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.

[whmitty]

My impulsive "nit-picky" reference was to things like the new "spot replacement" tool struggling to come up with a reasonable default "healing" image segment which definitely can be annoying but the overall improvement in the LR5 version of the tool made that drawback, at least temporarity, seem relatively unimportant. I look forward to not having to fire up PS to use Wire Worm for removing telephone lines, etc.

[whmitty]

I noticed that when using the "straight line" feature of the new Advanced Healing Brush it seems one can only go in a vertical or horizontal direction. Being able to trace a straight line at an angle would be nice.

[MadManChan2000]

You can shift-click to "connect the dots" with straight lines at arbitrary angles. For example, click-and-release the mouse at one position to place a (circle) spot adjustment. Then press Shift and click-and-release at a different position. This will extend the first spot adjustment to the 2nd position. You can continue as many times as you want.

[Rikk-Flohr]

I would be hesitant just yet. 2/3rds there imo.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

That's neat, thanks Eric.

[whmitty]

Thanks for the tip Eric. It works very well indeed!

[Julian_z]

Agree, too. Skewing would also help, since it can be used to do a perspective correction between source and destination. With it, it would be possible to use a pattern further away at closer distance and vise versa.

[Arnie47]

another detail to the selection of the source (after having tested the LR5 intensively):
I often ose the healing tool in 100% view to get best control of the results. The automatic source selection algorithm very very often selects an area being far out of the zoomed area or even out of the cropped image area. So if you want to refine the source it is very uncomfortable to end up the clone tool, zoom out, undo cropping to find the source, refine the selection of the clone source, zoom in to check, zoom out and finally redo the cropping.
In my eyes it would be better to higher prioritize possible options for source areas near the target area (because of the aspect above and also because of adjacent content often being more similar in color temperature, light, structure...) because final refinement of the source often will have to take place anyway.

[MadManChan2000]

Lr 5 Beta does already prioritize auto-selection of areas close to the painted area (target region). However, if it finds something that it believes will deliver a superior result that is farther away, it will choose that instead.

[areohbee]

No argument...

[sjprg]

LR 5 needs to replace the "dust brush" with the "Content Aware Brush" from CS6 and Elements 11 as a priority item. The implementation now is completely unacceptable. Two areas that are very close tend to run together. Also when one area is fixed it should be cleared so that another fix is not blocked by the first one so the auto-selection is not overlaying the first one.

[Lee_Jay]

The implementation now works very well, and the brush from CS isn't directly applicable to a non-destructive workflow. You have one relatively minor thing you mention (difficulty selecting a source when it's already used) that are pretty easy to work around (move, select, move back).

[sjprg]

Sorry Lee, I completely disagree. I've played with both enough. and have used CAB since CS4 or CS5. The LR5 brush is very crude compared to CS6 and CS6 is non destructive.
Regards

[Rikk-Flohr]

How is CS 6 non-destructive?

[sjprg]

The original RAW file is never changed, only a copy. Jpegs now, are changed, but anyone who shoots jpegs could get by with Elements or any of the cheaper editors.
Paul

[Lee_Jay]

That's not what non destructive means. Can you easily delete or move the corrections around at will after they have been placed?

Content aware is nice, and I've used it in Elements and CS6, but I usually end up using clone or heal instead for 90% of things that need that sort of treatment. CAF is best for things like filling in the corners of panoramas and doing things I never do like removing large scene elements.

[areohbee]

Content aware fill is used in NX2 too (non-destructively) for removing distractions.

In my opinion, it would be extremely valuable to have CAF in Lr.

The present offering (@Lr5b), although improved, is hardly adequate. I often end up trying it, realizing it ain't gonna cut it, then deleting it and editing externally.

The non-linear distraction removal in Lr desperately needs better boundary integration / feathering, at a minimum (and rotation would help too), to even be usable in many instances, but CAF is just what this doctor is ordering (or should I say this patient is hoping for as cure).

Rob

[djvtech]

Add the ability to merge spot removal adjustments. For example, when removing a complex object, you have to make several spot removals at various brush sizes, and sometimes it's difficult to put a new one where you want it, and creates a mess.

So allow us to hold a hotkey and start brushing onto an already existing spot removal adjustment.

[sjprg]

Or better yet throw away the current brush and replace it with the one from Photoshop

[ssprengel]

Photoshop is a destructive editor, meaning after each brush-stroke the result pixels become the source for the next stroke to work on.

Lightroom is non-destructive, meaning the it is always starting with the original pixels and recomputing the result of all the strokes applied to the original pixels as you add each one.

Because one is destructive and one is not, LR can never to spotting like PS can. Adobe sells both products so if you want Photoshop's method, use Photoshop.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Well, even Photoshop itself is less and less destructive in every release.

[andrem62510747]

You will never see the same functionality in LR than PS. LR is a 150$ piece of software that is not intended for the same audience. I love LR. I do the basic tonality adjustments, cropping etc. then edit in PS (using the edit in function of LR) if needed. This way, a copy gets created and I can see the results in PS. The workflow is pretty straight forward. And you get the best of both.

I stopped trying to do advanced retouching in LR a long time ago and I started enjoying it much more since I learned to do it properly in PS.

@steve The destructive vs non-destructive is not exactly true (or as black and white). Most tools can take the source from a different layer. For example, with the healing brush, you can source from the background layer but apply the new pixels to a new layer on top. This way, you can always revert back. It's simply a different way to achieve the non destructive workflow.

@Paul There is no way you can do advanced stuff otherwise. That's where LR is limited. (to the same features as the Camera Raw in PS). Don't forget that the develop module of LR is just Camera Raw with a new interface.

[areohbee]

Most Photoshop edits could also be made non-destructive for Lightroom (including clone/heal/content-aware brushes). Whether it's practical given:

* Current design of Lr
* Development effort required.
* Performance considerations.
* Current product partition (Lr | Photoshop)

is another matter...

Anyway, I think the new feathering which came in Lr5.2 (if I remember correctly) helped a fair amount, although I'm still hoping for additional improvement..

~R.

[Michael Erlewine]

The idea is simple. Please make Lightroom Spot Removal work as well as Photoshop Content-Aware spot removal. Seriously, the Spot Removal in Lightroom is really not up to par with the rest of the features of Lightroom. It hardly works half the time, picks the wrong area, etc. Please fix this.

[Peter_Speros]

Would like Lightroom to have a good clone brush similar to aperture 3. Aperture 3 is light years ahead in this regard. It truly is a deal breaker for me wanting to switch over to Lightroom. Also Lightroom has too many tap modules. I really wish the Lightroom team would look at this in Aperture 3, much much simpler and useful of an interface. Again way to many tabs in Lightroom.