There are a few tricky points here.
The key is the tense-aspect distinction: Latin "tenses" really represent a combination of time and aspect.
Latin has three aspects, inherited from Proto-Indo-European:
- The imperfective aspect is for when the duration is important: the action is continuing, or habitual, or going on for a long time.
- The aoristic aspect is for when the duration is unimportant: you can think of the action as a single point in time.
- The perfective aspect is for when the action is over and done, but its consequences are important at the moment.
It also has three tenses, which didn't exist in PIE but were invented in Proto-Italo-Celtic:
- The past tense is about the past.
- The present tense is about right now.
- The future tense is about the future.
Now, each of the Latin "tenses" represents a pair (or multiple pairs) of these:
- The Latin present is present imperfective and present aorist: talking about right now, actions that are still going on, or duration doesn't matter.
- The Latin imperfect is past imperfective: talking about the past, actions that have a long duration or are habitual.
- The Latin perfect is past aoristic and present perfective: either talking about the past, actions where duration doesn't matter, or talking about completed actions that impact the present.
- The Latin pluperfect is past perfective: talking about completed actions that impact the past.
- The Latin future is future imperfective and future aoristic: talking about the future, actions that will have a long duration, or where duration doesn't matter.
- The Latin future perfect is future perfective: in the future, some already-completed action will be having an impact.
English is, formally, somewhat similar:
- "Have" + past participle makes a verb perfective.
- "Be" + present participle makes a verb imperfective.
- Using neither makes a verb aoristic.
- "Will" + infinitive makes a verb future.
- A special ending (usually -ed, sometimes not) makes a verb past.
- Using neither makes a verb present.
So by combining these, we can distinguish all nine combinations in ways Latin can't: Latin can't distinguish "he will be working" (future imperfective) from "he will work" (future aoristic), for instance.
But on the other hand, the distinctions aren't mandatory in English. The only distinction that's actually mandatory in English is past versus non-past, with everything else being optional. For example, "I hope it goes well" and "when we get home" both use a "present" form for a future action—because the context makes it clear that this non-past form is meant to be future, and extra words are unnecessary.
So when translating from English to Latin, a translator needs to take the context into account and figure out exactly which tense-aspect combination is actually meant for each verb—and when translating from Latin to English, they need to use English-speaking intuition to figure out how much of the tense actually needs to be specified. A sentence like "after he will have gotten the job, he should negotiate his paycheck" is technically correct English, but the "after" and "should" make it clear that future perfective is meant, so a native speaker would simplify it to "after he gets the job" (specifying only the mandatory "non-past" and letting context do the rest).
EDIT: Later Latin also had a special "true perfect" tense which separates out the present perfective meaning, leaving the normal "perfect" for past aoristic.