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

[ratz2]

More Photoshop like clone/healing brushes in Lightroom!
I love retouching in Photoshop, especially with the content aware fill with the healing tool, but Lightrooms tools are clunky. I don't know if there are technical limitations to implementing tools like Photoshop's in Lightroom but it would be GREAT!
I would rather be able to get a baseline retouched image in Lightroom than having to edit in Photoshop and then come back to Lightroom. I would rather just use Photoshop for image alterations.

[ratz2]

So why is this not Under Consideration yet?
Is it either technically impossible or technically difficult? If neither of those then it should be under consideration.

[ratz2]

Just so you readers from Adobe know this idea is in no way meant to replace Photoshop! I just want to get the image to the base starting point to use it in Lightroom. Like clean dust etc, skin blemishes and fill background area where there wasn't background paper on the edges and things like that.

There's no way that I could do without Photoshop.

[areohbee]

No doubt.

[areohbee]

This is the single most popular request for Lightroom on this forum (other than new camera support). It is totally doable, no doubt. If not done in Lr4, I wouldn't know what else to conclude except that since its already in Photoshop, it wasn't deemed necessary in Lightroom.

Sure do hope this gets done, or at a minimum Lightroom is modified to allow 3rd party imaging plugins that could do it, or integration with 3rd party editing apps is made more seamless, so they could do it without the photo forking.

[Bob_Peters]

Photoshop-like Clone and Heal tools would be a great addition to Lightroom.

The current Clone and Heal brushes are fine for removing "dust bunnies" and circular defects. However, when it comes to removing something like a power line or other essentially linear defect those two tools are pretty crude.

[areohbee]

Interesting to note, despite all the improvements in C1 of late, they still haven't implemented distraction removal (for more than dust spots I mean). But, NX2 has it, as does Bibble, Aperture, & DPP (and it doesn't slow them down too much - not at all if its not used)... - all parametric/non-destructive. So, we all know if its not in Lightroom, it *won't* be because of technical feasibility or prohibitive performance... Granted, not all distraction removal is created equal, and blended cloning takes far less CPU cycles than content-aware fill... It has to be done well, or people will not be satisfied, but if anybody can do it, Adobe can... - come on Adobe!......

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

We already have one champ (Sean) supporting this very popular idea. It would be fantastic, if an Adobe employee would chime as well and give us an idea about feasibility.

[s_mahn]

One has to assume they're definitely on it. But much like soft proofing, it's not a question of if they want to, but whether they can get it done within the launch cycle.

Or so I assume.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Scott, I'm not so sure that "they're definitely on it". It might be something that has to be provided through ACR and the question is whether ACR "needs" it. After all, ACR is mostly used in conjunction with PS and the latter comes with its own distraction removal technology. I guess the question is how important it is to support non-destructive distraction removal technology in ACR. I'm slightly concerned that the answer is "not very important" for all ACR contexts but the Lightroom context.

[s_mahn]

I guess that's one way to look at it. But why should that apply more so to cloning than any other tool that overlaps with PS, of which their are many?

If LR is trying to be a photographer's Swiss Army Knife, cloning is right up there with a screw driver and bottle opener.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Scott, I couldn't agree more with your last statement.

Regarding your question: Some might argue that distraction removal does not need to be non-destructive.

Many image adjustments lend themselves to be re-tweaked at some point and hence should be non-destructive. Distractions, in contrast, are typically not brought back. One could therefore argue that it is fine to use destructive image editing in Photoshop for such cases and no hence ACR support is needed.

I'm not of that opinion, for instance, one may later discover that one needs to do a better job of removing distractions and thus revisit the editing. Also, as I wrote before, I think the current integration with Photoshop or other editors leaves a lot to be desired. But still, the view I provided could be the reason why we won't see distraction removal technology in ACR (and thus in Lightroom).

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Scott, I couldn't agree more with your last statement.

Regarding your question: Some might argue that distraction removal does not need to be non-destructive.

Many image adjustments lend themselves to be re-tweaked at some point and hence should be non-destructive. Distractions, in contrast, are typically not brought back. One could therefore argue that it is fine to use destructive image editing in Photoshop for such cases and hence no ACR support is needed.

I'm not of that opinion, for instance, one may later discover that one needs to do a better job of removing distractions and thus revisit the editing. Also, as I wrote before, I think the current integration with Photoshop or other editors leaves a lot to be desired. But still, the view I provided could be the reason why we won't see distraction removal technology in ACR (and thus in Lightroom).

[s_mahn]

TK, you make strong points. I'm arguing rhetorically, not specifically against your points.

I simply feel that if Adobe tries to hold back LR so as to not step too much on PS's toes, it will hurt them in the long run. Their competitors have no such restrictions and stand to usurp the parametric and pixel market if they can get the best of both worlds into one product.

I do a lot of retouching and compositing so I'll be married to PS for a long time, but none the less, PS is a dying product for most photographers and probably a non-starter for most prosumers by now.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Scott, you might be right. I don't know. The competition is definitely growing.

I think that it is only a matter of time until software like Bibble 5 & Aperture that support more comprehensive local adjustment support will receive more company.

[hsbn]

As it is right now, if we're using spot healing tool, LR response would be really really slow. So here is my question, would you still take the new tool, if upon using it your PC will slow down significantly?

[Lee_Jay]

Yes.

Spot healing isn't that slow if lens corrections aren't enabled.

[areohbee]

Yeah, I think we need this tool in Lightroom - to work as fast as they can make it work...

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Son, quick answer "Yes".

1. "Slow" is better than "unavailable".
2. It need not be really, really slow.

There are straightforward (slow) ways to implementing this feature and there are more programming intensive (much quicker) ways of implementing this feature.

I believe there is some untapped potential for optimising the performance of local adjustments. Even in the presence of an image pipeline with its fixed order of image operations, one can implement local adjustments efficiently by using caching techniques.

Extensive use of local adjustments will have an impact on preview generation, export, etc. performance, but if one is concerned with utmost performance one may should look to Bibble 5, not Lightroom. I prefer Lightroom's IQ and user interface and think these are worth sacrificing some speed.

[stemcg70]

The spot healing repair tool seems much slicker and usable in elements.....elements seems more brush like

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Because the products aren't even part of the same suite, and 90% of lightroom would use only 2 of PS. If you really need PS, you have CameraRaw as well. And if you have that, Lightroom becomes only an expensive cataloging tool. So they have to do it, because they will get more sales and a more loyal customer base, or move away to a product that listens more carefully.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Will this feature request receive a 100 "likes" before the end of the year?

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I have a suggestion for Lightroom 4.
That Spot Removal tool is just awful. Anyway it can become like the Heal & Clone tools in Photoshop where you option or alt click an area then retouch? That circle to circle spot retouching is awkward, and when you want to do adjacent areas it gets real messy. Thanks!!!

[Patrick Cunningham]

Yes! Develop: Clone/heal functionality in the Adjustment brush (or adjustment brush type functionality in the Spot Removal tool - so it becomes a heal/clone tool).

[russian_box]

how about just add the features of lightroom into Photoshop so we don't have to go between the 2?

[Lee_Jay]

It's like saying you'd like to add the features of a 787 to your car so you don't have to go to the airport.

They're fundamentally different products, and many of us don't want to own Photoshop.