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?

[areohbee]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

Rob Cole wrote:

* edit using... Photoshop

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.

Point taken: If you make (big) tiffs for all your photos anyway, and use Photoshop on most of them anyway, then it hardly matters whether Lightroom has better distraction removal, or any other features already in Photoshop.

But as you know, not everybody does that. And I think it's safe to say that most Lr users really don't want to do that.

Keith_Reeder wrote:

I'd argue that glugglug's perspective (and mine) are perfectly valid.

Nobody is suggesting your perspective is invalid, it's just that we really want better distraction removal in Lightroom proper.

Rob

[Keith Reeder]

Rob Cole wrote:

But as you know, not everybody does that. And I think it's safe to say that most Lr users really don't want to do that.

Dunno Rob, for all any of us know, that's exactly the expectation of most Lr users - the point being that we don't know, so we can only speak about our own perspectives, and nothing I've seen suggests that mine is even unusual, much less exceptional.

What I will say is that I certainly don't consider that the static generated in various corners of the internet to be at all representative of the wider Lr user community - as we all know, internet forums are inherently the domain of the dissatisfied, so the noise on here is self-selecting, and not remotely "evidence" of a wider consensus that Lr is getting it wrong in any major way...

[areohbee]

Fair enough Keith.

I imagine nobody knows their users and their business as well as Adobe, so may as well give them the benefit of the doubt.

Cheers,

Rob