P: Ability to invert negative scans to positives (color and black-and-white)

I'm not convinced that the me-too votes mean all that much.

Here is an idea with 61 me-too votes that has been implemented:

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_improve_control_over_reverse_geocoded_location_metadata

I think there are some features that have been added to Lightroom over the years that nobody even asked for! Flat field correction changing from a plugin to being part of the Lr core comes to mind! I'm not saying that is bad, it's actuall good for users, just it doesn't seem to have anything to do with an idea's me-too count.

"LR was meant as an add-on for Elements and Photoshop"

No it wasn't. And brevity is a virtue.

While I might be moderately-pleased if Lightroom did have an inversion feature that kept sliders working naturally, those who want it should also remember that LR was deliberately designed for a digital-to-digital workflow. And just 59 votes after almost a decade is a pretty good indication of the request's likely future....

There's a famous quote:

"That's your opinion, man."

You keep writing long and tiring novels about how YOU think people are supposed to work with LR and what features they get to ask for this tool.

Well, that's your opinion, man.

There are tons of users who use LR and choose not to use any other software in conjunction with it. Their choice. And they are absolutely entitled to ask for additional features in the software of their choice that they pay for to use.

So why do you waste your and our time  on a thread that some users set up to ask for this?

LR was meant as an add-on for Elements and Photoshop - not to keep adding functions onto it as if it was the only app to use.  In LR every setting is in half-steps compared to Photoshop so you get more to use, as you can dim or brighten in half steps. 

A link was added between LR and Photoshop.  LR remains to be what it is, an added measure to blend colors better.  Photoshop should be the one to use for your camera and LR should be your advanced blender or digital developer.  Those who have LR don't know how its to be utilized with the other Adobe apps.  You need to reach out to other apps to make everything work for you.  

Your question is like saying, why can't we have Windows as a slave to another package say, Word?  We can have Word be the go-to for EVERYTHING and Windows will just be out there somewhere for some other reason.    

The answer to that is, exact that.  Windows is out there - tying in all the apps to make all of them work together.  If you had ALL of the Office Production products from Microsoft, you would see lots of tools that do things you never thought of before.  It's the same as Photoshop or Elements tying all of the other apps together with it. 

Thing is, a lot of you are complaining because you never learned how to use them together.  Now you only want ONE to work everything for you when it should be the other way around. 

LR alone is NOT a useful tool compared to Elements and Photoshop and should have all of them working for you, together.  LR is lacking in many ways and none of you have really found the best of the two types of apps.  None of you have seen Elements in the same way the rest of us have.  Maybe you got used to the Elite class of Elements but never got to the PRO or advance class to know all the tools in Elements and especially a full version of Photoshop which has all of it in one app combined.   

Some of you have and you are still complaining that you are lacking tools which you probably haven't seen before which are actually in Photoshop.  If all of you had a full version of Photoshop you would find ALL of the tools there, like in Elements but MORE plus a converter for RAW to TIFF right in Photoshop.  DARE to spend more money for something greater- to get tools you will never have in Elements and you will NEVER have in LR. 

But all of you don't want to spend any money for them.  And THAT'S the real problem.  You'd rather have one that is cheaper.  Then you want it to be added onto so you can keep the cheap app and not spend any money. 

Adobe didn't push you into buying apps. YOU did.  But none of you are getting all of the tools you are looking for because you have never seen the full Photoshop.  If you had, you would NOT complain about ANYTHING and you would have ALL of the tools to do EVERYTHING.   

I'm not selling you apps.  I am settling a problem that you created by only using ONE app and getting so intense into it, that you won't buy another.  And you know they all work together but you don't want to spend the money to get the extra tools you want.  

So here's the bottom line - nobody is going to shape your app into a custom app that only YOU want.  No developer is going to work into it something other than it is already.  If you want more, you need to buy it because it is already made for you. Spend more money to get what you want.  Stop trying to manipulate a developer into putting something into LR that is already out there, in another app.   

SL

But why is it such a big issue if Adobe add the functionality in LR? Wouldn't that be easier for all instead of living with a workaround? Why is it being protested? It's not a bad thing to want a better way? If/ when this is provided and some feel the need to be less efficient, then they can continue to do so. 

LR was made to work with Elements as well.  And, Elements can convert RAW to TIFF with a DNG converter.  Also, having the full Photoshop you do not need LR or Elements DNG to convert RAW to TIFF.  And working with both apps is not a problem with most of us professionals who have many apps to work with.  But having the many apps as the rest of us do, WE don't need LR or Elements.  But we have them and WE know how to manipulate them further than you have described. 

So it's no skin off my nose.  I can get along with MY Photoshop very well, as the rest of us are more experienced.  Eight years?  I have been using Adobe products since 1992.  I was also on the Microsoft team when we developed PictureIT which was a bomb.  Before that I was on loan to Adobe as test engineer.  It was either that or be sent to marketing to teach technology which I did later anyway.  That's where the send ya when you're busy teaching the other engineers in development.  I am NOT in Adobe's development team, now.  

We don't have to be a rocket scientist to work these apps just have enough patience to work them.  I have intense patience.  The rest of you appear to not have that.  AND I will say what I want according to the 1st Amendment but thanks for the opp.  

Steve Lehman Windows MCSE engineer   

I have already demonstrated a year ago, with an example posted in this discussion, just how poor a result you get for digitised colour negatives using the round trip of Lightroom RAW to Photoshop TIFF and back to Lightroom TIFF.

All that is being asked for is the addition of native Lightroom functions to (1) Invert a colour image and (2) remove the orange Colour Mask. These need to be separate functions so that digitised B&W negatives can also be handled. Both must be applied early in the RAW processing pipeline to allow Lr Develop adjustments to work correctly. Including these two functions in Lr would allow users to maintain an uninterrupted RAW workflow for Lr processing of 'camera scanned' colour and B&W film/glass plate/etc. negatives.

I think that most Lr users who have contributed to this discussion over the past 8 years are very well aware that PS and PSE have an invert function, so continuing to suggest this as a viable alternative is not helpful.

You have your way and I have mine.  I don't mind working with PSE.  It will launch from LR and yes, I have LR and PSE in many versions, plus 5 others.  I am patient enough to wait for it to launch.  I heard all this the first time and didn't need 5 of you to tell me the same repeat of what Linwood said.  Thanks Linwood for your feedback.  

Among other things, Negative Lab Pro provides setting sliders that work as expected (i.e. it re-inverts the sliders), ameliorating the simple hack of inverting tone curves. (But still not as good as having it built-in.)

I watched the plugin you linked to and it inverts the Tone Curve too, just like the kludge we have now.