We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
Copy link to clipboard
1. Editing an image
2. Create a virtual copy
3. Crop the copy
4. Adding a spot removal to the original
5. Synching spot removal from original to copy
6. Interrogate spot removal
Expected - spot removal over the same part of the image and sampling from the same part
Actual - spot removal does not always sample exactly from the same place
This is an example in which the shift is very slight, sometimes the sampling area completety change!
Bokeh ball removed by sampling just from next to it...
Image 1 (original)
Image2 (virtual copy of the original on which I use the spot removal)
Image3 (a cropped virtual copy of image1 to which I synch the spot removal tool from image2 - see the shift on the right)
“Expected - spot removal over the same part of the image and sampling from the same part”
When you sync a spot removal, Lightroom will resample. The reason is that you would normally not sync between two identical images, but for example a sensor spot in a series of similar, but not identical images. Because the images are not identical, the best sample spot may not be the same place for each image. Sampling from the same spot will only take place if you manually moved and replaced the sample point on the first image.
Why don’t you simply create a second virtual copy of the first virtual copy, and then crop that?
This behavior changed from LR 10.1.1 to LR 10.2. In LR 10.1.1, copying a Spot Removal > Clone to a cropped virtual copy doesn't change the source of the clone, while it does in LR 10.2.
Here's the original and the cropped virtual copy in LR 10.2:
Note that the source has changed considerably.
For comparison, here are the locations of the target and source in the original and the virtual copy in LR 10.1.1 -- they're exactly the same:
Note that in both LR 10.1.1 and 10.2, the source of the clone is not within the crop of the virtual copy.
The biggest concern for me is that sometimes without involving a crop, synchronizing the spot removals to a copy also leads to some kind of modifications!
Before V10.2 I sometimes did different attempts of spot removal by using virtual copies and then synch the best result to the original. Now I don't trust LR anymore.
Just to make sure: are you aware that you can manually move the clone source to get the best possible result? Using multiple VC’s and then syncing the best result to the original sounds rather cumbersome to me compared to just moving the source to where you want it.
Yes I am aware 🙂
Thank you for your comment.
I'm seeing easy-to-reproduce shifts in the clone source when copying from virtual copy to original:
"When you sync a spot removal, Lightroom will resample."
I don't think this accounts for the behavior observed here. Copying a spot-removal clone from a virtual copy to an original, with no cropping, usually shifts the location of the clone source. The shift is the same each time you do the copy, ruling out the possibility that the algorithm for choosing the source is stochastic (using randomness).
LR 10.2 tried to fix a longstanding bug with copying local adjustments between photos with different orientations (rotation), e.g. from a photo rotated in-camera to a TIFF created from that photo in Photoshop. This worked for a couple of the adjustment tools but not others, and it introduced more bugs to common use cases that are reported elsewhere.
Internally, each adjustment tool represents the coordinates of the adjustment slightly differently, and I'd bet that the attempted bug fix in 10.2 didn't apply the right "fix" to the coordinates of the spot-removal clone source. (I'm intimately familiar from the internal representations of the adjustment tools, incorporating them into my Any Filter and Any Crop plugins.)
You may be right. Resampling is done (and makes sense) when you copy between different images. It does not make sense when you copy between virtual copies and the master image.
I've written a memo analyzing the various problems with copying crops and local adjustments and providing a straightforward method for correcting them:
V10.3 and no correction 🙂
Idem for the brush etc...
Folks, forget this issue, now we finally have column-aligned icons in MacOS and send to Apple Mail works, this is so much more important than some stupid copy-sync stuff and other develop bugs... it was definitely worth the 3 months of waiting. It feels so refreshing to be heard and have those nasty issues fixed.
This answer is completely inappropriate.
I don't know how you work but for me, creating virtual copies was a common thing to compare different treatments as my eye is fairer in relative than in absolute.
Now since V10.2, if my preference is for the first virtual copy, I don't even dare to synchronize the settings on the original photo anymore like the brush, the graduated filter, etc. no will not be placed above the same pixels !
So for me it's really very far from being a stupid stuff as you say.
I am now working with snapshots until this issue is resolved but it s far less convenient
V10.3 and no correction...
So no correction planned ?
I released the Copy Settings plugin, which correctly copies local adjustments, spot removals, transforms, and crops between photos. It also lets you define presets for which settings should be copied. I'm hoping that Adobe will fix all the bugs with Copy/Synchronize Settings soon, but meanwhile, this plugin will get the job done.
I know this has been reported to Adobe in other posts but it seems they're just not listing (as per usual). So here goes again.There is a bug with how LR Classic 10.3 handles copying and syncing adjustment brushes between frames if some of them have been rotated or cropped. Instead of copying the brushes relative to the original frame LR repositions them relative to the new crop / rotation. This is not how previous versions of LR have functioned and makes LR almost unusable for me.
Adobe. Please, please, please fix this ASAP. This bug has already cost me hours of work.
@didier_chr_tien sorry, this was a sarcastic answer, highlighting that they take so long to release updates and when they do, often unimportant issues are in the fix list, but critical stuff remains broken for ages and even more serious bugs keep piling up on top of this mess.There are so many issues with how this product is managed: dev. outsourcing, different teams for LR itself and main photo engine - ACR, QA, bugfix prioritization, hotfix scheduling and general approach to releases. list goes on and on. I've personally lost confidence in the company and software and just waiting for the closest feature-comparable replacement from competition...