Photoshop CC 2015: Healing brush problem

  • 87
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
Healing brush is not working as good as in the past. It creates much more smudges. I also get an little white border around my retouches when retouching on an other layer.
Photo of Bram Declercq

Bram Declercq

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 5 years ago

  • 87
Photo of Brian Moore

Brian Moore

  • 2 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
@Chris Cox

Your problem would be solved almost instantaneously if the rest of the moderators of this specific thread Jeffrey Tranberry, Brett N, and Sohrab would respond to what people have been saying the past few months.

All I have seen the past few months is my comment and many many many many many other peoples comments here continue to be ignored.
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I kinda gave up on posting on this forum because 90% of my posts are being deleted lol .

Anyway yeah I'm up with other guys. New tool is bad, give me drop down button with legacy option.

If 2016 wont have it fixed I will consider dropping down adobe subscription and going back to your competitors or sticking to my old PS license that I have. I will NOT support bad software / customer support.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Why is the Photoshop CC 2015 Healing Brush Problem thread marked as "solved"?.

The problem listed here is clearly NOT solved.

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

So why is it marked as "solved" and why are all new threads about it being merged into the "solved" thread?
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
lol - whoever's merging these threads is on the ball... at least!
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Adobe seems to be dodging this problem. Keeping someone on watch for this issue to throw it into this thread so it doesn't actually get resolved.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
Creating new topics to discuss the same topic is counter productive.
This topic is already being followed by the Photoshop team.
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Are you kidding us Chris? There hasn't been an answer from the team other than you erasing posts for more than a week even thou we've been asking questions all the time. You people have been neglecting us for months, do you think that's not counterproductive to us? And, please, tell me, marking this as "Solved" is not counterproductive?!?!?
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
I think what Chris is trying tacitly to tell us is that the team are very busy working on adding the switch to select the legacy tool in the UI but they don't want to say anything and spoil the surprise...

That's right Chris, isn't it?
Photo of Stephan Bollinger

Stephan Bollinger

  • 6 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Well - the "surprise" was when the legacy version was gone. We don't need any more surprises. The new algorithms are problematic for a lot of people, and it simply makes perfect sense to enable a switch to the old tool. Then everyone can pick their own.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Agreed, obviously.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
There haven't been too many answers during the holidays. But the issues brought up here are being actively discussed and worked on.
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Chris, would you mind answering us, if this problem is being worked on, how come this thread is marked as solved? This has been asked many, many times here with no answer.
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Maybe they cant un-solve a topic ? Not sure... weird...
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Yes, but then again, why just not say it? "Hey, unfortunately we can't mark it as unsolved, so let's start a new thread instead". But they keep merging "unsolved" threads into this solved thread to make it look like it's solved.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Chris I have contributed plenty to the conversation. You have just decided you don't like what I have to say and then abuse your power of moderator to hide my comments. So again, GET OFF your high horse. Look at how many people are angry . I SERIOUSLY doubt there were that many, if any complaints, about the old healing brush, enough for your team to completely destroy it causing an uproar of this size. NO ONE likes this new brush. AT ALL. We want the results the OLD brush have and your "slider" solution is not GIVING that
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
If the new algorithms are CPU based what is the point of having them ? Old one was CPU, new one was GPU but now its CPU... soo whats the real point here ?
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Nobody knows Darius, nobody knows.....
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
And, apparently, at Adobe, nobody cares.
Photo of Neil Findlay

Neil Findlay

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
A quiet note to Adobe: if this matter gets any more oxygen, it has the potential to develop into a full-blown case study for many universities, business and marketing students alike on how not to manage an 'issue.' Management 101 says you never, ever simply (a) ignore an issue (b) pretend it doesn't exist (c) act like there is no problem (d) deny its existence (e) refuse to acknowledge to your clients that they have legitimate concerns. I'm frankly concerned at how a large company like yours can behave like this and expect to retain the confidence and respect of clients, and their business. (Note to moderator: Please don't delete)
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
a) it hasn't been ignored
b) nobody pretended it doesn't exist
c) we can't respond to every single post (especially when many don't have any useful feedback)
d) nothing has been denied
e) are you reading a different topic from the rest of us?
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Chris, you have to be kidding us. We've been asking for months to change the status of this thread from Solved and nothing was done until today. Is that not ignoring? We've been saying that the new healing tool is crap and doesn't work like the old one and for the first couple of months you people were denying it and saying it was fine and it was just different. Is that not ignoring? We've been asking for the old healing tool as an option in the IU for SIX MONTHS and you people did nothing. Is that not ignoring? Not to mention that we've been asking relevant questions here for WEEKS without any answer (although you people are very fast on deleting comments that you don't like), is that not ignoring? Man, if that's not ignoring I don't know what is! Heck, if I did 1/10 of this "not ignoring" to any of my clients I wouldn't have clients anymore!
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
Andre: read the entire topic. It was responded to. A fix was put in for a dot release. And now they are trying to gather more information (because "the new tool is crap" is nothing that can be tested, verified, or corrected). Nothing has been ignored. Again, not every post is going to get answered. And sometimes, there are holidays.
Photo of Dave Barcs

Dave Barcs

  • 23 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
You have the information that no one thinks the new tool works as well as the old tool and that it's hugely disliked - read every post on this thread - what more information do you need???

You don't need to gather information to reinstate the old tool.

If you intend on making the new tool work like the old one then why leave all your 'paying' customers to suffer with the inadequacies of the new tool until you do? This shows very little respect to your users who are after all paying your wages.

This problem is now 7 months old when a switchable UI option could have been implemented very quickly, is that not crazy!!! As this is existing code very little testing would be required, so why are we even having this nonsensical debate.

Come on Adobe PLEASE listen to your customers and not your own ego's.

In response the above list of points regarding your issue management which you deny:

a) it hasn't been ignored & b) nobody pretended it doesn't exist

Then why is there no fix after 7 months of asking?

c) we can't respond to every single post (especially when many don't have any useful feedback)

I haven't seen a single post from Adobe on this matter for over a month..

d) nothing has been denied

I would agree to this but then why has there beeen no acquiescence to the users demands to reinstate the working tool?

e) are you reading a different topic from the rest of us?

One month ago I responded to Sohrab request as to why the old tool should be reinstated, as can be seem on page 4 of this thread, and he did not acknowledge receipt, thank me for taking the time to provide my answers, or confirm if my points were accepted. Seems to me that my efforts were ignored, or would you say otherwise?
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
I tend to agree with Darius - what actually is the point of this new tool?

I can see that, from a marketing POV, "real time healing brush" sounds more advanced and exciting than the plain old "healing brush" we've all known and been happy with for years....

Is that the ONLY reason this new tool has been introduced? And if so, why the resistance (with excuses - "it would clutter the UI") to adding a switch in the UI to allow users to choose the legacy tool, as has been done with other new versions of existing tools?

Having tried the new tool, including with the diffusion slider, I personally found it to be pretty tolerable although I still preferred the way the legacy tool worked; however plenty of professional retouchers who depend on the healing brush for much of their work still feel it's very inferior to the legacy tool.

Surely this is a perfectly good reason to include a switch in the UI as was promised here by Jeffery 5 months ago (screenshot here) but never implemented, apparently due to Sohrab's inability to understand why some users still didn't like the new tool.

Can ANYBODY from Adobe explain why it's such a problem to add a switch to the UI?
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
No, we currently have about 20 people complaining about the new healing brush without providing any specific examples of why the new brush is giving poor results compared to the old healing brush. We also have many (several hundred) professional retouchers praising the new healing brush for improved results and performance.

Just because your request (without details that can be acted on) hasn't been implemented does not mean you have been ignored. We have asked for information, and that information has not been provided.

The diffusion slider was added to address the initial complaints, plus bugs with the implementation were fixed in the dot releases.

So, if there is a real problem, then we need specific information and examples to reproduce the problem and see what can be done to solve it.
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
So my link with the file and the action that if you play over and over you'll never get the same result from the old one with the new one is not "specific example"? Or did you guys not even bother to check? I have to say I have a very different experience than you Chris, I am a high end retoucher, and every high end retoucher that I know is either pissed off with the new healing tool or is pissed off with having to add a config file to work around it. I am talking about people (like me) that retouch for brands like Lancome, L'Oreal, Gucci, Adidas, Nike, stores like Bloomingdale's and Bergdorf Goodman (most of them which are still waiting to update because of this problem). You know why you're not hearing them complain? Because they'd rather stay with the older version than have to deal with the crap that is the new healing too. You can fantasize all you want about how awesome the new tool is and how we are a bunch of whiners, but the truth is far from what you want us to believe.
Photo of Gregory Katsoulis

Gregory Katsoulis

  • 54 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Andre,

I don't speak for, or work for Adobe, but I think the problem I saw with your action is that if you record it with a technique that is not ideal, because of a bias, conscious or unconscious, then the result is not meaningful or quantifiable. In order words, it is possible to make either iteration of the healing brush perform poorly if you choose non-ideal technique.

That is why I earlier stated that there is an issue with subjectivity. Please be open to the idea that you may have a confirmation bias, looking for a failed result.
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
And please explain to me Chris. So you guys put the old healing tool back through the config file just because of about 20 people complaining? You have to be kidding that you want us to believe that.
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I am sorry Gregory, but how on earth can you brush something wrong? I am not talking about technique or anything, I am talking about a tool that gives very different result than the old ones. I don't know what you do or how you use Photoshop, but I've been a high end retoucher for the last 12 years and my technique has never been a problem, quite the contrary, every top retouching studio praises it. So I'm sorry, but your explanation is a bunch of crap.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
"You know why you're not hearing them complain? Because they'd rather stay with the older version than have to deal with the crap "
There could not have been a better statement made
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
The old healing brush is available through the config file just in case something went wrong with the new brush code (and it did in the initial release, but was fixed in the dot). That was just us planning ahead. No, it it not so trivial to add back to the UI.
Photo of Dave Barcs

Dave Barcs

  • 23 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Chris,
We are not paid to test your software and provide examples of issues, we pay you to provide a tool that is useful to us. We are saying that it currently isn't.

If you want an example try this - https://fstoppers.com/originals/updat...

Not everyone can be bothered to post in forums they simply revert to the previous working version. Please stop burying your heads in the sand and provide the switchable UI......
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
THANK YOU for this article
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Interesting article, and the conclusion is pretty much what Sohrab admitted here - ie. that the old brush works better under some circumstances. It was also more intelligent (ie. sensitive to context) and didn't need constant adjustment of a 'diffusion slider' to give acceptable results.

I think we should all share this article on social media, tagging @Adobe or @Photoshop and asking them to give us back the old healing brush....
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Thank you, whoever did it, for changing the status of this thread back to "in progress".
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
You're welcome.
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Thanks too
Photo of Stephan Bollinger

Stephan Bollinger

  • 6 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
So - perhaps stupid question - with all the (very obvious) feedback, is there a change coming any time soon? I won't be diving into the complaining, all I want is to get the job done. Problem is - from all the major features of photoshop, as a high-end beauty photographer, the healing brush is one of my most used tool every single day, and the current state is - to say it nicely - limiting and annoying (if not handicapping) my work, my outcome, my business.

So - please Adobe - you got the code - link it in and give us an option. Make it a silent release if you want, a hidden feature, I don't care, as long as it "just works".
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Hi Stephan,

For the time being you can revert to CC 2014 or use the config file workaround provided by Sohrab here https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/...
Photo of Stephan Bollinger

Stephan Bollinger

  • 6 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Cheers Steve. I'm aware of the workaround, however this can't be the solution. In some cases, you want to use the "power" of the new tools, in other cases you don't, this depends on the image and I can't see why we should pick one over the other. A simple switch (and then a keyboard shortcut for it) and everyone is happy (and we can get our work done in the best looking and most efficient way)
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Agreed. Wasn't sure if you were aware of the workaround or not :)
Photo of Gregory Katsoulis

Gregory Katsoulis

  • 54 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Above, I see a request from Adobe for specific, repeatable and clear examples where the new heal brush fails to produce an equal or superior result, but I haven't seen any of those posted here. Have I missed something?

I ask because, without concrete data, it seems like it would be difficult to distinguish between a real issue and a vague suggestion that something is off. Human psychology being what it is, it seems possible to convince oneself of a problem where there isn't one.
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
There was example posted above with download link to drop box n stuff. Haven't looked but if the person bothered to show the issue I guess there is issue... On top of that I have issues too so well I guess I'm too lazy to post it ehh darn !
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
I think part of the problem - and the reason so many people are so annoyed and frustrated - is that there is no good reason to have removed the old tool in the first place!

Plus, Sohrab has clearly said (in his promoted post) that the new tool only produces a result that is "similar" to the legacy tool and that "we want to be clear that there may still be subset of cases that the old algorithm perform better."

So Adobe admits the new tool doesn't produce the same results as the old tool under all circumstances and may perform worse under some.

Why then the apparent reluctance to allow us an easy way to choose the old tool for those situations where it will perform better?
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I've posted a link to a file and an action where I use the healing tool and have tried every value of the diffusion on the new healing tool without getting even close results to the old one. Is that not proof enough? What else should I do?
Photo of Gregory Katsoulis

Gregory Katsoulis

  • 54 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Hi Andre,

So I took a look at your example and here is the thing — I agree the new brush feels slightly different. But I can't give you a concrete reason why. What's more, I don't get the same results that you do, with the new brush, or the old one. This shouldn't be a surprise, because retouching is an art, not a science, and therefore the way we each wield the brush will affect the outcome.

My initial reaction to the new brush was a bad one, in part because it was released at first, slightly broken. However, in the latest updates, I find it works as well or better, and significantly faster.

I guess what I am trying to understand is how this problem can be remedied when recognizing the issue seems to be very subjective.

If you feel like I'm an apologist, consider this: I am still deeply bothered by the subscription model that Adobe has adopted. I think it is bad news for users and has resulted in buggier releases than ever in the company's history, because they no longer need to compel us with updates, only justify paying month-to-month. I also think it has led to some of the poor communication you see here.

With all of that said, I don't see how Adobe can address what seem to me like subjective concerns on this thread. Do you?

I think keeping the legacy brush around is still the best option, and if Adobe can do that, it would be the best solution. That said, I can imagine any number of scenarios where legacy code can become a burden. (As much as I loved Kodachrome in my college days, I had to move on from that too.)
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Gregory, if you play the action I included you'll get the same result as I did. So I don't understand what you are saying. The other thing is, we've been asking for seven months for the old healing brush to be available as an IU choice so that we don't have to mess up with config files. How do you say you don't see how Adobe can address the concerns on this thread?!?!? Are you working for them too???
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Regardless of differences in retouching style or not, many users have claimed the tool is not working in the manner which the original tool did. It's not improved, but a step backwards, causing a lot of strain on users trying to complete work not having a tool they know works. Forcing users to use a new tool, that wasn't wanted, nor does it produce the effect that users are used to and happy with, is not progress.
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Gregory, implementing new brush was to be done on GPU and meant to be faster than the old one and well... just as good or better. At the end its better in some cases, worse in others and its NOT GPU any more but CPU. So what it is now its wasted investment on adobes part and now the responsible party (I think) is trying to hold on to their decision and not get blamed.

I understand that it is an art form. But like with any art form an artist get used to his tools and work with them. Having one of tools replaced without artist requests is very damaging.

Image your friend come over and replace your mouse, keyboard, seat u sit on 8h a day, monitors and a cat for a different stuff. Instead of cat u would get rabbit. In his eyes its the same thing or just as good, in my eyes its another years to learn how to use and manage the tool efficiently.

I hate new brush. They should have added it and have 2 brushes in drop down menu. V1 and V2. Give us few years 2-4 to get a custom to new tool and work out the bugs.

The transition was done very badly and now we users have to suffer for it.

On top of that they said that they dont want to clutter UI and add extra stuff. Yet then they added diffusion slider. Just bad decisions and bad management.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
No, you haven't missed anything. All that is posted lately are complaints (or off topic rants) without examples or details.

The old healing brush failed to work correctly in many cases, had poor results in many other cases, was slow (and not easy to optimize - I tried), and did not provide realtime feedback on the result it was giving. The new healing brush provides more correct results and better results in general cases plus the cases where the old healing brush failed. The new healing brush is faster, and provides realtime feedback on the result. No, it does not work exactly the same - because the old tool was really wrong in many cases, and you can't fix that while working the same way.

And yes, without specific, repeatable examples of where the new brush is failing - there is nothing that can be done.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Regardless, you have a lot of people unhappy that a tool they relied on and were happy with has been taken away from them instead of giving them the option to try the new one, switch back to the old one when needed, while still learning and becoming accustomed to the new one. You didn't give your users any time to adapt, just pulled it out from under them and forced them to use a tool that isn't working, and told them too bad. There are enough people unhappy that it should be no question to offer both tools
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Chris, once again, you're gonna ignore the file and action I posted and say that there is no specific proof?
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I have been retouching long enough to confidently say that the original tool worked perfectly and have never seen it "fail" in any instance.
Photo of Kay Bradford

Kay Bradford

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Well, I have given up on getting the old tool back. I do high-end retouch, and my subjects now look like they have been badly burned. Sad. Can someone just tell me how to go back to 2014? I trashed that version, when I uploaded the new one, unfortunately. I have looked on the adobe site and cannot figure out how to go back to 2014, although I hear you can.

Perhaps, if you can't provide us with the tool, at least you could explain to us, how the new tools are 'supposed' to work. I am not averse to learning new things, but right now...I don't know where to start, and I have clients stacked up, waiting for their retouch. What we need is a helpful solution here.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
Without specific repeatable examples, there is nothing we can do.
Other users are not seeing "badly burned" results from the new healing brush -- so we need specific examples to figure out what you are seeing.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Hi Kay, As Chris didn't bother to answer your second question, here's a link to the instructions for reverting to CC 2014.

http://blogs.adobe.com/kevinmonahan/2...

Here also is a link which explains how to re-enable the legacy healing brush in CC 2015 via a config file.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/...
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
@Chris Cox instead of saying "... there is nothing we can do ...", could you not simply implement drop down menu with legacy brush in PS? It would have ended complains and unhappiness of us - customers - months ago...
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I suppose all hope is lost for Adobe to just do as they promised and give us the option to switch back to the original tool. I've seen way more people who are unhappy with the new tool than all the supposed fans of it. It seems Adobe would rather have a swarm of unhappy customers, who DIDNT ask for their tool to be taken away, who now will stop continuing to upgrade, to please a very small minority of users who are applauding this horrible decision. Logic
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Oh man the crop tool hahahahha another pointless update. Till this day I cant use the new crop tool ! Its not a tool, its annoyance !

On a topic note. I just spend 30 min working with 2015 and 2014. The 2015 diffusion sliders 1-3 works like stamp, 4-5 sometimes do what I want, 6-7 works like smudge/blur tool .

I sadly cant use it. Its just cool "NEW" tool. But it does NOT replace the old one. Leaving us with 1 tool less in our tool box.

On top of that dear Adobe, if you see new people joining forum and voicing up their problems... well its time to just do what u have been ask to do. Because the number will just keep going up the more people upgrade, get frustrated and waste their time creating forum accounts to speak up !
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Yeah, only 20 people are mad. That's why there have been new threads merged into this one nonstop
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
The previous examples were mostly about the bugs in the first release of the new healing brush - and those bugs were fixed several months ago. We really need to know what you are seeing and complaining about in order to figure out how to fix it.

A very small number of people are complaining about the new tool.
A very large number of people love the new tool.
We really need specific examples to see why the minority do not like the new tool.
Photo of Dave Barcs

Dave Barcs

  • 23 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Chris this thread says 93 participants not 20, probably quite a large number of people for an issue thread?
Can I ask what evidence you have for these millions of people that are happy with the new tool.

Any why do you keep IGNORING my comments???
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
There were a lot of participants at first, who dropped out once the bugs were fixed. Now there are not that many active.
And, AGAIN, we can't answer every comment.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
"A very large number of people love the new tool."

Oh, really? Where do you get that from Chris? Can you give us the results of an independently conducted poll or survey that shows this?

Or are you making an assumption based on the fact that the majority of casual (hobbyist) either don't care about the healing brush in the first place (and therefore haven't complained) and the professional retouchers - who DO use it all the time, and whose livelihood depends on it - have simply installed the config file workaround or reverted to CC 2014?
Photo of Gregory Katsoulis

Gregory Katsoulis

  • 54 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
I have to point out that I am among the 93 participants of this thread who essentially dropped off once the the bugs were fixed. I only returned this week because the volume of the discussion appears to have increased and I wanted to see why. I don't want to find myself in a situation where, further down the line, I discover the new healing brush won't be able to help me. At present, I am not able to replicate a situation where the new brush is not equal to, or better than the legacy brush. I've been using the program since it was introduced in 1990, and I use it every single day in my business. I have some experience, and I understand how any change can be jarring.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
No, of course we can't share all our statistics publicly.
No, that is not an assumption. We just have access to more information than you do.

Gregory - thank you.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I just checked for Kay's sake, and Creative Cloud does not show the previous version of Photoshop (2014) under Previous Versions, so reverting back seems impossible now.
Photo of Samoreen

Samoreen

  • 561 Posts
  • 177 Reply Likes
Same here. PS CC 2014 not visible under "Previous versions" in Adobe CC Desktop. Only Bridge CC, Extension Manager CC and Extendscript Toolkit CC.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I just sat on the phone with a tech support person who was able to get me back to 2014 - give them a call and they can do it remotely.
Photo of joshua withers

joshua withers

  • 102 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
OK. We get it. Everybody is upset. Adobe is working on the issue. The old tool was better (for the most part).
Can we end all the complaining and hope that a potential solution will be posted here instead? I am close to unsubscribing to the thread because of all the whining. All these posts (that go to my email) are ridiculous. The only reason I am still on this thread is for solutions. Not for a soundboard of complaining and moaning.
Chris or Adobe people, if you need help with testing future solutions, I'm happy to help.
Photo of Kay Bradford

Kay Bradford

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Chris, I don't know how to save my work, showing keystrokes, but here is a link to a file I retouched a couple of years ago, compared to what I am able to do now, with the new tools and that same original file now: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1...

Doing the best I could with the patch tool, (the tool I used before, the bottom layer of the Photoshop file is the result of that. Layers are labeled accordingly. It is possible that only those of us who used the patch tool to smooth skin, are being affected. Not many people do use the patch tool for that, but some of us do. Or did! That is not possible anymore.

I suppose the best we can hope for, is to learn a new way to retouch. But that is not easy, when you've done it with excellent results, the other way, for years! Even using the healing/spot healing tools, as many of the newer users do, I don't believe the results are as good, and it's certainly not as fast and efficient as the patch tool.

It must be very hard to reinstate the legacy tools, since Adobe is so reluctant to do so. Unfortunately, I trashed my Photoshop cc2014, after I downloaded the updated cc2015. I will know NOT to do that ever again! I am very reluctant now to ever update, after this. I understand that cc2014 is still available from Adobe, but as yet, I haven't figured out how to get it back.

I understand you are frustrated with all of us, and that is understandable. But please understand our plight too. It is very frustrating to have work stacked up that you can't finish, because you have no idea how to work around the new 'upgrades'. I retouch for a photographer who blows images up to 40x60, and it scares me to death to imagine what that could possibly look like with the new tools.

My guess is that it is primarily the skin texture that people are having problems with, since many of us complaining, seem to be portrait retouchers. The patch tool may well work great on landscape or other things, but for skin...no, it really doesn't come close.

Thank you in advance for your patience and concern. It's just that our frustration seems to be turning to anger, and that's probably because we've been at our computers way too long, trying to figure this out.

Please understand, we're not whining. I have adapted over the years to many changes. I started in my career with hot metal type, graduating to typesetting on a photo typesetter, to desktop publishing...so I'm not averse to learning new things. But new things have to work! I started with a film camera, and was one of the first to switch to digital, so my mind IS open to new methods. Please just help us make the transition. If there is some tutorial or something, explaining how to use the new tools, I would be very interested to view it. But for now...I'm stuck!
Photo of Sohrab Amirghodsi

Sohrab Amirghodsi, Employee

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi Kay,
Did you see the instruction on how to get back the legacy healing at https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/...? You can have multiple version on PS on the same computer. Please open up "Creative Cloud Panel" and click on "INSTALLED VERSIONS". A line with "previous version" should show up which should give you the option to install CC 2014. I have asked QE to contact you about your posted example.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Does NOT show the previous version anymore
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
Kay - thank you very much for the example image. (I started looking at it because the QE I need isn't available right now. EDIT - the QE in question got out of her meetings and we went over the results, now she's investigating on her systems)

Yes, it does show serious problems, but unfortunately I can't reproduce them on my system.

What OS version are you using?
Were you using just the patch tool?
Did you feather the edges of your selection at all?
(trying to figure out what variable makes your results differ so much from mine)
Photo of Gregory Katsoulis

Gregory Katsoulis

  • 54 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Hi Kay,

I took a look at your image as well because I am trying to understand if I have missed something. I want you to know why I think this example may not be useful to the folks at Adobe.

First, the file shows your results from the Patch Tool from both the old Patch Tool and the new one, but it does not provide the original image before retouching. There is no way to know way to even guess where you might be taking your sample areas from.

There also isn't any way to know HOW you are using the tool. Chris asked if you feathered the edges of your selection. If you didn't, then we aren't looking at a bug, just a logical step missing in your workflow — but that seems unlikely given your experience. So if you did feather your edges, you are seeing a bug that I don't think most of us are seeing. If that is the case, it would be wonderful to track down.

I also don't think I've seen anyone else here discuss the Patch Tool, only the healing brush. I mention this because, when you use "we" you appear to be speaking for a group of users who I think have a different issue.
Photo of Kay Bradford

Kay Bradford

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, Gregory...I agree. My issue is with the patch tool. That is what I've always used primarily, to smooth skin. I never needed to feather it before, but now, I'm using 'diffusion-1' and 'color-0'. But then, I don't even know if that is right, because those weren't options we had before. That just seems what causes the least amount of damage now.

I do use the healing tool, but not as much as the patch. I did try to use the healing brush to remove a power line wire in a photo last night, after watching a youtube video on how to remove one with the new healing brush and mine didn't come out anywhere close to what was shown on that video. It has worked fairly well before, but not now.

I very much wish I knew how to 'record brush strokes' or copy the text you provided and paste it into some place. Unfortunately, we artists are not usually well-known for our technical expertise.

I'm sorry for the hateful commentary you guys are receiving as I have a son who works in an IT department and I know how frustrated he gets with people who are angry and not technically inclined. But I just need a solution. If it is education I need for the new tools, please let me know where I can go to get it. I am willing to learn. It's just that I have deadlines and I'm panicked about how I'm ever going to get my jobs out!

I am on a Mac, using system OS X 10.11.1. I use the patch tool all over the face, when I have someone with problematic skin. I make a duplicate layer, do the patch work, then lower the opacity on the layer to about 40%. That has always worked magic! But now...it doesn't. As for the original image you needed to see, I have added it in a layer in a newly uploaded file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1...

If I could just figure out a way to retrieve cc2014, I could at least be able to get the work out I need to, while learning the new tools. It's new tools showing up, without warning, that I don't know how to use, that has made things very un-manageable for me. cc 2014 does not show up in my creative cloud 'previous versions' selection, so I'm not able to go back to that. Seems all the suggestions that have been made, are not available to me for some reason.

Thank you so much for your concern. I look forward to a solution soon.

Respectfully,
Kay
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
Kay - thank you for the original, that will help. But you said you added a layer, and what you uploaded is just a JPEG (no layers, plus compression artifacts).

I'm testing on MacOS with a MacPro and MacOS 10.9 and 10.10 (also briefly tested Windows but didn't see a difference). Maybe there is something in the OS version that makes a difference? We'll have to test that. But I'm guessing that it isn't something that obvious.

Yeah, we'd like a solution as well - but so far we've had problems even defining the problem (since we could not reproduce it in our testing). Now we have a few examples of what you're seeing, and we agree that it's bad. But we still can't explain why it happens for you and not for us (though I sent Sohrab a bunch of wild guesses).

You can show previous versions (CC and CC 2014) in the Creative Cloud app and download them - as Sohrab previously mentioned. Don't forget that you may need to change the filter to "previous versions" instead of "all apps" when viewing the app list in Creative Cloud.
Photo of Kay Bradford

Kay Bradford

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you for your response. I understand what Sohrab suggested, but I've had two other people look at my creative cloud app, and neither I nor they can find cc 2014 under any filter, including 'previous versions'. I would happily download it if I could. But as far as any of us can see...it's not an available choice. Hopefully, there will be another answer soon. I am waiting patiently. —Kay
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
Try this help page for installing previous versions: https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-clou...
Photo of Kay Bradford

Kay Bradford

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you so much, Chris! Thanks for being tolerant with those of us who are less technically advanced. I was able to download 2014 with your helpful instructions and I can once again get my work done! Much appreciated. Hopefully, one day, this will get figured out so we can have the best of both versions. Cheers!
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
Did you see my comment about your posted image (that should have included the original image)?
Photo of Kay Bradford

Kay Bradford

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I did, Chris. And I responded with a link to a new file I put up, adding a third layer with the original. Here is that link again, in case you didn't get it: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1...
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 838 Reply Likes
Alright, thanks.
Photo of grauenwölfe

grauenwölfe

  • 216 Posts
  • 84 Reply Likes
Chris, to put this simply; you guys need a technical glitch, malfunction, etc., in order to act? Is that it?
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
No, but we need something specific to act on.
General complaints of "I don't like it" don't help.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Sohrab has admitted the new tool doesn't give the same results as the old tool under certain circumstances. This has presumably been verified by your internal testing or he wouldn't have said it.

THAT IS SOMETHING SPECIFIC, VERIFIED BY YOUR TESTERS

You've replaced tool A with tool B which is SUPPOSED to be an improvement, without first ensuring that tool B will at least do what tool A does.

YOU HAVE REMOVED FUNCTIONALITY AS PART OF AN "UPGRADE"

That's not an upgrade Chris. That's a downgrade for those who need the functionality that's been removed.

Regression testing: it's supposed to verify that new functionality doesn't break existing functionality. Your colleague has admitted that functionality has been removed (effectively therefore, broken) by this "upgrade".

People are only asking for Adobe to reinstate access (via the UI) to functionality that's been removed.

Is that really too much to ask?

And no. You don't need more 'examples' - YOUR OWN TESTING has confirmed that the new tool doesn't replicate the behaviour of the old tool.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
The new tool is not supposed to be bug compatible with the old tool - so it cannot produce identical results (what is the point of keeping all the old problems?). The behavior of the old tool had lots of problems, which the new tool does not have - thus they cannot produce identical results.

And again, you have given just a general complaint and zero specific issues or results that could be acted on.

Without specific, repeatable results that show how the new brush is failing - there is not much we can do.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
What I would like to know is, if there were so many people complaining about the alleged "bugs" in the original tool, where are they? So far there is a huge amount of people here wanting their old tool back, none of which have agreed that, that tool had bugs and wasn't working properly. So who are all of these users that are thanking your team for fixing a "bug"?
Photo of Gregory Katsoulis

Gregory Katsoulis

  • 54 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
I am one of the people who complained about the initial bug, and once it was fixed, I left the conversation until, as I mentioned previously, I returned because of the renewed activity on this thread. I imagine most people, (who are apparently smarter than I am) simply unsubscribed. Why come back to this? I fully regret it.
Photo of Dave Barcs

Dave Barcs

  • 23 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Gregory,
Jocelyn was of course talking about the version 14 original healing brush before Adobe changed it for the new real time version. Chris mentions that this tool had bugs and needed to be revamped hence the need for this new very popular tool. Never seen a reverse troll before :)
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
We had a lot of complaints about the old healing brush in many forums, mostly from professional retouchers/photographers. And it was a frequent topic when we did customer visits.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Oh and we're not professional retouchers and photographers? Our complaints aren't valid?
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Chris, I will call that out also. I am a photographer and retoucher and since the inception of the healing tool I haven't seen ANYBODY complain about ANYTHING on it. NOT ONCE!
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
I'm sorry that you haven't been following all the forums and talking to the thousands of users that we do -- but we have recorded plenty of complaints, and sought to address those issues with the new tool. Again, we simply have access to more information than most users do.
Photo of Sohrab Amirghodsi

Sohrab Amirghodsi, Employee

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi everyone,
I want to start by saying that we are monitoring all your inputs and suggestions [i.e. Legacy checkbox, shortcut for diffusion slider, turning off relatime UI feedback, Legacy check box for some period of time...]. It seems there are some questions/confusions about the number of users that are unhappy with the new healing tools. When we looked at this issue in early December [December 2nd], only 26 unique users out of roughly 60,000 unique healing users had switched to legacy healing. We decided to monitor this board and look for concrete examples where the results were objectionable since there was a way to switch to the legacy tool. Unfortunately, we never received any examples until a couple of days ago [one from Andre Schneider] that can help us see the issue.

We would be happy to look at every case where the results are unexpected. We will need a psd file along one or more simple action recordings of your stroke so we can reproduce the result on our side. Please make sure you have “Allow Tool Recording” on for the action and to activate the brush panel at the beginning of your recording to save the brush state. Please note without activating the brush panel your work is not reproducible [we can not reproduce Andre’s finding on our side].

There seems also to be some confusion about the ability to switch to legacy healing. You can use this link for instructions as how to go back to the old healing algorithm
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/....
Photo of Dave Barcs

Dave Barcs

  • 23 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Did you determine how many users had not upgraded to 2015 because of this issue?
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Everyone upgraded. We just reverted back. So they can't determine actuality of usage by upgrades
Photo of Sohrab Amirghodsi

Sohrab Amirghodsi, Employee

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi Dave, that topic came up but was not something that we could inferred from the analytics.
Photo of Sohrab Amirghodsi

Sohrab Amirghodsi, Employee

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi Jocelyn, we will look into your point but it would be hard to pin point the cause of revert from the its act.
Photo of Stephan Bollinger

Stephan Bollinger

  • 6 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Thank you Sohrab for chiming in. The problem is that your data doesn't show the real issue. First of all - we all know that there are thousands of people out thee who use photoshop but don't know what they are doing. That aside, the real life situation is that many of us retouch for a living, and we don't spend much time with trying to find "the perfect solution", we need to get the job done, and we use whatever we have. I for one have been using the new healing brush "as good as it gets", this doesn't mean I'm happy with it or that it is as good as it was.

Additionally, I'm getting a bit over the huge amount of emails I receive from this forum, the constant back/forth. I don't have time for that. Others are in the same boat, and they can't be bothered to waste time complaining - which - again changes your data dramatically.

Fact is: There is a problem, so let's fix it, and we can all get back to our jobs.
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Hey

Thanks for info. But looking at current way of getting legacy brush working I would just install 2014 as its easier and faster.

If you were to put a Legacy brush tick box or icon and then get statistics out of that. That would tell you the actual numbers of people who are unhappy with the new brush.

Asking artists to mess with config files and stuff will yield very tiny results.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Hi Sohrab, thanks for your input.

Like many others I've simply reverted to CC 2014 as I can't be bothered to mess around with config files.

Also, the fact that only a few people are using the config file doesn't mean everybody else is happy with the new tool - are you sure that every user is fully aware how to use the config file to enable legacy behaviour?

Most people don't read forums or the Adobe blog etc. I bet if you were to do a poll of all photoshop users only a few hundred would even know that this forum exists....

Personally, I think the easiest and most sensible option for Adobe at this point would simply be to include the switch for enabling the legacy healing in the UI.

You don't need to make the new tool work exactly the same as the old tool under all circumstances; just give us a way to access the old tool in the UI and then the new tool becomes an option that people can use if they wish, like the new crop tool etc. etc.

Problem solved :)
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Sohrab,

Why can't you reproduce my results in your end? I was able to reproduce it over and over again here. As a matter of fact, the layers that are on the file were created by running the action and not by me retouching it. And what do you mean by "Please note without activating the brush panel your work is not reproducible"?
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
And I have to say Sohrab, I will challenge your "only 26 unique people switched to the legacy healing". I know of me and another 13 people that did that and none of them are in this discussion here, so I'd bet that there is way more people that did that. And as it was mentioned already, a much bigger number of people installed 2015 and went back to 2014. I'm sure you have those numbers too, do you care to share them with us?
Photo of Sohrab Amirghodsi

Sohrab Amirghodsi, Employee

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi Andre,
The healing result is affected by the brush size, hardness, spacing, angle and its roundness; without invoking the brush panel this will not be recorded in the action and hence the result will be different from machine to machine. The new healing handling of those parameter is different than the legacy healing. Currently we do not heal any transparent area of brush that is less than 127/128. This was done based on users feedback. We can put a shortcut to turn this behavior on/off. This means overly transparent brushes will require more stroking with the new algorithm. On the other hand you do not need to make your brush overly transparent to reduce bleeding like the old legacy brush.
Photo of Sohrab Amirghodsi

Sohrab Amirghodsi, Employee

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi everyone,
The purpose of my post about analytics was not to fuel additional unhelpful arguments. At this point we know some people are unhappy/angry and I am sorry about that and management is aware of it. I am asking to please help us out to sort out the issue and find some form of solution to it. I also did hear that you want some form of UI to enable/disable the legacy healing.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
I think the switch in the UI to enable legacy healing is really the only 'solution' you need to provide Sohrab.

With the best will in the world you're never likely to be able to get the new tool to behave exactly the same as the old tool under all circumstances and there will always therefore be people who prefer the old tool.

Best option all around is to just add a switch to the UI to let them use the old tool when they want to and I expect everybody will be happy :)
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
Steve - you keep saying that, but you haven't provided any evidence about why such a switch is necessary. Exactly how is the new tool failing? You need to provide concrete examples.
The new tool cannot behave identically to the old tool - because then it would have all the same bugs/problems as the old tool, and the new tool was designed to fix all those bugs/problems.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Chris - you're completely missing the point (deliberately I think).

The switch is necessary BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR IT!

You can't just TAKE AWAY a tool that professional retouchers have been using for years and replace it with something different, even if you and the developers think the new tool is better. That's the height of arrogance and a sure way to make enemies of loyal customers, as you seem very intent on doing right here in this thread.

What is the REAL objection to providing a switch in the UI? Because it's clearly not a technical issue.

And by the way, it's not MY job to provide you with test data. I already wasted enough of my unpaid time creating test files for the team in the pre-release process. Sohrab has admitted that the new tool doesn't work the same as the old in all circumstances: that in itself is entirely enough justification for keeping it around so that people who prefer it (as most professional retouchers seem to) can get on with their work without having to fight with a new tool they never asked for and clearly are still not happy with.
Photo of Samoreen

Samoreen

  • 560 Posts
  • 177 Reply Likes
> What is the REAL objection to providing a switch in the UI?

There's a legal issue behind this madness, I take the bet. There's no other possible explanation to this attitude. And I would also bet that the legacy brush will eventually be dropped in a future version.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
A few people are asking for something that makes no sense given the (lack of) evidence. Every added bit of UI and code requires additional work and maintenance - aka added cost. So we'd need a really good reason to add that extra UI and code, and thus far very little reason has been given.

We've done our testing, and had thousands of prerelease users testing as well -- and haven't seen problems.

Give us real evidence of the problems you are seeing.
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
[Profanity is not allowed]
Photo of Stephan Bollinger

Stephan Bollinger

  • 6 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Chris - may I ask what your goal is? You ask for "evidence" and I get a general negative vibe from your comments, while most of us simply want a solution that works, so we can get on with our jobs.

Sohrab's post was positive, he sounds interested to find a solution. That's all we need. I'm not interested in personally coloured opinions, all I care about is getting my work done. The "evidence" is simply that the old tool produces different results than the new tool. No examples needed, it's simply not the same. For those who love the new tool (and all the bugs it fixes): great. For those who were able to produce better result with the legacy tool: Add a tic box to enable it and all is happy.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
How can you find a solution to a problem that hasn't been seen?
First, we need to know exactly what problem you are seeing with the new healing brush. Then we can try to find solutions.
But complaints without specific details are not helping anyone.
Again, we need specific examples and details about the problems you are seeing with the new healing brush.

Without knowing why the new brush is not working, we are unlikely to justify the time and effort needed to add and maintain new UI and code. Again, we must get clear, repeatable examples and explanations so we can figure out the problem and justify the effort.

The vast majority of users are very happy with the new tool - especially calling out that it fixes the problems with the old healing brush.
If you are not happy with the new tool, we need to know exactly why you are unhappy with the new tool.
Photo of Gregory Katsoulis

Gregory Katsoulis

  • 54 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Jocelyn,

You provided an example on a Sunday night, and 2 hours later you are complaining that you haven't heard back yet? Does that seem reasonable?

You are complaining about feedback provided by "professional photographers and retouchers" as if, by mentioning it, there is some implication that you are not a professional. There isn't. You seem to want an argument where there is not one.

By raising the level of animosity you are making it more difficult, not easier, for the Adobe team to address legitimate concerns in a logical fashion.

In short, these sorts of "us vs. them" comments set up an adversarial relationship that is counterproductive for us all.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
Again, comments that are off topic or violate the site terms of use will be deleted. Please keep it civil and stay on topic.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Yet here you are actively on the thread, and I'm not supposed to call out that you're claiming no evidence still when it's right below. Totally unreasonable on my end, right?
Photo of Paul Parkinson

Paul Parkinson

  • 41 Posts
  • 19 Reply Likes
Oh dear. Adobe relying solely on metrics for customer feedback again? This is the same issue which got you into so much trouble with the dogs dinner that was the last release of Lightroom!!

Please. Listen now. We want the option to choose. It's not difficult to understand. There are many ways to achieve results for different things in PS but this doesn't apply here. It's like driving along a road and you have to choose the left fork or the right fork. Except with Adobe you can't. It's always the left fork
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
No, we do not work solely off metrics. But they are a good guide to what is happening (or not).

We really need to know WHY you need such an option. What is wrong with the new healing brush? Where and why exactly is it not doing a good job?
Adding that option is not zero cost - and we need justification for that cost.
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Chris, I sent you guys a file that showed the difference between the old and the new one, and how the new one gives unacceptable results. Even if you couldn't reproduce that via the action (which, by the way, you can't reproduce because you people failed to provide clear instruction on how to record an action the way you needed), YOU CAN STILL SEE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND THAT THE NEW RESULTS ARE UNACCEPTABLE. So what else do we need to prove?!?!?!
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
Thank you for your example Andre, but we need to hear from other users as well.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Ok Chris,
You would like an example? Here you go. I have a link to download a file - unretouched, a recorded action that I've already tested on the file myself for you to replicate, and a hirez of the example of the action which I recorded on 2014's version, and replayed on 2015's version with 3 different points of the dither slider.
The attached photo shows the original image, the heal brush result from 2014, and the 3 different results from 2015. All of 2015's results still show blotching and just plain does not give the result that the original tool did. Please feel free to look at the hirez image in the link to get a closer look, anyone here is welcome to download these examples.
If this isn't example/proof enough, then I don't know what is. This is a prime case that many of us are trying to show you is why the original tool is needed, and this "new and improved" version just falls short, completely. And the way it's falling short is crucial in instances like this.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1...

Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
No, the new tool will not look exactly like the old tool - because the new tool doesn't have all the same defects as the old tool.

What blotching?
What exactly are you seeing in the new tool results that are wrong?

Why did you use different scales and locations for each example? (this makes them almost impossible to compare correctly)

Other significant differences (brush size mostly) between the examples makes them an unfair comparison. And in several cases different locations were healed (or not healed) in the new tool examples - that also makes them useless for comparison.

I cannot reproduce your results with the new tool using the same size brushes as used in the legacy test. In fact with diffusion level 5 and the same brush sizes used for the legacy example, the results are almost identical to your legacy example (both in differences and in direct comparison).
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Oh my god. Okay, great Chris. The reason you don't understand our complaint is because YOU are not a retoucher, so YOU are not going to see what a retoucher would see. Great, awesome, so it doesn't matter if we give you evidence or not. Any other retoucher would know exactly what I meant when I said blotchy.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
And it has nothing with the new tool "not looking like" the old tool. It's about the NEW TOOL NOT REMOVING what it's supposed to. Retouchers need to REMOVE BLEMISHES AND SMOOTH LINES. This new tool DOES NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
Photo of Darius1989

Darius1989

  • 38 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I must say if Chris you cant see the difference maybe put a contrast on it and then all the issues will just pop up... Its very clearly visible in here :Jocelyn Healing Sample Contrasted

Havent looked at the action yet just ss
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
And chris, the "bugs" of the original tool may have been dealt with, but the functionality of that tool was taken with it. Not an improvement, once again, but a step back. I've given examples, others have given examples. You are just being stubborn and refuse to acknowledge this because it's gotten this far and admitting fault is embarrassing at this point
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
The differences in that example are obvious. Unfortuantely they don't match actual results with the tools and have serious problems that make them useless for comparison.

Again, when I used the new healing brush with the same sized brush as your legacy example, and healed the same locations - the result looks the same as the legacy example. But it does not match your examples of the new tool, for the reasons I previously outlined.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
To see the differences, you need to copy the original, position it over the examples (not easy since they are at different scales), set the blend mode to difference (this helps get the position right and show the changes), and possibly enhance contrast with a layers or curves adjustment. That clearly shows what I outlined earlier -- different brush sizes used, different areas healed, as well as the scaling problem that makes them difficult to compare (have to use free transform to make everything line up).

The new tool functions similarly to the old one, and heals similarly if used with the same brush tips and healing the same areas. Unfortunately it does not reproduce the examples you showed at all.
Photo of Sohrab Amirghodsi

Sohrab Amirghodsi, Employee

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi Jocelyn
Thank you for the taking time and posting this example. Unfortunately, I can not reproduce your results since brush setting is not saved with the action. I look at "Jocelyn Healing Sample.tif" and noticed the cropping for various images are different. I want to be clear this is a new tool and it will not result in the same outcome for identical setting. One big difference is the new healing brush treats brush transparency differently and that effects the healed region. Jocelyn, I appreciate it if you mark 3 regions in your original image that you feel the new tool does not produce desirable result and I can investigate it. You can contact me directly at tamirgho@adobe.com. For people who may not be aware, we are located on the west cost of US and currently it is Sunday night here and our office is closed.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
The "cropping variation " has absolutely no bearing on what the action did to the FULL IMAGE when I ran the action. The cropping was done, post action, on each image, after the fact, to show the area specifically retouched. If it matters THAT MUCH to you people I will HAPPILY recrop each image so they are EXACTLY the same and you will see that the retouching for the 2015 images are NOT CORRECT, or SMOOTH. Wrinkle lines still show, pimples are still apparent. The tool DID NOT remove what was supposed to be removed. No wonder you two are battling this, because you are developers and not artists so you will NEVER be able to see our perspective or reasons because you will never SEE what we see. This is a horrible lost cause , you two are something else
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
And Sohrab, I followed EVERY step you gave so If there is not an action recorded that is because you failed to include a step. Be more exact in your directions. I saved this EXACT action in 2014 and managed to open it in 2015, surely you developers should be able to as well
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
The scale variation makes the images quite difficult to compare. The differences in brush sizes and areas healed makes the new tool examples useless for comparison.

When I heal the same areas of the original image using the new healing brush and the same size brush as used in the legacy example -- it comes out looking the same as the legacy example, and not at all like your new tool examples.

We have done many comparisons between exact settings and tool usage on the same images -- and have not seen the differences/problems that you claim. That is why we are asking for examples that show the problems that we have not seen during our extensive testing.
Photo of Joe Black

Joe Black

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Chris I don't think you guys are seeing this issue from our perspective. And there seem to be something lost in translation as well.

We're not saying the new algorithm isn't working. We just love the old tool (as buggy as it may seem to you). We got used to it, our business depends on it and we're not able to produce the same results with the new one, hence we're here trying to save our workflow (business).

Nobody's questioning what direction are you guys going. After all, that's entirely on you, it's your software.

But we, as your loyal and paying customers (and I'm pretty sure most of us use your software on a daily basis for more than a decade) are asking you to add the UI switch.

If you want money for it, I can start an online petition through DPreview and Petapixel just for you to see we're not the only ones asking for you to give us the option. I can start a public collection through the media as well.

But get this - this is a very serious issue for us. Our business depends on it, hence your business depends on it - if we're out of business, there's nobody left to pay for your software and improved tools
(Edited)
Photo of Anastasiya Derzhavina

Anastasiya Derzhavina

  • 14 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
As for me, after the latest update CC2015.1.1 (30.11.2015) I'm happy with this new Healing Brush Tool: works fast, I see the process in real time, I can control it in real time and become easier to predict the result.
It took me about a week to get used to the new algorithm completely.
I think it is just a matter of habit.
My personal opinion: perhaps two versions of the Healing Brush tool (new-real-time and old) could be the best decision of such heated debate.

PS sorry for my English.
Photo of Dennison Bertram

Dennison Bertram

  • 6 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
GOOD LORD PEOPLE! My Inbox has blown up over the weekend. @Chris Cox @Adobe Just give these people the option to choose. PLEASE. For heavens sake, it's not even important anymore if the brush is "improved" or not. People want both so give them the option to choose.

ANALOGY:

Photoshop is like a lover (Good lord most of us probably spend more time time with Photoshop than our true flesh and blood companions). And retouching is like making love. In this case, we had our old lover, the one we spent years with, the one that got love handles, wrinkles, and imperfections. We were used to her (or him) and now for some reason, unexpectedly, we broke up and now we have a NEW lover. Bigger this or that. Sexier this or that. And it's fantastic. It's new. It's better in bed. Younger. No wrinkles. No love handles. Firm. It's a new girlfriend/boyfriend. But the truth of the matter is some people aren't going to care that the new lover is younger/hotter/sexier, we miss our old lover. The one we stayed up late nights carefully adjusting our pressure sensitivity with and making actions just the way we liked it. We miss the love handles and saggy parts. The imperfections.

Get it?

Thank you for improving photoshop, of course it's amazing. But for those of us with a relationship with the old photoshop- well, we love new things, but not at expense of all the old ones. So please, just give us a chance to choose.
Photo of Stefano Brunesci

Stefano Brunesci

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Dear Adobe,

This situation is completely ridiculous!

You've added a new tool (maybe good, maybe not) but also taken away a tool that professional photographers and retouchers rely on for their business and have been using for many years.

Sure, there may have been some issues with the 'legacy' tool - it certainly wasn't perfect and did tend to pick up 'bleed' from edges pretty easily - but we were all aware of that and knew how to use the tool to get the results we wanted.

I've tried the new tool with the 'diffusion slider' and while it does a reasonable job most of the time - and does indeed allow you to heal closer to edges, which is nice - the problem for me is that it's not the same as the old tool and the results are IMHO less useful, even after spending (wasting) a lot of time messing with the diffusion slider.

So, what to do?

Clearly the code for the old tool is still there, accessible via the annoying config file hack, so what on earth is your real objection to providing a way to select it via a switch in the UI (as you have done with many new tools over the years)?

I hope you realise that professional photographers and retouchers - the people who pay your wages, by the way - are really massively disappointed with this situation and in many cases, myself included, have reverted to CC 2014 to avoid having to deal with the new healing brush (and other issues).

Looking forward to a speedy resolution of this issue (ie. a switch in the UI to allow me to choose which tool I'd prefer to use).

Thanks in advance
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photo of Jonathan Rice

Jonathan Rice

  • 7 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Sorry, but this thread has become ridiculous. My inbox is chocked full of mostly inane comments, without anything constructive. I'll wait for the next update. Over and out.
Photo of Sven Kovac

Sven Kovac

  • 15 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Forgive me if I am wrong, its hard to read through the deluge of replies before/after deleted comments, but I think the most simple of questions (and therefore answers) which i have seen been asked multiple times and are yet to have to simple and concise answer are:

1. What were the initial problems with the legacy tool (I am in the camp of no major problems and completely familiar and proficient with it)

2. Why can't the legacy tool and the new tool co-exist (check box / drop menu / whatever works )

I don't fear change, I embrace it, the new tool is definitely different and eventually i can get a DECENT result, but this absolutely takes longer than with the legacy tool and overall I feel it does a lesser job of retaining details. I want a tool to clone / heal / match areas with minimal or no diffusion, which I perceive to be BLUR. it might work with solid colour or gradient areas but for skin texture it seems to be inferior. not to mention making a slight error and over brushing even by one pixel and then the whole brushed area being "corrected" and resulting in a ctrl+z and back to the start.

I know this is off topic but seems to reflect on the mentality at adobe but i consistently see people not knowing or realising how to roll back after updates, shouldn't that also be something that is addressed? if there is a large portion of end users who don't understand how to do utilise your software then something is amiss.
Photo of jocelyn

jocelyn

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
No one here "fears change", but you cannot rip out from under your customers a tool they are happy and familiar with, for a tool that doesn't replicate what they're used to. If you want your customers to adapt to a new tool:
#1 - make sure it produces the same effect
#2 - give both options of the tool, so while you're introducing a new one, your customers can still do what they need to complete their work with the tool they are familiar with, while adapting to the new one in their spare time.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
1) in lots of cases the old healing brush left artifacts that were undesirable. In other cases it failed to smooth the area completely and left it looking odd/pitted/lumpy. When healing near the edge of the canvas or selections, it got really bad results. This is why the new tool cannot exactly match the old tool - because then it would have all the same defects/bugs.

2) Why, when the new tool does a demonstrably better job than the old tool?
2a) because more code and UI to support means more effort and more cost to maintain the product. Very few people are complaining about the new tool, and not being very specific about what is wrong with the new tool - well, management is pretty resistant to making changes without reason.
Photo of Joe Black

Joe Black

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Chris I'm a tolerant and patient guy. Believe me - I've been patiently watching as well as quietly participating in this issue here for a while. But man how you start to annoy me with your attitude. Is this what you call a customer's service? You're kidding right? You're trying to convince us that we don't know what we're talking about? That you know what's best for our business? Please, from now on I'm gonna give you my files and you do the retouching since you know best. I challenge you.
Since you're trying to change my business, I challenge you to participate in it as well. Give me your email address and I'll be more than happy to see what you're gonna produce with that new award-winning algorithm that everybody apparently loves.

Practically the only thing you've said to us so here far is - F you, our beloved customers. We know what's best for you and you're here in small numbers, so why should we care anyway? Show us some examples where do you think it's not working. Ha! No no, t's working! Prove me otherwise.

Nobody here cares if and how the new algorithm works. We know it works. It works in many ways (as you like to point out over and over again) better than the old one. Guess what? We don't care. Hooray for those who do. Hooray for those who feel you actually improved it. That's great guys. You made life so much easier for so many. But guess what. You also made life terrible for the others.
I guess you probably know how focus groups work. Every attandee counts for a number of people out there. In most cases hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions of people.
Why do you think it doesn't translate here as well? Do you have statistics on how many users downgraded or haven't upgraded your software yet? It's gonna be probably more than us, here in the discussion, am I wrong?

Man in a world that's been driven by Public Relations, you're playing with a lot of fire, let me tell you.

So like I said before, do you want me to start a money collection through the media for you to add the UI switch?
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
I have no idea what you are talking about because you haven't shown me what you are talking about. We really need to know what you are seeing as wrong - because lots of other people are not seeing anything wrong.

And if you are going to have a civil conversation about this, please don't claim that I said things which I have not said.
Photo of Jack

Jack

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Chris, you HAVE been shown examples, a few times now. You REFUSE to accept them, over and over. Lots MORE people have agreed in this thread that there is an issue with this new tool versus the old tool than there has been "users" backing you up. Quit playing stupid to the mountain of comments and examples people have given. You claim that it would cost more time and money to add the switch back into the program, how much time and money are you wasting arguing with everyone here? Why are only some "professionals" complaints valid (the alleged complaints on the original tool), but every single professional included in this thread complaining that they hate the new tool and would like the ability to use the old tool while still adjusting to the new one not valid to you in the least? Accept that your new "development" is not the success you wanted it to be and show your customers some respect for their profession and requests and give the original tool back. No one else needs to show you a single other example because you have received far more than enough.
Photo of Joe Black

Joe Black

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I apologize Chris. I really do. But it's hard to have a conversation where the one keeps repeating one thing over and over again - to show some examples it's not working properly.
I'm telling you the topic of the conversation isn't that the new tool isn't working properly. It is. Obviously for many people as you claim (you did said that). And that's great.
I'm just trying to clarify that this whole thread / discucssion is that we need the old algorithm somehow back. Preferably differently than via config files, or by downgrading.
Our own businesses depend on the old algorithm. So please don't ask again what we're seing wrong. We carefully designed our workflow with the old algorithm and now you're stepping in and saying it's time to move on. We don't want to move on. We want to choose whether we want to move on or get stuck in the history.

Make no mistake, it was us - your users and customers who helped to build your company. We're still financing it whether you like it or not. We are the one paying for your home, electricity, water. In exchange why do you consider that hard to do something for us? Something we're asking for?
Tell us the pricetag for UI switch and we'll get you the money - if our loyality doesn't seem count as relevant to help this case.
Photo of Erich Saide

Erich Saide

  • 6 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I have to finally voice in on this as Joe Black has and agree with Sven. The new brush is useless to all the photographers I have spoken within my vast network and most have resorted back to using CC2014.It isn't perfect, for sure, but works
The only thing i can see better with the new 2015 is when I tried healing close to edges. I have left it installed alongside CC2014 on one of my machines so I can test and try to use it when I have time to waste because you for sure cannot get anything done when working with deadlines using it.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
We have very few examples showing problems after the bug fixes. And some of those examples can't be reproduced (ie: don't show actual results of the tools in question).

We haven't seen problems, but you said you have seen problems -- so show us the problems so we have some idea what you are seeing/talking about.

If the new tool is working properly, then there is no need for the old tool, or a switch. Why would we spend all that effort/cost on something that is not needed?

Please, show us what you are seeing. Tell us exactly what you prefer about the old tool or find problematic with the new tool. There could be a bug to be fixed, or there could be a problem with the algorithm. But we don't know, because you won't show us the problem you are seeing.

Without specific examples, Photoshop is unlikely to change the code or UI.
If you can provide examples showing actual, reproducible problems - then we have a reason to make a change. But we really need those specific examples.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
We really want to understand the problem that you are seeing.
But we are not seeing a problem, so we really, really need examples from you showing the specific problem and how to reproduce it.

And yes, one of the examples posted had too many problems to be useful for a comparison.
Photo of Jack

Jack

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
YOU are the only ones not seeing a problem. Everyone here see's a problem, which is what brought them here, and see's the problem in the examples given that you flat out refuse to accept.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
A lot of users are also not seeing problems (most of them, in fact). So show us what you are seeing. So far we only have one example that shows real problems, and we can't reproduce the results yet.
Obviously, you are seeing something different from what we see - and we need to know what you see, then figure out why you are seeing something different.
Photo of Paul Parkinson

Paul Parkinson

  • 41 Posts
  • 19 Reply Likes
Oh dear. Adobe relying on metrics for customer feedback again? This is the same issue which got you into so much trouble with the dogs dinner that was the last release of Lightroom!!

Please. Listen now. We want to option to choose. It's not difficult to understand. There are many ways to achieve results for different things in PS but this doesn't apply here. It's like driving along a road and you have to choose the left fork or the right fork. Except with Adobe you can't. It's always the left fork
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
Why do you want the option?
What exactly is wrong with the new tool?
Photo of Joe Black

Joe Black

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
We just do, what's wrong with that? It's part of our workflow Chris
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
We cannot justify the cost involved without a good reason. There might be a real problem - but we don't know, because you have not shown us what problem you are seeing.
Photo of Jack

Jack

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
It has been stated to you on multiple occasions what is wrong with the new tool. It has been shown to you with photos for a side by side comparison what is wrong with the new tool. You have been given actions you refuse to accept, what is wrong with the new tool. You have been given an insane amount of statements what is wrong with the new tool. All of these things have been repeatedly given to you. Stop saying you need evidence, when you have had countless evidence handed to you, and you refuse it.
The new tool doesn't work like the old tool - the old tool PROPERLY smoothed out whatever it is we're using it for. Flawlessly. The new tool is not doing that. You have been given photo samples of this. More than once. How many other explanations and unhappy customers do you need to convince you? This has been an ongoing battle for how long now, obviously the new tool is not working to the capacity it needs to for a lot of people. Your stubbornness to accept that does not make the new tool suddenly amazing and work properly. You have wasted more time and energy battling this than you would have, had you and your team done what was promised months ago and allow users to use the old version. Why allow users to use old versions of updated tools for everything else except this? There are enough people here telling you the new tool is not functioning properly. Whether or not you claim it fixes "bugs" from the previous one, it does not smooth things out cleanly. It blotches them, it leaves lines. Any amount of "dithering" doesn't help. You managed to put a dither in, how are you able to fit that magically into the UI, but giving the option to switch back to the original tool, which has been part of the program for how long, is now an issue.
What insane amount of grief and displeasure is this REALLY going to cause you to just listen to the swarm of customers asking for this back?
I have a feeling no amount of "evidence" will please you, because no amount of evidence has been good enough for you yet.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
Yes, except we haven't seen such problems. That is why we are asking for examples - so we can see what you are seeing, because obviously you are seeing something different from what we see. We don't know exactly what you are seeing, because you are not showing us what you are seeing.
Photo of Rob Hill

Rob Hill

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
I would also like the option to switch in the old version of the brush. Been using it for years and able to get results with it despite the 'quirks'.

One of the best things you can do in business is to listed (and react) to your customers.....

www.robhillphoto.com
Photo of Joel Baer

Joel Baer, Official Rep

  • 36 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Official Response
When problems like these are encountered with the product, we need to know these things so we can make them better. Thank you all for speaking up.

I will be reaching out to you individually to attempt to retrieve your problematic working files. Having the actual files will help us troubleshoot the issues as fast as possible and get to the bottom of this.

Thank you for your patience, we want to make this better for you!

-Joel Baer
Photo of Steve Brown

Steve Brown

  • 95 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Hi Joel, thanks for dropping in here.

It's not a question of fixing individual issues with the new tool - it just doesn't work the same as the old tool and that's OK.

All people are asking for is a checkbox in the UI to allow them to use the old tool if they prefer, as has been done with many other tools in the past.

Is that really so problematic?
Photo of Stefano Brunesci

Stefano Brunesci

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Hi Joel, check your inbox ;)
Photo of Joel Baer

Joel Baer, Official Rep

  • 36 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Thanks Stefano!
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 907 Posts
  • 261 Reply Likes
I have not done any controlled, side-by-side tests of the old brush and the new. However, my sense of the new brush from the first time I used it was that it was more difficult to avoid blotchy, smudged results.

I retouch auto parts at my day job and both landscapes and skin at home. I've been a Photoshop user since version 2.5 and I've retouched thousands of images, so I think I have some experience to draw upon.

The new brush isn't a disaster but I don't see it being much of an improvement, either.

The bigger concern for me is the direction of product management. Hiding Save For Web, the new flat UI, the Import debacle in Lightroom, the recent metadata bug on Windows 7, the focus on integration with mobile (which many of us don't need), the continued UI problems in Lightroom, the subscription-only purchase model... these are just some examples of changes that seem to be made with everyone but the end users in mind.

I'm sure you've noticed. I've been in IT a long time, as well as being a long-time creative, and I get that some people will always gripe about changes. But the general trend I'm seeing from Adobe isn't good.

Have Adobe's executives noticed what is going on? Adding and improving features is good IF you don't make things worse or kill off established workflows and habits for no reason.

IMHO you are getting about a C- for product management in the last couple of years. Quit making bad decisions and start making better product changes if you must do so.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
We're not seeing "blotchy, smudged" results. So we do need side by side tests/comparisons so we can understand what you are seeing, and figure out why you are seeing different results from what we see.
Photo of Andre Schneider

Andre Schneider

  • 50 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Chris, if you're not seeing blotchy results, you guys either need to get your eyes checked or up your image quality control.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 855 Reply Likes
That's why we need to see examples of what you are seeing - because we are not seeing such problems in our testing (and we do extensive testing).
Other users also aren't seeing that, so we need to figure out what you are seeing, and why. Don't assume that what you are seeing is the same as what everyone else is seeing.