P: More Photoshop like clone/healing/content aware brushes

I'm with Lee Jay, come on now. They are completely different apps, Photoshop is way way bigger, and they have totally different workflows, one being completely non-destructive, the other much less. One is vastly older than the other too, so no, in terms of software engineering, there is really no reason to assert features would be easily "copied over", or "available to both teams". The "you are not an employee" argument goes both ways, unless you are an employee deep in LR's code, saying "This should require very little development or performance resources" doesn't help much, this a classic disconnect between developers and users.

Furthermore, "layers and real clone/heal tools" as Ron mentioned are just a few of the numerous tools in PS, they might seem essential to you but other people could name other tools equally essential to them and swear they should be in LR. The lines has to be drawn somewhere and priorities set. I'm an avid photographer for example, and I barely use the healing/cloning tools because I have issues removing elements out of photographs, I'm more on the photo-journalistic "authentic" side. I use it for big dust spots, but if you have 50 of them, might as well invest in cleaning your sensor. My point is: your mileage may vary, so let's focus on features/fixes that show some form of consensus.

Just curious, do you have any links to any of the comments made by Adobe? Not because I'm doubting you, but because it would go a long way towards helping me make a decision about sticking with LR for the long term.

As for the thousands of feature requests, I would imagine that a great deal of them would actually fit the curriculum of current feature sets, and would simply be expanding upon existing code. But something bigger, such as our topic here, seems to be a feature which goes beyond the casual musing (I think ) and demand a bit more attention.

Ya know what would be neat? To get feature request stats. Round about numbers related to which are the most requested or talked about. Does such a thing exist?

I 'm not an employee, but they have said this publicly on many occasions in the past and there's no reason to believe they are lying, especially when you consider the thousands and thousands of feature requests here in this forum (everyone expects their personal favorite to be immediately implemented), and the many features that have been added over the last few years.

Dead wrong, period? Do you work for Adobe? If so, then thanks for the heads up. Guess I'll toss LR in the trash and forget about LR4 if resources are so "limited". After all, why would one want to invest their money into something with such limited resources?

And if you do not work for Adobe, then why speak for them in such a manner ? Also, it's not a matter of transferring code. It's about spending R&D money wisely. The two programs ARE absolutely inherently different, I agree with you. And this should be a fundamental reason for having the "resources" available for both teams. It's an absolute cop-out to say that it would be difficult to write in the code necessary to add these desired features.

So which is it.. Employee, or apologist?

This sort of comment comes up a lot, and it's just dead wrong. Period. Resources are limited.

LR and PS/Elements are so fundamentally different that not much of the editing code is transferable.

I'd have to agree. It appears to be pure politics. Aperture 3 at $79 vs. LR 3 at more than triple the price (granted, selling digitally gets rid of a lot of overhead costs) should show this. It's really not even necessary to sell disks anymore. I asked Adobe for ONLY a digital download and to not send a disk, but they refused. What a waste of resources.

I understand that there are only so many people devoted to each project (PS and LR etc..) but to have us believe that features such as those which are found in PS Elements could not be incorporated in to LR sounds preposterous. I own Aperture as well, but unfortunately do not like it nearly as well as LR in terms of where my workflow is concerned.

I'm pretty convinced that Adobe just wants to sell more product and the "solution" is to buy both PS and LR. If they put layers and real clone/heal tools into LR, people won't buy PS as much. It's a shame because it drives people to their competition.

Yes PLEASE, I asked for this ages ago myself in the beta feedback forum...

Rotation & mirroring is desperately needed to solve the fundamental problem of healing perspective-distored tiled patterns, which feature in a significant number of the images that I work on, and currently can't be fixed without shelling out to PS and thereby destroying the pure RAW workflow.

At the VERY, VERY, VERY least can we get a control to rotate the current tool as it heals? This should require very little development or performance resources, and would go a long way to solving this problem for us.

For that matter such a rotation (and other distortions, like mirroring, as are available in the clone stamp tool settings in PS) should be part of the "real", long-term solution.

But if that isn't available in LR4 PLEASE at least grant us the ability to rotate our cloning and healing spots so we can continue to "hack" it to work for non-pimples.

Thank you!!

Me too, it's tedious and frustrating having to move all these spots around, being able to PAINT the healing/cloning is what we need... which fits in with other requests elsewhere (and not just from myself) about a wider range of adjustments for the adjustment brush, and being able to masks for adjustment gradients - painting clones & heals should be merged into this.