Clone Tool Stinks: Do All Agree?

[TomBrooklyn]

Would all agree the Clone Tool in Lightroom stinks, and the way it works is highly inferior to the clone tool in other software such as GIMP or Photoshop?

If you do not, in what way do you feel the convoluted and unweildy cloning function in Lightroom is superior to the intuitive and smooth working function of the cloning functions in the aforementioned other software?

Some more specific side questions:

How does one "set" the Clone tool to make the "clone"?    i.e. After getting the two circles into position, how does one activate the actual clone function? 

When cloning a large area, why can't one clone over a spot that was already cloned?

Why can't one change the size of the clone took once the two circles are formed?

[Keith Reeder]

Well I didn't use the word "troll" myself, but - again - this is exactly the kind of reaction that results from people being allowed to provoke and provoke and provoke without consequence.

As to the "paid for" module notion, no, I'm not endorsing that idea myself, but I understand the sentiment -  a modular, expansible, "buy what you need" converter would be interesting, and would allow for a neat solution to "why does Lr do/not do this thing..?" discussions.

[Butch_M]

For the record ... an "ignore user" would be a welcome two-way option. Bcause provocation isn't just a one-way avenue.

I know I went off track in this thread ... for that I do have a few regrets ... what triggered that were the usual canned responses that Lr doesn't have certain features because Adobe have been too busy with really important stuff to be concerned about trivial stuff ... or that true cloning/healing features could be an engineering impossibility too costly to pursue ... then when I demonstrated that it was not an impossibility ... my example was disclaimed because it came from a source that was "irrelevant" (strictly by the numbers of course) ... even though it works quite well and has existed for years in similar but limited options .... I do apologize for offering my specualtion as to why Adobe has chosen to place some features in the back seat and not a more prominent listing on the "to do list" ... Though I find it intriguing how many folks choose to ignore the possibilities that are actually in use by others and willing to stifle folks when they share that fact ... the reason for which escapes me ...

I really don't want anyone to confuse that I am in support of bloat in Lr. I don't want that either. However, when you actually use this feature in Aperture, you will soon see that is very handy indeed. Even then, if an image needs more than a simple retouch where one must invoke layers, blending modes and all the wonderful capabilities for more involved retouching ... that is indeed what Ps was designed to do and hence the "edit in Photoshop" function should be used. I agree we don't need that level of retouching within Lr.

Of course we all have different desires and needs for our workflow. Horses for courses. Since adopting Lr in 2006, my use of Ps has dwindled to less than 5% of images I shoot. I only use it now for in-depth retouching, compositing and CMYK conversions. With a decent clone/heal brush, a real Slideshow option or a Book module that was not a one-trick pony, similar to the options found in that other obscure app ... I could save the production of thousands of derivative files in the course of a year ... that's simplifying my workflow ... which I thought was the goal Adobe once had for Lightroom ... though it seems that in many cases over that last two versions of Lr, the term "workflow solution" appears to no longer be as much of a priority as it once was.

I am a proponent of Lr. I would very much prefer to use it over any other option available on the market today. I will not remain silent when I think there is the need to express my desire for it to be a little more than what is currently offerd or my disappointment with the decision making at Adobe in general.

[areohbee]

Butch,

I appreciate you raising the issues you have in this thread and others. I wish it weren't so confrontational and adversarial (as you know, I have my share of conflicts on this forum too) but I think you've raised some good points.

There should be no question in any reasonable persons mind: This feature is *not* absent from Lightroom because it's "so hard to do"... - I'm not sure what the reason is, but its not that...

Also, I too fear for Lightroom's top-dog status. All it would take is for one company to match Lr quality, but exceed it's native features without requiring Photoshop), and people will turn away in droves..., especially if it's faster. IMO, some companies have gotten close, but not all the way, yet.

CaptureOne has some nice features, but quality is inferior - and it does NOT have better distraction removal!

Aperture may be close too, but it does not run on Windows...

AfterShot (formerly known as Bibble) is close - great editing features, fast, but quality is not as good.

NX2 is close - but it only supports Nikons (and quality was arguably better than Lr2, but definitely not as good as Lr4).

etc...

So for now, Lightroom is the reigning king (at least on Window platform), but I hope they are watching their back, Adobe.

On the other hand, if those 100MB+ tiffs become such a not non-starter, and Photoshop becomes even more tightly integrated, such that most folk's workflow is like Keith's and gluglug's, then Lightroom will never need to be so fat... I postulate that price is not the determining factor for most people. "Half" the people who want better distraction removal in Lightroom also own Photoshop..., and most own thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment and computer hardware...

Cheers,

Rob

[Butch_M]

I'm not in fear so much that Lightroom is in danger of falling from top dog status ... though I am no longer in the lock-step parade of support. With each new iteration of Lr ... up until the current version ... Lightroom always had additions or improvements that saved me significant time and effort ... which enhanced my bottom line. This, in turn, made the decision to send Adobe my financial support quite easy. However, some of the new features and improvements in Lr4 (and several items that were totally ignored) can actually increase the amount of effort required to accomplish some tasks. Which in turn created my reluctance to make the additional investment for the latest version. While I don't believe that Lr will ever be a true end-to-end image processing solution, I am not of the inclination that every image I capture must be opened in Ps to reach it's maximum potential either. If so, my cameras, lenses and/or my efforts behind the camera may not be as efficient as I hoped.

Although I would never consider someone's viewpoint as invalid (as has been done to me) I find if I only used Lightroom's Library and Develop modules and all my images were destined to end up in Ps anyway ... I may have just stayed with a Bridge/ACR/Ps workflow ... for it is just as efficient, offers identical image quality and much less costly ... especially when the full version of Lr was priced at $299. If I didn't use the other modules, it would be like owning a brand new Maserati and never driving it outside of a school zone. Even though I use some of the modules infrequently, for me, it would be just so much dead weight if I didn't take advantage of most everything Lightroom offers. I doubt that Adobe or the Lightroom team considers the additional modules as dead weight, or why would they have gone to such great lengths to include them? My concern is, if they are going to include them, they should also be consistent when adding/improving/maintaining features or modules.

While there are many who profess here that additional functionality would harm or cause otherwise negative impact on the development of the modules they do appreciate, I have yet to see any such requests for reducing the feature set of Lr or avoid such endeavors over on the feedback forum. I seriously doubt such requests would garner much support ... Quite the contrary what we see there in the top ten requests are additional/improved functionality. Not less. Likewise, when we each individually try to base all our opinions as to who uses what features the most, or what features are a valued concern for most users ... or worse, consider a silent abstention as a vote in the affirmative for whaterver point of view we may have ... indeed we are only guessing in many cases ... but by judging the input on the feedback forum (I reference the feedback forum because all the top users here point you over there when appropriate) ... better cloning/healing does in fact top the list (as Rikk so dutifuly shared earlier) with a significant lead over the No. 2 request for Multi user/shared catalog over a network request ... Now I realize that the top request is still a low number (221 votes to date) compared to the entire Lr user base ... then again, how many Lr users actually know the poll exists? ... if we were to actually poll the entire pool of Lr users ... then we would know for sure ... since that is not possible ... I must conclude from the only information I have available that indeed many Lr users would appreciate such an improvement (even those folks who may think they don't need it, would likely still take advantage of the feature if it were available) ... which is the sentiment I shared in my very first post of this thread ...

It has always been my hope (since v1 of Lightroom) that Adobe would make the app truly modular by opening up the SDK to other developers for complete modules. That way, the market would dictate feature development ... not all of us dumped into one bag arguing over which capability is worthy ... or not.

[areohbee]

Butch,

I think I understand your viewpoint.

You are a professional, who benefits from workflow improvements, of which Lr4 included approximately none, and since some things take longer even when performing normally, Lr4 is in some ways a step backwards. (+ book module: small print has taken away much of what the big print gaveth)

Not sure what to say, except bummer: Lr4 was not your release, so to speak. I understand your disappointment.

I shan't reiterate my own viewpoint (well ok: PV2012 rocks, so I'm stoked about Lr4), but I'm not a professional, and I do mostly low volume shoots.

No comment on modular sales strategy.

If it's any consolation, I have plenty of my own complaints about Lr4 as well.

Cheers,

Rob

[Mark_Richter__Houston_]

Not sure where to reply to make my vote heard...

I'm an advanced amateur photographer who wants as clean a workflow as is possible.

My definition of a clean workflow is one in which I have a master catalog and one, or more, field computers that can capture shots while onsite, or be tasked with editing / flagging photographs from specific shoots on a separate machine (such as clients).  The "clean" in the workflow is that my images can be stored on media in my office / home that acts as my master catalog.  Any machine should be able to attach to the master catalog and make the necessary updates.  Likewise, any machine should be able to "check out" a local copy of the master catalog, make the updates, and then apply those updates to the master catalog.  New images from the field should be able to be added in almost a similar manner, with something as simple as right-clicking a shoot in the library and having it offer to add it to the master collection.

This sort of workflow would allow me to ensure that I have a consistent capture of all changes - without losing them because I copied a folder but didn't export the catalog, etc.

I would propose that Lightroom 4.x / 5.x add a property that describes where the master catalog is maintained.  With that information, any machine should be able to "mount" the master catalog and be able to use one-click menus to move / copy images, complete with updates and metadata, between a local computer and the master.  Note that it should be the default that copies from the master NOT remove the master copy, but provide a mechanism for doing so.  This would handle the lesser-needed case of creating isolated catalogs from a master where specific client images can be segregated in the case where even knowledge of one client by another could prove damaging to a relationship.

Hope my thoughts help the discussion regarding multi-user / multi-computer workflow.

Thanks.

Mark

[TheDigitalDog]

johnbeardy wrote: OK, Butch has gone on a bit, but his criticisms are very specific and have justification.

They do, it is how he treats others who might not agree with him that puts him in Troll territory IMHO. The reply he made to Rikk was especially uncalled for.

[RikkFlohr]

That's ok, Andrew. Rikk has thick skin and prefers the high-road.

[Butch_M]

Victoria Bampton wrote:

There's something I don't understand though.  If people are not happy with Lightroom 4's features, why are they not using something else?  If they're not happy with the performance of Lightroom 4, why buy it?  There's a free trial and each one of us has the option to vote with our credit cards.

Well even you may at times assume too much. I have trialed, rc'd, beta tested ... and ... voted with my credit card ... That however, doesn't mean I still don't expect more from Lightroom or that I don't have a vested interest in it's future ... if I truly didn't care and only wanted to cause trouble, I woulnd't venture to this forum.

I do use Aperture 3 in my work ... more and more with each passing day (shouldn't that be a concern for Adobe) ... not out of desire ... because it allows me to accomplish tasks that Lightroom is still incapable of getting done. I would very much much prefer that Lightroom would be all that I need ... but don't expect me to silently consume the Adobe pablum any longer ...

I first ventured forth with Lightroom in 2006 when the first public beta was offered ... (remember it was Mac only at that time? You know, that insignificant, irrelevant platform mentioned by Rikk.) ... I found the whole concept to be a marvelous step forward ... a true breath of fresh air ... imagine, getting so much accomplished with my RAW files in a very thoughful and capable workflow design ... I bought in, hook, line and sinker, both figuratively and monetarily. Since then I have dutifully participated in each and every public beta, RC and trial offered ... up to and including the official release of Lr 4.1. Though I have yet to purchase Lr 4.x as I am very disappointed with what is offered. It isn't performance issues holding me back ... It's not that I don't find pv2012 very satisfying ... it is the total absence of some key features and the incompleteness of others. I fully understand that with new software there will be issues that need addressed. I can handle unintentional miscues ... however, I find the total lack of some options and/or the incompleteness of others and complete modules totally ignored for several versions, to be a strong consideration in my buying decisions.

I was happy as a lark working blissfully with each new iteration of Lightroom and was very content with what I had been using. Then a friend recommended I take a look at Aperture last year when I mentioned I wished Lightroom had a book feature. At the time, I thought Aperture was only a hapless tool for rank amateures ... then I idscovered I didn't have to use their, nameless, anonymous book printer ... I could actually create custom page sizes right within the app then export the finished book to PDF, jpeg or even tiff ... whatever my printing vendors would desire ... Imagine my dismay ... that as yet, I can't, by any means, create custom page sizes in the Lightroom 4 Book module ... Since then I have been using Aperture 3 for all my book production, Slideshows, tethering and other work that Lightroom can't accomplish ... I'm not so infatuated with Lightroom to accept whatever is offered and deem it superior simply on face value. Then assure other users that what we have is all that can be expected and we should accept our fate willingly.

I was even told by you in another thread that mentioning the fact that Aperture 3 could be used to shoot thethered with the Nikon D4, D800 and the Canon 5D Mk III was a totally unfair comparrison ... the need for a level playing field and something about planes and helicopters as I recall ... I was even told by another very helpful "volunteer" that it was basically my own stupidity for buying a camera that was not on the approved list and I should not be complaining as it was my fault Lightroom did not support my camera for tethering ... totally ignoring the fact my camera purchase was based on replacing stolen equipment, not Adobe's timeline for tethering support .... I was told by another so-called helpful user, that so few folks use the thethering feature that I should be content that any cameras are supported by Lightroom at all. While the sad fact remains, it really is not the fault of Nikon or Canon that Adobe can't yet support those cameras ... because Apple did so without their assistance or the the often referred to need for an updated SDK ... The fact remains that over twice as many cameras are supported in Aperture for tethering ... though, apparently it seems tolerable to ignore that fact here .... but I digress ...

Then here in this thread, because I mentioned a comparison of Lightroom with Aperture about the differences in features in relation to cloning/healing ... I'm told such a comparison is rendered irrelevant purely based upon the numbers of users of the Apple platform as it pertains to a single individual's observations ... not the fact that the feature actually exists elsewhere, actually works ... and appears not to be an engineering impossibility ... but because I had the audacity to mention it here contradicting one of the so helpful volunteer members of the "gang" ...

The good folks here can imply (or state it flat out) that my concerns and comments are unfair, stupid, irrelevent, insonsequential or best yet ... trolling ... and I am to ignore where Lightroom falls short of the mark ... I may not be an Alpha tester. I may not be an Adobe employee ... and ... I may indeed be "out of touch" on some issues ... but you can't find fault with the fact that ... I can do more than dust speck removal using my RAW images without resorting to Ps, I can create custom page sizes for photo books and refernce my RAW files directly without resorting to ID and derivative files ... I can shoot tethered with a D4 ... I am aloso quite disappointed that we all can't use Lightroom to do so ...

So it seems we are back to the same inevitable end ... if you can't dispell the message ... attack the messenger. That will surely help Lightroom, and it's users advance forward.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Butch_M wrote:

So it seems we are back to the same inevitable end ... if you can't dispell the message ... attack the messenger. That will surely help Lightroom, and it's users advance forward.

At no time, Butch, have I attacked you, even if I don't agree with all of your opinions.

But since I can clearly do nothing to assist you, I don't think it's worth my time replying any further.

[Butch_M]

Victoria ... I do have the utmost respect for your contributions, here and elsewhere ... perhaps the word attack was too strong where you are concerned ... for that I apologize ...

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Thank you Butch

[huw_j]

Well it didn't take long for Andrew Rodney to be proved right, did it? Look, Butch_M, it's taken your series of irritating posts to bring me out of 'lurker mode' to briefly respond (I like to read the queries and see if I can answer them as well as the experts here can, without looking first!)

You appear to be living in a personal 'Age of Entitlement', where any missing features in a piece of software are evidence of incompetence on behalf of Adobe and perhaps a personal vendetta by their engineers to make your life difficult (and I count 2 issues - custom page sizes in the book module, and tethering for a specific camera model) - seriously, is that it? (I'm not counting the cloning tool issue, as the tool in Lr is not intended to achieve the same effect as in Ps, as has been demonstrated in the above responses). And as for your bizarre critique of Adobe's software development provcess - ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

Can I respectfully suggest that, now you have had your say on Adobe in general and LIghtroom in particular, that you take your new-found enthusiasm for Aperture and go over to the support forums for that product?

And can we please, please, please now let this zombie thread die peacefully??

[Butch_M]

huw_j wrote:

You appear to be living in a personal 'Age of Entitlement', where any missing features in a piece of software are evidence of incompetence on behalf of Adobe and perhaps a personal vendetta by their engineers to make your life difficult ...

Nothing could be further from the truth ... my my main issue in this thread is the intolerance of my fellow users here when I make comparisons and they claim those comparisons are inconsequential or irrelavant ... and the discovery that all I had been told in the past may not have been so true as far as the patented answers as to why Adobe can't do certain things ... I do not think that that anyone at Adobe is necessarily incompetent ... some bad decisions ... vague promises about potential solutions ... you betchya ... even the most successful folks in their fields can lay claim to errors in judgment ... what my recent "enlightenment" has taught me ... is to seriously question if the folks at Adobe in general, and the folks working on Lightroom in particular continue to have my best interests first and foremost ... and how the repercussions of the decisions made by those folks will affect my daily workflow. You don't ever ponder such? I have blind faith in some areas of my life ... software development ... not so much ...

huw_j wrote:

Can I respectfully suggest that, now you have had your say on Adobe in general and LIghtroom in particular, that you take your new-found enthusiasm for Aperture and go over to the support forums for that product?

Though you presented your request using the term respectfully ... was it really offered thusly? Or was it was it just a slightly more polite version of "love it or leave it" retort?  Either way, thank you for at least being polite ...

[Fazzyphoto2012]

Butch

I am new to this blog, however as a working pro, what I have read from most of your blogs are always on point.

It seems as though most people on this blog are not working pros, maybe advanced amatures, that do not rely on

photography to live on. When Aperture first came out, it wasnt even close to performance of LR. Now that I am having major issues with LR,

and reading your posts have found that Aperture has come a long, long way. In some respects have passed LR.

If Adobe does not address the tethering issues (5D MK III) and super slow performance, I will have to shell out for Aperture.

To your point on clone tool.....it really stinks.

As for huw_j, please go back to the "lurking" mode.

[AlanUniqueName]

I would like to add that more advanced cloning within LR seems to be the most voted for feature request and has been for some time - originally posted over a year ago...

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/ideas/popular

If Adobe were to base their priority simply on user voted for feedback then perhaps this should be top of their list.    There are undoubtedly other considerations.

Other competitors including (what was Bibble) have shown that simply being in a non-destructive parametric environment does not in itself preclude the possibility.

Edit - You beat me to it Rikk.

[areohbee]

TomBrooklyn wrote:

Would all agree the Clone Tool in Lightroom stinks?

Hey now - don't be bad-mouthing Lightroom in here - dem's fighten words - you wanna step outside? meet me in the alley...!!! (works great for removing "dust" spots. for other things: not so much...)

TomBrooklyn wrote:

When cloning a large area, why can't one clone over a spot that was already cloned?

One can. To overlap clone spots for a stinky, non-circular cloning pattern:

* Move spots into overlapping positions after placing wherever, instead of attempting to place in overlapping position initially.

Rob

[gatorjim2000]

Good tip, Rob. Thanks.

[areohbee]

JW Stephenson shared this tip with "us", a long time ago. How about a big round of applauds for Jeff? .

(Rikk Flohr mentioned it above too...)

[areohbee]

The title and wording of the original post are provocative.

Tom - if this was your intention, then kudos: well played.

If not, then consider how the tone is likely to get people riled up, and then: tone it down.

It should be clear by now that the scope of Lightroom's clone/heal tool is limited, and the overwhelming majority want better distraction removal in Lightroom.

If you are still having issues using it for removing "dust" spots, then do tell. If your issues now have to do with it's limitations, then welcome to the club... - fingers crossed for Lr5.

Rob

[glugglug]

If I want to alter the nature of an image I use Photoshop.

I use Lghtroom to do the things I used to do in my darkroom and my office. Photoshop fulfils the role that the art department used to do in my employed days.

For me, Lghtroom is already becoming a bit bloated and I don't want to see it becoming more so by adding functions outside of its (in my opinion) core role. Thus, I don't want LR to overlap PS too much.

Once clone stamp is added, there will be cries of 'why can't we have layers?' etc. if Photoshop functionality is to be added to Lightroom, I would like it to be in the form of a plugin, preferably bought separately and in the form of another module, Library-Develop-Art editor, for example.

In fact, I'd like the modules of the present LR to be available in plugin/ buy if required form too. Library and Develop are all I need, really.

[areohbee]

glugglug wrote:

If I want to alter the nature of an image I use Photoshop.

If I want to remove a twig, or a piece of litter, or a stray hair..., I:

* spend a long while arranging little dust spot circles to do it, or

* figure: to heck with it, or

* edit using NX2, or Photoshop, thus creating a huge tiff, or breaking the non-destructive workflow by way of a compressed jpeg stacked on top.

I would prefer to use Photoshop for creative effects, on comparatively fewer photos, not small distraction removal on what would be a larger set of photos. And, seeing as it's the #1 request for Lightroom, of all time, by far, I am clearly in the overwhelming majority.

PS - Bloat-schmoat: 0% of the cpu would be consumed for photos that don't have distractions removed. OK, it would increase the download size a bit: you got me there...

Rob

[Keith Reeder]

Rob Cole wrote:

* edit using... Photoshop

So it boils down to personal workflow, then.

Personally, everything I convert in Lr (or in Capture One, or in RawTherapee, or in AfterShot Pro, or...) becomes a 16 bit tiff for further work in Photoshop - my workflow relies on plugins that Photoshop runs and Lr doesn't - so for me there's simply no case for comprehensive cloning funcionality in Lr. That's what Photoshop is for.

Unless a given user considers that  Lr is intended as a one-stop "From Raw-To-End-Result" solution (that's open to debate, and a case can be made either way), I'd argue that glugglug's perspective (and mine) are perfectly valid.

I know many can use Lr as an end-to-end solution, and the presence of things like softproofing, a great print module, book creation and web modules provide a counter-argument to my comments above (although it might also be argued that they make most sense of all as a logical fall-out from Lr's DAM function).

But I certainly don't see Lr as being intended as an end-to-end solution - the lack of layers, 8bf plugin support and yes, things like comprehensive cloning tools, tell me it's not - in which case it might be said that our use cases are closer to the intended use model for Lr; and that as a result, demands for all-singing cloning are (in its current incarnation at least) unreasonable in the context of what Lr is apparently about.

Let's not forget either that the more Lr can do, the less need there will be for people to shell out large lumps of cash on Photoshop: so being realistic about it, there seems to be very little business incentive for Adobe to make Lr into a Photoshop killer, 

[AlanUniqueName]

I totally understand your viewpoint Keith, but I am one of those you refer to as wanting (loving actually!) the non-destructive seamless end to end workflow in LR from RAW to Target.    I do, and probably always will, own PS (CS5) for the occasional creative tasks but most of my images do not go outside LR and when they do it is mainly for a clone / heal above what is sensible in LR.      I do not know, but I would not be surprised if many photographers fall more into this camp.     However,  I understand your needs to access plugins.

My love of a seamless non-destructive workflow causes me a big sigh when I am forced to jump out of LR, and I dislike the discontinuity and additional “bloat” created for what my mind set says is “photography task” not a “creative task” – it’s a distinction I personally make and not expecting others to be the same.   I do not make extensive use of PS plugins. 

I suspect most voters that have made this the favourite new feature request are probably not expecting full Photoshop cloning capability, just less trips outside.

[Keith Reeder]

Don't get me wrong Alan, an end-to-end solution that does everything we all want, would be brilliant: but it'd take a lot more than more cloning options to make Lr into that for me - I'd much prefer layers and Photoshop plugin compatibility than better cloning.

And there's the rub: we'd all want something different.