Lightroom and Camera Raw: More Photoshop like clone/healing/content aware brushes

  • 349
  • Idea
  • Updated 5 months ago
  • (Edited)
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.
Photo of pat d

pat d

  • 25 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
  • hopeful!

Posted 8 years ago

  • 349
Photo of Butch_M

Butch_M

  • 292 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
I'm all for any improvements that could be offered in this area as well ... the more I can do in Lr natively ... the better ...
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
Yes, yes, yes.

That is the most urgent upgrade wishlist item for LR. If LR wants to be an 80/20 application then it needs to improve support for retouching. Abusing the spot removal tool only goes so far.

Yes, there is some integration between LR and other editing programs (in particular with PS and smart objects), but being forced to use two applications instead of one is suboptimal. Here's why:

1. I don't want to pay for PS. It may be worth it for graphic designers and professionals but to an amateur enthusiast the price tag is way too high for what I need from it.
2. I don't want the destructive editing paradigm. I know I can use (adjustment) layers, etc. but LR's solutions for making later tweaks to editing operations works better for me so why should I adopt the PS way when I don't need it for my editing requirements?
3. I don't want to run LR & PS in parallel on my machine. One of them on their own is sufficiently resource hungry.
4. I don't want the workflow that creates two versions of an image; one pre-edited in LR to be imported by PS and another exported by PS with potential post-edits in LR. There is no seamless editing history in one place anymore.

The last bullet (4.) is the most important one for me. I feel that anything else but integrated editing is a workaround with disadvantages.
Photo of Removed

Removed

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Very well stated. My poor computer struggles under LR by itself, and the more healing brush points I add, the worse the performance gets. Having to open a second application reduces performance even more since both applications must be open in order for the edited photo to be re-imported back to LR. Additionally, making external edits renders the "Paste Settings from Previous" feature useless since the external edits are not captured in the LR edit history.
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
BTW, there are no technical barriers. Of course an efficient implementation is a challenge but the guys that pulled off lens corrections (with its required warping of brush strokes and spot removal applications) can do this as well.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
No doubt.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
Up near the top of my wish list for Lr4 too.
Photo of Ian Lyons

Ian Lyons, Champion

  • 28 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Rob,

A word of advice I was given a long time back by an Adobe insider - be selective about which features you openly pick as your favourites. Same insider once asked a group of us to identify 10 features that we would most want to have in Camera Raw (before Lr came into being). I think we ended up with around 15 to 20 unique features. All have been implemented, but it took 4 or 5 years and 3 versions to get there. Anyway, as things stand, "you" have dozens, if not hundreds in the UtoU feature request list. Now you're at the same thing here. Every time you add a "me too" you risk diluting the importance of others. Remember, there's a finite amount of engineering time.

Ask yourself - If I could only submit 10 feature requests, what would they be? Rank them in order of importance. Explain why they're important, how you see them working, etc.

So, be smart. If you've nothing useful to add just hit the "I like this idea!' button and move on. The count goes up, and that's all that really matters.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
Thanks for the tip Ian - I'll keep it in mind.
Photo of Sean McCormack

Sean McCormack, Champion

  • 31 Posts
  • 19 Reply Likes
I'm all for content aware in Lightroom.. and for non circular healing and cloning!
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
Thanks for supporting this, Sean.

AFAIC, it makes sense to distinguish between "spot healing" (no source required) and "source/destination healing" (PS' healing brush) and having both retouching operations would be ideal.

But what is the difference between "patching" and "source/destination healing"? PS has two different tools for this so there should be a difference. I'm not a PS user but what I gather from information available on the net, I reckon the only difference is how you make a selection. With a healing brush one "paints" the selection and with a patch tool one draws the outline of the selection. Is that correct?

If so, and if patching were supported then it would make sense to allow the "patch selection style" for other adjustments (as addressed by the adjustment brush) as well.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Both use a source, it's just that one (spot) sets the source automatically and one (brush) forces you to set it manually. Both essentially paint the "area", not the outline, though the spot tool only shows the outline while you are still painting.

Well, that's for Elements, anyway, as I don't have CS.
Photo of Removed

Removed

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I would gladly pay MORE for LR with content-aware fill and a good clone/stamp tool than have to open up TWO applications.

I have Elements, but when you run it, it's a CPU hog. It always launches a sub-process that scours my HDD looking for faces in photos to tag. I don't need that feature but my poor CPU and HDD are busily chewing up resources when all I want to do is make a minor fix.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
"It always launches a sub-process that scours my HDD looking for faces in photos to tag."

Just launch the editor, and not the organizer.
Photo of Removed

Removed

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
With the LR spot-healing tool, is there REALLY a difference between the Clone and Heal options?? I've tried both, and they both seem to do the exact same thing. It appears to me that this is just a spot-CLONE tool in that it copies over whatever is inside it's sample circle verbatim. I can't see any "healing" at all.

Also, you can't mix modes on the retouch. Whatever the selection between clone/heal is, is applied to ALL spot healing points on the photo, not just the one selected.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
"With the LR spot-healing tool, is there REALLY a difference between the Clone and Heal options??" Yes.

"Whatever the selection between clone/heal is, is applied to ALL spot healing points on the photo, not just the one selected. " Not true at all.
Photo of Removed

Removed

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I'd like to see some examples. I can't tell a difference.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
One heals, one clones, one has a soft feather, one has a harder edge.
Photo of RonT

RonT

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I would really like to see a clone/stamp tool in LR. That circle brush for spot healing just doesn't cut it when it comes to needing to do blend edits on a photograph.
Let me pick a source spot on the photo and then "paint" with the healing brush while it samples the source location. This feature is in your other products, let it be in Lightroom too!

Thank you.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Lightroom: Clone/Stamp tool - Let me pick a source spot on the photo and then "paint" with the healing brush while it samples the source location.
Photo of Removed

Removed

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Hmm.. I seem to have two profiles now...
Photo of pat d

pat d

  • 25 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I want Lightroom to have exactly what Photoshop has.
In Photoshop I use both Healing with Content Aware Fill on and Clone Stamp tool depending on what I need. Usually use Healing and if I can't get the correct results with that I go to Clone Stamp and adjust to get what I need manually.
Photo of BenD

BenD

  • 25 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
This is a no-brainer
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
Keeping my fingers crossed this will receive "Under Consideration" status....
Photo of DanM

DanM

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Adding layers and / or adding a brush action to spot removal would make develop even more user friendly.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Lightroom/Camera Raw: Additions to Spot Removal Tool.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 371 Reply Likes
I like the idea of being able to brush in or out any adjustment we might choose to make, including dust spot removal, although if the distraction removal tool is changed to be handled as a brush instead of a circle, then its maybe not so necessary, although I can still imagine it... (e.g. brushing opacity changes after the distraction removal stroke has been layed down)..
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
Maybe we don't need an additional "layers" concept if we could have the option of looking at either a chronological history (i.e., what is currently implemented) or an "essential history". Have a look at an example for such an essential history which is basically a list of logically grouped edit actions.

Layers would go beyond that in that one could adjust, say the exposure of both a brush stroke set and a graduate filter in a synchronised fashion, but I'm not sure this is really needed all that often. If there really is big support for layers, however, I still think they would gel well with something along the lines of an essential edit history.
Photo of pat d

pat d

  • 25 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of pat d

pat d

  • 25 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Robert Peters

Robert Peters

  • 39 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
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!......
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Scott Mahn

Scott Mahn

  • 178 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Scott Mahn

Scott Mahn

  • 178 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Federico Ferreres

Federico Ferreres

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
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).
Photo of Scott Mahn

Scott Mahn

  • 178 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Son Nguyen

Son Nguyen

  • 61 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
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?
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Yes.

Spot healing isn't that slow if lens corrections aren't enabled.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
Yeah, I think we need this tool in Lightroom - to work as fast as they can make it work...
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
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.