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

Thanks for the tip Ian - I'll keep it in mind.

Rob,

A word of advice I was given a long time back by an Adobe insider - be selective about which features you openly pick as your favourites. Same insider once asked a group of us to identify 10 features that we would most want to have in Camera Raw (before Lr came into being). I think we ended up with around 15 to 20 unique features. All have been implemented, but it took 4 or 5 years and 3 versions to get there. Anyway, as things stand, "you" have dozens, if not hundreds in the UtoU feature request list. Now you're at the same thing here. Every time you add a "me too" you risk diluting the importance of others. Remember, there's a finite amount of engineering time.

Ask yourself - If I could only submit 10 feature requests, what would they be? Rank them in order of importance. Explain why they're important, how you see them working, etc.

So, be smart. If you've nothing useful to add just hit the "I like this idea!' button and move on. The count goes up, and that's all that really matters.

Up near the top of my wish list for Lr4 too.

BTW, there are no technical barriers. Of course an efficient implementation is a challenge but the guys that pulled off lens corrections (with its required warping of brush strokes and spot removal applications) can do this as well.

Yes, yes, yes.

That is the most urgent upgrade wishlist item for LR. If LR wants to be an 80/20 application then it needs to improve support for retouching. Abusing the spot removal tool only goes so far.

Yes, there is some integration between LR and other editing programs (in particular with PS and smart objects), but being forced to use two applications instead of one is suboptimal. Here's why:

1. I don't want to pay for PS. It may be worth it for graphic designers and professionals but to an amateur enthusiast the price tag is way too high for what I need from it.
2. I don't want the destructive editing paradigm. I know I can use (adjustment) layers, etc. but LR's solutions for making later tweaks to editing operations works better for me so why should I adopt the PS way when I don't need it for my editing requirements?
3. I don't want to run LR & PS in parallel on my machine. One of them on their own is sufficiently resource hungry.
4. I don't want the workflow that creates two versions of an image; one pre-edited in LR to be imported by PS and another exported by PS with potential post-edits in LR. There is no seamless editing history in one place anymore.

The last bullet (4.) is the most important one for me. I feel that anything else but integrated editing is a workaround with disadvantages.

I'm all for any improvements that could be offered in this area as well ... the more I can do in Lr natively ... the better ...