Skip navigation

Clone Tool Stinks:   Do All Agree?

Jul 2, 2012 5:11 AM

  Latest reply: Fazzyphoto2012, Sep 24, 2012 5:52 AM
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 4:50 AM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

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

     

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

     

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 5:27 AM   in reply to AlanUniqueName

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

     

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 6:53 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,388 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 8:18 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

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

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 9:13 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 1:32 PM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    Keith_Reeder wrote:

     

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    * edit using... Photoshop

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

     

    Keith_Reeder wrote:

     

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

     

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

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 3:06 PM   in reply to Butch_M

    Butch,

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

    etc...

     

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

     

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

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 4:32 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

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

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

     

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 4:44 PM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    Fair enough Keith.

     

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

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 6:11 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 6:31 PM   in reply to Butch_M

    Butch,

     

    I think I understand your viewpoint.

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    No comment on modular sales strategy.

     

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

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 6:10 PM   in reply to Butch_M

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    Thanks.

     

    Mark

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 24, 2012 5:52 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    Butch

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

     

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points