-thought concepts need the most valuable resource - time. 


    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tom Pickering

    Konstantin -

    Yes, but to release a product before you've taken the TIME to fully develop it, at least to the same level as the Mac version, and then herald it as ready is not reasonable.  Like many other Windows users, I took you (Skylum) at your word, and purchased what turned out to be a half-baked product.  6 months later, and I still cannot complete my workflow on most images with it, let alone replace Lightroom with it.  If your developers had taken the necessary TIME to bring it to parity with the Mac version before attaching a price to it, we wouldn't be upset.  I've stopped looking at the videos that show what the program should be like, because I have no clue when I'll ever be able to do even the most basic of things.  The bottom line is it's TIME you make this right for us and top with the empty promises.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    Hi Konstantin, the problem is that you are adding functions to a platform that’s not solid yet. There are too many conceptual flaws in the RAW conversion and in the functionality of Luminar that need to be fixed first! Things like the automatic noise reduction during the RAW conversion that can neither be disabled nor configure nor gives any indication what was applied is a showstopper bug. As long as conceptual mistakes like this aren’t remedied all work put into a DAM is a complete waste as you will introduce functions that can not be kept stable for the lifetime of the software as is a must if it ever is to be considered a valid LR competitor!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Yaroslav Kizyma

    Thank you for a constructive feedback.

    Our developers, more than everyone else, fully realize all possible shortcomings of our software. Some of the issues you have mentioned are already "in works", others will be addressed later, but none of them will be "left hanging" - we are as interested in delivering the best product possible as you are receiving one.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Yaroslav,

    if by later means adressing them after the IMHO ill fated DAM feature release then you have dug a very costly grave for Luminar. I am a software developer myself and our company made the same mistake and a smaller caveat almost ruined it. It was only by throwing all available resources at rectifying the mistake and abandoning high flying plans by the management that means we are still in business 10 years after. Today we still feel the effects in our development because we have to keep old, long since technically outdated code alive because our customers have become reliant on this code.

    And the same will happen to Luminar if you don’t tidy the bases before encasing it with the DAM. The moment you release the DAM (assuming it comes with parametric editing) you have to keep noise reduction (very poor at the moment), sharpening (equally poor), RAW development (demosaicing for anything but Fuji x-trans isn’t up to snuff, especially with the idiotic automatic noise reduction) fixed for any edits and will have to forever carry around the baggage of that bad functionality because if you change the algorithms later you would else be invalidating peoples workflow and existing edits and that would ruin any reputation your software may have until that time.

    Also things like chaning the hardware requirements in the middle of the release cycle is a very bad omen for thing to come, If people use your DAM and you pull a stunt like the OpenGL requirement (it never should have been mandatory to use OpenGL, my machines as far as I can get Luminar running at all are considerably slower now because they are optimized for image editing and not gaming) then they will be livid because they will lose access to their images. Optimization must never come at the cost of not being able to run the software, so increasing the hardware requirements or even making an optimization like the OpenGL integration mandatory without recourse is highly problematic. For my machines (those that still can run Luminar) it has slowed to a crawl because OpenGL performance never was at the focus of my purchases. They run Lightroom quickly because I have put my money into the main processor, not the graphics card - so Luminar currently is total useless for me. If that happened to someone relying on the upcoming DAM then you would probably hear from a lawyer or two because you impacted their livelyhood.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mariia Divavina

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
    We acknowledge that our software has shortcomings and imperfections. That being said, we are confident in our abilities, our team, and our commitment to bettering our products every day.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.