I couldn't agree more, I think that pixel editing is too underrated. I agree to do as much as you can in a parametric editor but heavy localised editing is best done in a pixel editor. By using smart objects and layers you don't neet to throw away your original pixels.
Smart objects and adjustment layers are a parametric workflow. You just have a baked file sitting at the bottom of the stack vs a raw.
I agree with Jeff that photoshop is great and much faster and precise for localized editing, but there is a case to be made for an environment where all your data is available to all the tools. People that do heavy dodging and burning, localized color shifts and other such tasks in their raw editor have the unbaked pixels at their disposal. Try this experiment: Process a raw file in lightroom to make it fairly dark, or even black, take it as a smart object into photoshop and then try using the exposure tool (or any other) to get it back to it's original brightness. You won't be able to do it without at the very least introducing banding or some other color issues. Photoshop does not go into the raw data inside the smart object which is less flexible than it could be if more procedural adjustments could be done in lightroom (or if photoshop could have a raw data layer photoshop's tools could access). This problem has been solved in most applications used in the VFX world that cache all the adjustments the user does not wish to constantly re compute and only update when asked. Applications like Mari do this for amounts of data that photoshop simply can't deal with, and nuke or davinci resolve can read raw data and have cache points along the adjustment flow where 80 thousand+ adjustments (I have seen this on a few films in nuke) can be worked with without loosing any interactivity.
I realize photoshop has been architected in an era where the needs were different and that Adobe has to cater to a much broader audience, but some features are useful for everyone. For example if users could import alphas from other applications to be used as adjustment masks, edits could stay in Lightroom which is a nicer environment for photographers to stay in. Which dot does what ? How about letting us name the adjustments if a layer system like the one in CaptureOne is a no go ? Having one source file instead of many is always cleaner and easier on storage and not neglecting key feature performance is also something everyone benefits from.
I remember last year talking to one of the Adobe developers at NAB regarding another popular application they have: After Effects. They have some interesting issues with it that highlight some broad issues with Adobe. For years now, the import mechanism for image sequences has been dog slow. It attempts to list all the images in a sequence vs just showing one file that represents the sequence (something competing tools have done for years). This has every day implications for thousands of users especially if they deal with directories that have multiple image sequences inside of them. OpenEXR files are so slow in after effects that many studios have switched to nuke for tasks After Effects is better suited for just to mitigate the performance issues. A hack tool called immigration that used to sell for 19 dollars fixed the import issues but its silly to have to get a plugin that's basically a properly working import dialogue the host application should provide.
When I physically showed the developer the issue on the machine he was demoing something on, he looked surprised and said "hmm, yea... I will have to bring this up with Adobe" and mentioned that the new bridge like window they were showing could be a candidate for this improvement down the road. I'm sure embedding adobe stock into the applications and making videos pop up when hovering over tools is helpful to some segment of the market, features that the whole market uses (such as open or import) should always be re visited.
Before everyone attacks me for being an Adobe "hater" (i'm not) and for pointing this out, my opinion only echoes a broader one long time users have voiced on various online and offline forums. This year at siggraph there was some laughter at Adobe's expense during various side events. I have a hard time believing they are not aware of having dropped the ball in some key areas. They have some amazing and one of a kind tools that end up being handicapped by neglected code elsewhere in the application. I hope Lightroom and Photoshop don't go to far down this path and I point this out because I love the products and want to see them continue to flourish.
