Feature Requests

The new Dehaze effect is great! After setting the white balance, that new slider is my next big thing to move.The type of adjustment feels more like the same kind as the Clarity adjustment.Now I have to scroll all the way down to the Effects panel to use Dehaze. To me it would me way more logically to have the Dehaze near the Clarity slider. That would save a lot of time, scrolling through panels up and down, again and again. Thanks!

I would like to be able to see more, and probably all, of the EXIF data store by my camera. There are many reasons for this; I am sure each person can supply their own!

Hi, I have a feature request for the Develop module in lightroom. In the histogram, I would love for the RGB percentages from where the cursor is hovering to also show up graphically in the histogram. Ie, if your R is 50%, G is 25%, B is 75%, then they each have a corresponding vertical line displayed at their corresponding horizontal place in the histogram. Many thanks

As it stands, there is no way to view the preview embedded in a raw file except by loading the raw file into an external app. Many a folk has wanted to view, in Lightroom, the camera-generated preview, or preview as edited by camera manufacturer software, or even DNG preview as previously saved in Lightroom or Photoshop/ACR. So, the 'Idea' is for some way to temporarily view the jpeg preview embedded in a proprietary raw or DNG file. Embedded preview should be usable in before/after comparison, as well as side-by-side, as well as temporary loupe display. Note: development resources to satisfy this request would be relatively small. If you like this Idea, please remember to click the '+1' button below.

As most windows tablets and laptops come with SD card readers this would make as a great companion software for dslr's. So I think raw support would be greatly appreciated, maybe as an add on pack?

While using an adjustment brush, the "Alt" key (on Windows) temporarily selects the "Eraser" brush which is very convenient. However, the keyboard shortcuts "1"-"0" then no longer set the "Flow" value. Only if one explicitly chooses the "Eraser" brush one can set the flow strength with the keyboard shortcuts. Why doesn't "Alt" + set the flow value for the eraser brush? I reported this before through the official Adobe feedback form but like many other submissions I made it didn't result in a response yet.

Hi,Let's say we have a number of photos I want to use to create a stitched panorama.Each of these photos has a series of keywords for example previously applied to them in Bridge, which are different for each image.When creating such stitched panorama with CameraRAW's "Merge to panorama", does anyone know how to combine the keywords from the photos that constitute it?If not, it would be a great feature to add to the "Merge to Panorama" dialogue window.Thanks

The new loupe in Guided Upright is great. However, it appears to magnify the image by 300% producing a blurred image and seemingly difficult to place an line accurately.. I'd prefer a 100% view or an option to change the magnification amount.

iPad is the new Cintiq? The way it is- you either have to be one of the fortunate few that work at a place like Pixar or ILM and your company provides you an interactive pen display, or wealthy enough to have a few thousand dollars to spare for one of these amazing devices.The way it could be- creatives on a budget, students, the majority of us who don't have a few grand lying around, could use there IPad or Galaxy Tab with Photoshop to do what Cintiq users do at a fraction of the cost.I would be so excited about purchasing an app that would enable me to do this. Does anyone else feel the same way?

I was exporting 50 photos on my newly built Core I7-3770 machine, which is a CPU has 4 cores 8 threads. From the task manager, I noticed that only 50~60 percent of CPU was used. If exporting 1 photo only takes half of the CPU power, why not Lightroom process 2 or more photos at one time for those systems have extra power?

Will Adobe provide lens profiles for the OLYMPUS DIGITAL ZUIKO four thirds lenses, i.e., the super high grade and high grade lenses of the professional OLYMPUS E-System? OLYMPUS does not support software of other organizations. For this reason, E-System photographers urgently need Adobe's support to benefit from lens profiles for the E-System that perfectly match into an ACR based workflow. Note that OLYMPUS cameras of the E-System are already supported by ACR, whereas we miss the lens profiles of the same system. Thanks.

Photoshop CS5/Lightroom: Please add support for lenses Canon EF 8-15mm F4 L Fisheye USM

I'd like to see a few additions to the Grad Filter. First I'd like to be able to change the shape of the line. Take the classic valley situation. I'd like to match the grad to the edge of the mountains. A single point in the line could be dragged down to create the need shape.

When I take pictures of my pet, I don't want them to have green eyes.

Given: Under some conditions Camera Raw writes data back into (overwrites) its input files. Example: A JPEG file. Under other conditions Camera Raw maintains this same kind of information in a separate place (e.g., Sidecar XMP or central database). Example: A CR2 or NEF file. Assuming one uses Camera Raw to open out-of-camera original files as many photographers do, depending on what mode one has captured the images in, Adobe is inconsistent about whether to keep its hands off them or overwrite them... This seems to be because some formats are proprietary and some are well documented. From a programmer's perspective, this makes perfect sense. Trouble is, from a user's perspective, this behavior cannot be described as anything but inconsistent. Personally, I do not want my original out-of-camera JPEGs updated/rewritten under any circumstances. Camera Raw will not touch a proprietary raw file, such as a Canon .CR2 or Nikon .NEF. There's a whole process for remembering settings in a separ

When painting with the adjustment brush with a exposure change along a high contrast boundary a halo is created. Eliminating this behavior, or a "halo cleanup" tool would be very helpful. Here is an example: Image is not available

Please add camera correction support for the Canon Powershot G1X! It worked perfectly with my G11, and I miss it!

I would like to see Fuji's newest CMOS-EXR sensors supported in ACR so that Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom are all available to die-hard Adobe users. I've tested the new F550EXR extensively and the new sensor is a winner. The RAW files are amazing for a compact with a 1/2" sensor. See http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com for my articles (31 and counting.) But my all-Adobe work flow is seriously hampered by Fuji's RAW being forced through its proprietary converter first before I move it to ACR6 and then CS5. It's messy and the results, in my opinion, are inferior to what they would be if I could go directly to ACR6 first and then to CS5 Elements 9 or Lightroom 3. As a long time all Adobe user, I and a lot of others would deeply appreciate support for this wonderful new sensor. Image is not available

Bring the "Chart" tab from the DNG Profile Editor under the Camera Calibration tab. This Camera Calibrator software is wonderful. Who wouldn't want to use it once they saw how fast and easy it is to do? I was thrilled when I finally found it and put it to the test. Suddenly the whole Camera Calibration tab in CR came to life. The code is already Adobe engineered, and tested, so implementing it shouldn't cost much. The extra value added is worth far more. I have many friends I want to share this jewel with, but they will be overwhelmed by the complete DNG Profile Editor tutorials. All they need is the camera calibrator to start their journey into better color control. Don't hide such gems!

I have no idea what kind of impact this has on Lr's dev editor design, but many of us would like this built into Lightroom if possible.

First I'd like to say how totally stoked I am that Highlight Recovery is working so much better than it used to - thank you, thank you, thank you... Second, the recovered highlights still lack detail and are flat - the recovered highlight tones tend to be compressed. If I have the time, I often use local adjustment to lower exposure a smidge and contrast a lot to bring out more detail in the highlights, instead of recovery. (Note: clarity only works in the mid-tones). Fill Light is magical - brings out detail in shadows in a very natural and beautiful way. Highlight recovery however - not so much. So, this FR/Idea is to bring out more intra-highlight detail when doing recovery. It is my understanding that Fill & Recovery both use masking to keep from compressing midtones while expanding darks & lights respectively. As of Lr3, this works *very* well. I'd just like to see some contrast reduction applied in the masked highlights to bring out tonal detail in the highlights. This is

It would be nice to be able to hit specific areas with more noise reduction than other areas using an adjustment brush.

I know and appreciate that Lightroom keeps the brushes down to the essentials, but I feel that a brush to selectively control highlight recovery would be very welcomed. As a wedding photographer, I do have a need for recovering highlights often. The recovery slider does a great job of bringing back detail in the dress, but leaves highlights in the eyes, teeth and cheekbones looking flat. There are two ways I can approach this now, neither of which is very efficient. The first is to paint over any blown highlights with an exposure adjustment, which often leaves unnatural light or dark halos at the edge of the mask. Using the Auto Mask usually results in a pixellated look at the edges. My second approach is to create two layers in Photoshop from the RAW files, one with highlight recovery and one without. I then mask in the areas that need the highlights recovered. This works beautifully, and the edges of the masked area blend smoothly. It does slow me down though, and because of this I o

I'd love to have an Adobe supplied codec for x64 Windows that lets me look at DNGs in Explorer. Having to pay a third party for what is supposed to be the new open image standard seems wrong to me.