Possible Lightroom feature addition to local adjustments?

[Rand47]

It seems to me that a significant enhancement to Lightroom’s local adjustments would be the ability to make a selection w/ the paintbrush, then invoke a curves panel for that selection only.  Do any of you guys who are “in the know” re the guts and feathers of how Lightroom works know if this is feasible?  If so, has it ever been suggested / considered?

Rand

[Mark D Segal]

I suggested to Adobe ages ago that they considerably expand the capability of the gradient and adjustment brush in Lr by changing the application architecture to include all the develop tools down the right-side strip, so there would not be two different toolsets for with versus without local adjustments. It would work by creating a mask, selecting an option to apply the tools to the masked area only, and then applying all the usual tools one needed. I have no idea whether this would be possible as it was never discussed and never happened. No doubt a large amount of development work.

[adias]

It has long been suggested...

[fdisilvestro]

This capability is right now one of the strong points of Capture one compared to Lightroom

[Mark D Segal]

This capability is right now one of the strong points of Capture one compared to Lightroom

Correct;

And I didn't think I would hear myself saying this, but on reflection: another strong point is the file structure, whereby "Sessions" includes everything to do with how Capture One handles the files. The convenience of this is that we can port Sessions from one machine to another and carry on working as if nothing changed - call it "modular synchronization". This gets around all manner of confusion over synchronizing catalogs back and forth between computers, which in LR is anything but straightforward. If there's one area that gives LR the biggest headaches it's this.

All that said, I still consider LR to be a very strong, capable application and generally agree with Martin Evening's findings, albeit a bit dated now, that image quality and potential image quality from both applications is similar. If he had the time - and these things do consume lots of time, I would appreciate if Martin could update his research into this with the most recent versions of both applications, because I thought his existing research into it was the most logical and coherent treatment of the question I've seen.

[Rand47]

Thanks, All, for the responses . . .

One would think that Adobe keeps an eye on the competition, and hopefully one of these days we'll see something like this. 

Rand

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks, All, for the responses . . .

One would think that Adobe keeps an eye on the competition, and hopefully one of these days we'll see something like this. 

Rand

Sure, but one should appreciate that planning major changes to a software system is an exercise that needs to consider a multi-dimensional set of factors - for example compatibility with existing structures, what the market really wants, the time and cost of designing, implementing and testing major changes, and likely impact on the bottom line. It's more complicated than just focusing on what the other guy is doing. No doubt they do this, but the very fact that these differences in basic design approach have persisted for the number of years that they have in itself tells us more is at play and perhaps not to expect rapid and radical change.

[john beardsworth]

And I didn't think I would hear myself saying this, but on reflection: another strong point is the file structure, whereby "Sessions" includes everything to do with how Capture One handles the files. The convenience of this is that we can port Sessions from one machine to another and carry on working as if nothing changed - call it "modular synchronization". This gets around all manner of confusion over synchronizing catalogs back and forth between computers, which in LR is anything but straightforward. If there's one area that gives LR the biggest headaches it's this.

Maybe Adobe should create a program called Bridge?

[Mark D Segal]

So what's the relevance of Bridge to the specific issue of coordinating Lightroom across computers?

[john beardsworth]

Its handling of that situation is precisely the same as sessions, Mark, except a bit less obscure. You could swap the word "Bridge" for "sessions" in that quote.

[Mark D Segal]

Its handling of that situation is precisely the same as sessions, Mark, except a bit less obscure. You could swap the word "Bridge" for "sessions" in that quote.

I don't see how.

[fdisilvestro]

Its handling of that situation is precisely the same as sessions, Mark, except a bit less obscure. You could swap the word "Bridge" for "sessions" in that quote.

Not quite. Sessions in C1 use the same database file as catalogs, with a predetermined folder structure and uses relative addressing of folder and files. Sessions have also the ability to go directly to the actual folder and work on the images without importing them first (it actually imports the whole folder under the hood), and this is probably why some people confuse this as if C1 was working as Bridge. I personally don't really like this and prefer to stick with the predetermined folder structure and import images into the session.
 
You can have LR work in a similar fashion to sessions, except for the ability to browse folders that have not been imported previously. For instance, if you select "Export as Catalog" in LR and include the negative files, the resulting export is a folder tree which contains all images, previews and catalog, which then you can move to another computer or location. If you keep everything inside this folder structure, then it is equivalent to a session in C1.

[Mark D Segal]

OK, interesting - a seldom discussed process in LR worth knowing for people working between a laptop and a desktop. I see, however, this has nothing to do with Bridge.

[john beardsworth]

OK, interesting - a seldom discussed process in LR worth knowing for people working between a laptop and a desktop. I see, however, this has nothing to do with Bridge.

Yes, it is directly analogous to Bridge. Franco goes into what I called obscure about C1 sessions, but while the mechanism of storing the folder's work in a database within the folder does indeed differ from storing edits in individual xmp sidecar files, the underlying principle of storing work within the same folder rather than a central catalogue is the same. Sure, whether we're talking Bridge or C1 sessions, a proportion of users have always found it much more natural to move folders from machine to machine, and folder-based workflows do also appear more obvious when one's photography consists of discrete sessions or neatly-defined projects. In the long run, compared to catalogues, these folder-base methods sacrifice control over one's entire photography, which some do accept. But don't be fooled - there's nothing that great about C1 sessions.