Healing Brush - Clone Stamp Identical
Just checking with others experience. On my iMac On1 PhotoRaw 2021 (just updated) it appears that the Healing Brush and Clone Stamp are identical in operation.
Am I correct? Is this by design? I don't see the point of having identical processes.
I thought that on most other programs that Cloning works by setting a source location and then brushing to clone over a problem area to be edited.
That is great news! I was beyond frustrated.1
I’m glad to hear that the old clone tool will be coming back!1
Thanks guys...10/10 for listening1
Re The Healing Tool vs old Clone Stamp
This is before and after - with the old Clone Stamp this would take two or three strokes to retouch. I have now spent ten minutes and this is the best result I had. All other results did not manage to align tone/color with surrounding area but were at least free of the triangle which is coming from nowhere.
I know the old Clone Stamp is coming back - thanks for that, but the Healing Tool should perform much better in such simple situations, I think.0
I gave up trying to remove a power line and went, after 30 mins to the older 2020.5 version of ON1and removed 3 lines in 5 mins. I haven't gone back to 2021 yet, but will do eventually. I am surprised that there isn’t a rigorous beta testing regime amongst forum users, who seem to be genuine users and interested in the software. Better to have friends testing who want the best for the product.
something to think of out there...1
The current issue with the new cloning tools, is an uncharacteristic miss step by ON1. And looks like it will be quickly corrected, which is much more like ON1's normal behaviour.
In past years there has been a Beta for friends to try out. Unfortunately, there appeared to be some 'not friends' hiding amongst the friends. So, there were also examples of clips of the buggy betas, on such as you tube. Which probably got a lot of clicks and made money for the 'not friends'.
This year there was an Alpha test, but those who signed up had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Which hopefully means there will be less opportunity for some of the 'not friends' to damage ON1's reputation.
However, I can see how this particular mis step could slip through the Alpha test. As the clone tools are actually working quite well, so they would pass.
But, if the Alpha testers happen to only be the kind of people who don't need to do much cloning. Think about people like Scott and Hudson, who work on tripods, and spend ages refining their compositions. They have time and the attention to detail to litter pick and to garden what is in the field of view. Which means they have very little need to clone, and the new tools would be perfect for their needs.
For those who do a lot of layers work, and who work with less attention to detail, (like me), then the new cloning tools aren't good enough.
When ON1 says that they will do something, they tend to keep their word. But, we might have to wait a month or two, because the code has to be changed and then thoroughly tested.0
I fully understand your message but one thing reverberated in my head:
It does not make much more sense to me to release a semi-tested product in fear of a negative action from non-friendly testers.
A couple of times I already started my CaptureOne with a clear intention to step out of the ON1 but C1's workflow is so diverted from my own, to the contrary to ON1 which fits it absolutely, so I still remain with ON1 - but yesterday, after ON1 crashed without saying a single bit on reasons and I lost another ten minutes of my edits, I was everything but happy. My tickets' list has already two pages and there are issues I no longer report. First, I don't want to share my RAW files just to help others do their job perfectly and second, it takes my time. Third, ON1 takes most "fixing" work among all the software I use.
The clone stamp tool issue: sometimes it's not that much about the attention to detail - not always can you decide and select the location. Seems to apply to many here. Look at my recent post - I do not call this to be working (and the picture demonstrates the best result I could achieve). It's like the presentation videos in a TV shop - works on a carefully preselected scene only...
All I want is a software that works. Period.
Don't take me wrong, please, I am not arguing with you, in a hope somebody from ON1 reads it here, I am giving my view.0
No, we are not going to argue over this..
Two days ago, I posted the following, elsewhere on the forums,....
I have been using your products, since before the original version of Photo Raw launched. However, I am now sorry to have to say that the Newly Launched Clone Tools are rather 'limited', (when compared to the original cloning tools which have unexpectedly been replaced), and, (if you read both the Plus Forums and the Support Forums), you will see that this change is upsetting quite a few of your previously loyal and enthusiastic supporters.
For those who only want to tidy up portraits and to complete simple cloning tasks, then the New Cloning Tools are probably good enough. But, for those of us, who edit creatively, the New Cloning Tools are not up to the job. (Ask yourself, how would you remove power and utility lines from an urban landscape?) There is therefore a danger, that some of your currently loyal users may be forced to look for other products.
Please can we have the old, (but very effective and easy to use), cloning tools back in Photo Raw? I recognise that you have probably invested a lot in the development of the new cloning tools.. But, a reasonable compromise might perhaps be to include both the old and the new tools, and to allow your Users the option to select the tools that are most appropriate to whatever cloning needs to be completed.
Best wishes, David Price..."
So, I agree with you that the New Clone tools are not good enough, for what I needed to do with them.
The point that I was making in the reply to John was, that there had been an Alpha test. It is just that sometimes mistakes get made, and faults are missed by the tests. (All humans make mistakes, no one is perfect). My other point was, that there is a strong argument to say that we should be judged on how we react to our mistakes.
ON1 is run by humans, and humans make mistakes. But, they have promised that they will put the mistake right. Which is good enough for me.
Best wishes David Price0
Unfortunately those tools were not finished for alpha testing until the last release prior to the upgrade being release for the public. There wasn't much time to do any testing of those particular pieces of the program.0
Just to say, it is nice to actually get a reply and so quickly. Yes there are glitches, some bigger than others, but some software companies don't care about their customers, in those cases we are just there to be milked. I too could list a number of faults and have done, but I give ON1 credit for listening and caring.
I was quite pleased to get a reply from David. I think we all need to be aware that what he said is true, they are human, but actually are showing they care.0
Nathan posted there is a new release with the old Clone Stamp tool in it.A patch update is now available, it includes the original clone stamp tool.Launch the app and install the update when prompted at launch of download here:https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360048462251-ON1-Photo-RAW-2021-Release-Notes-and-DownloadNovember 17th, 2020ON1 RAW 2021 Photo RAW Update (18.104.22.16894)– Adds back original Clone Stamp tool– Increase font label contrast for readability– Improved support for on-the-fly resolution changes on Windows 10– Performance and stability improvements– Bug fixes0
Thanks everyone for talking up the problems with the clone stamp tool. I installed the patch and it's great to have the old clone stamp tool back!
The program as a whole is also faster.0
Thanks guys...will update today. It will be nice to use the old clone tool again0
Hi David, I appreciate the honesty and openness of your explanation around the clone tool flaw.
Yet, I'd like to add another perspective. The developers and solution designers should never have handled such a fundamental change without a FOCUS on delivering something better than before.
You may know the cost pyramid of error consequences in SW (and other development). The earlier you catch it, the less cost. And really early means design. It is a sign of hubris and ideology to drop a human controlled tool for some fancy AI stuff.
Offering AI powered tools as an additional option is the right thing to do for years to come, I suppose.
Once you are - verbally - able to tell the AI your personal OBJECTIVE of the coming change - and the AI delivers as good as a skilled human would do ... THEN I will revert my judgement, not before.
All organisations are fundamentally under the control of humans, and as humans are not perfect, then neither are the organisations that they create and control.
At that point in time ON1 had made a bit of a mistake. Many organisations would have simply 'circled the wagons' and refused to admit that a mistake had been made. But, ON1 deserves to be given full credit, for the fact that they responded positively to the criticism, and as a result they ultimately came out of the whole situation, 'smelling of roses'.There have also been subtle, but meaningful improvements to the other cloning tools, with the result that Photo Raw Users now have a set of four really good cloning tools to play with. I suspect that this is what ON1 intended to launch all along. But, that perhaps the development process proved to be more complicated than they had originally expected. Maybe dropping the manual tools and replacing them with just an AI based tool, was a panic based reaction to running out of time?
I think that AI based software is both 'the coming future' and a 'necessary marketing tool'. I see it as a marketing tool because it enables people to produce near professional standard results, with apparent consummate ease. Which must help to sell ON1's software to potential new customers?
But, the best of both worlds will always be to have the manual tools alongside the AI tools. Because there will always be situations where the AI will not be able to deliver, and the manual tools under the control of a clever human will be able to deliver.
I have not heard of the 'cost pyramid', but if it is similar to the 'accident triangle' and to 'near miss theories', then it makes sense. The earlier that you realise that you have made a potentially serious error, and take positive action to correct the error. The less costly the error will be. If you persist with a mistake, the bigger mistake that you have made.
However, full credit to all at ON1, they did indeed take the right action, and I look forward to many more years of watching Photo Raw as it develops into an ever better product. :-)0
Please sign in to leave a comment.