Luminar 4

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
desertsp Contributing Member • Posts: 912
Re: Luminar 4

KCook wrote:

Cato1040 wrote:

Jonsi wrote:

Cato1040 wrote:

Jonsi wrote:

jimdelves wrote:

Your experience doesn't negate mine.

True, but it negates this:

I've paid €80 for a product that is defective.

It's clearly not defective.

It is defective. Maybe not for you, but for the OP, it is.

Just because a piece of software doesn't run well on OP's hardware doesn't mean the software is defective.

I guess it is possible that it is the fault of the OP's hardware (or other factor) but neither of us know, so based on that alone, you can't say it's not defective either.

That being said, I've been looking around (also on Skylum's forums) and there are many that have system specifications at or above the system requirements and are having issues with speed, crashing, transfers from Luminar 3, certain features not working, and other issue... I've even read reports of sub-optimal performance from 'real' reviews too. Very often, people who make these complaints say they do not have issues running Lightroom.

He can say he hates it, that he never should have bought it without seeing how it runs on his computer, or that it's ugly... but the fact that it runs fine on mine, and obviously others' computers proves the software is not defective.

No. Just because it works fine on many pieces of hardware doesn't mean it's not defective.

Let's say an app worked well on all iPhone 11s but not at all on iPhone Xs and it was mentioned in the system requirements that it needs a minimum of an iPhone 8. Just because it works well on the iPhone 11 doesn't mean the app is not defective.

Also, in a way, yes, it would be wise to try it out first before buying it. That being said, he/she shouldn't need to. Software should just work. Could you imagine if producers of defective software just said "Well, you should have tried it out first. It's not our fault it doesn't work on your computer, even if it satisfies system requirements." I also don't recall the OP saying anything about it being ugly.

Aside from OS it's the same software for everyone. They don't make them separately and some copies end up defective.

But defects may only show up based on certain people's OS, hardware, or other factors.

I'll retract my statement from "It is defective. Maybe not for you, but for the OP, it is." to "It seems to be defective. Maybe not for you, but for the OP and many others, it seems like there are defects in the software."

I don't hate Luminar. I really like the general idea of it. It's just that they seem to have bugs and have a history of that (despite much user feedback) so it would not be surprising to hear of that again. They do seem to work well to push out regular updates, but they don't always seem to work well. In other words, they seem to have great ideas, great effort, and great features, but questionable execution. If it worked well, I'd love it. I really hope they manage to solve all these issues.

I was a programmer. But for dedicated systems, not for public consumption. With so many OS versions and video codes today covering every possible combination must be a nightmare for whoever gets stuck with troubleshooting distribution. This is just bound to be a weakness for any small team.


And it only gets more complicated once the code has been optimized for speed.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow