Feature parity promised - but will never be achieved!

Comments

9 comments

  • Avatar
    Luc Verlinde

    As ever so often I have to agree with you. I've given up on WinLum, it's just not working corrrectly. I returned for the time being to LR 6.14 (I refuse Adobe's subscription model !). Am now looking into ON1. 

    I am fed up with the empty promises of Skylum.

    So for me at least it will not fly :-)

     

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Dmytro Boyko

    @K.G. Wuensch - We're still working on the feature parity and we'll definitely try to keep both versions as similar as possible. What features are you missing the most in Luminar 2018 for Windows?

    -2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Daniel, I am just reacting to the statement by Denis - who is a regular representative for Skylum here - and this statement to me means that you will never be able to achieve the indispensable feature parity between your MacOS version and the Windows version.

    As I also wrote before in another thread when asked which features I am missing most on Luminar 2018 for Windows it's hard to tell because I miss the ability to run the Windows version at all - the OpenGL requirement is the worst design decision you have ever made.

    At the very least the OpenGL requirement needs to go (it needs to be made optional) because of the 4 different computers running different flavours of Windows none are really fully functional because of that idiotic constraint. Other manufacturers get performant software without resorting to programming a game - I don't care about performance, in fact I know that my computers could run Luminar perfectly well because I have bought them with high end CPU because I know that image processing is CPU intensive, the GPU isn't too well suited to processing, even for display purposes outside games it's shit because OpenGL is lacking color management support (that would be the highest priority if ever you get Luminar working properly). In my experience (I am a software developer myself with about 30 years of experience in programming for numerous operating systems and different levels of system integration from core operating systems functions to user interfaces) performance can only ever become the focus of attention once the basic functionality is complete and working - only then you can divert your attention to performance because then you have a working model. Else development of a project is doomed to fail miserably because performance optimisations mask a lot of inherent problems. And with the above sentiment as expressed by Denis you have failed completely to understand what people will be expecting from you - I tried to spell it out to you what happens when there is functional, interface or result disparity (as suggested by the post I cited) between Luminar for MacOS and Luminar for Windows. Your ambassadors will wish they had never heard the name Luminar after the shit storm that is bound to engulf them!

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    K.G. Wuensch

    @Luc, you don‘t know what you are missing out on with rejecting the subscription. You get PS which is absolutely essential if you want to soft proof - for example if you want to make aluminium dibond prints - but also a great webstite, ability to present collections in browser, tablet or phone - and all that for the equivalent of a few cups of coffee a month. Every update of the 5 that happened to LR since going subscription only brought big improvements, the most notable being luminance and chrominance masks. Also don‘t underestimate the amount of knowledge you are tossing out - that usually is the biggest cost of going to other software.

    The other software manufacturers like Skylum or On1 or PhaseOne don‘t sell you a subscription as such but still will get you to pay for the next version - the prices for that donkt differ that much over time, especially if you factor in that you don‘t get even a fraction of the functionality...

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mike Hardisty

    From what I can gather Top and Bottom tuning will never work the same as the MAC version 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tom Pickering

    Mike -

    They have it working in their Bi-Color Toning filter, so they have the necessary code they could port to the Adjustable Gradient and Top & Bottom Lighting filters.  I'd have to guess that the developer who coded the working filter didn't make the code available to the other developers and maybe doesn't work there anymore. <...sigh...>

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jub De

    Top and Bottom Tuning - they are including this filter in their 2019 version!!! And yet they cannot even manage to correct the 2018 version.
    One cannot even change the brush size in ERASE without going to the top of your screen (CLONE STAMP has right-click to change brush size/softness/opacity).

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Janet Richardson

    I left a comment on the CEO's public relations announcement posted on FB.  You know the one about the DAM before the end of the year and 2019 release will be free for 2018 purchasers.  I read it carefully.  I did not see one mention that parity will finally be achieved for the Windows users.  But 90% of the comments were glowing.  I commented that all of the commenters must be MAC users because the PC users certainly didn't have parity.  And I asked would we ever.  He responded with, "of course you will."  And then asked, "What particular features are you missing?"  Is he kidding me?  Do they not read their community pages?  The list is so numerous I quit keeping track two months ago. 

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Martial Fournier

    ont' ils un partenariat avec Mac? Pour avoir un luminar correct doit on acheter Mac?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.