Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Non-destructive editing is a marketing term that means very little (in reality). ACR/LR are parametric editors that do not apply the settings until a rendered file is created...then the pixels are indeed modified. Are they destructed? Nope...just rendered.

Photoshop can also do a lot of parametric editing when it comes to adjustment layers...like ACR/LR, those edits are applied until flattened...better yet is the ability to use the ACR filter inside of Photoshop proper.

The only "destructive" editing I ever do is trash bad shots...everything else I do I do to an image is designed to improve the image, not degrade it.

Short of downsampling from 16-8 bit or taking a ProPhoto RGB image and converting it to sRGB, there's really nothing in ACR/LR or even Photoshop that is really "destructive", just edit with various sorts of consequences...

Now, if you want to change the term non-destructive editing to something like infinitely re-editable, I'm ok with that. I hated the term non-destructive from the moment I first heard it. It's just a buzzword that is ambiguous not really very useful.

Oh, the people on DPReview seem to like it...does that mean anything?

:~)

Jeff,

I believe I have been saying just that for a couple of years now, a lone voice in the wilderness so to speak, so thank you for finally clearing this up for me after all this time, as I thought there was only me on the planet that could see it this way.

Also here is a link to Adobe's own explanation of what it means by None Destructive Imaging (NDI).

Dave

[Farmer]

Using "Save As" isn't non-destructive, it's just a previous copy.

Non-destructive implies, I believe, that within the image that you are using, you can revert to the original state (pre-editing).  Using Save As doesn't allow you to do that within the image that has been edited.  Save As merely creates a an unedited copy.  Subsequent, edited copies are suffer destruction unless you use a non-destructive workflow (layers, ACR filter, etc).

Is it hype?  Not really.  There is a difference in terms of workflow and file.  It's not difficult and it's also not worth getting hung up about.

1. Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can not be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (which also prevents you *partially* reverting edits).

2. Non Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (and you are not prevented from *partially* reverting edits).

Note that "undo" doesn't apply because it is lost once at a certain number of steps and after closing the file.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

But that isn't non destructive editing, that's reversible editing, which is not the same thing even though people seem to have become convinced that it is.

Outputting the file onto what ever media, will process the image to completion and fully render each pixels and everything you have done to it, just the same as a worked and flattened file, it is just that parametric editing, or using layers and SOs etc, allows you to delay that end point, but the end point (output) is the exact same no matter what method you have applied to the image to get you there.

I think people got caught up in the idea with parametric editing, when they also mistakenly linked it to the term non destructive editing, that they were getting something for nothing, because they could see that the original raw file is still there at the bottom of the stack of edits in LR, so wrongly concluded, that the output file was somehow being fully preserved or remained undamaged from all the edits that you had thrown at it, but it isn't, as the output file has to be fully processed which ever way you come at it. Parametric and raws embedded into SOs and layers etc, are only non destructive if you only ever want to look at the image on your own screen and even then the file still has to be rendered to create a virtual representation of the fully processed output image.

I wouldn't say all this is snake oil, because I don't think Adobe really intended it to be like that, but I think when people heard what they wanted to hear rather than what they were actually being told, I don't think they (Adobe) tried very hard to correct them, it was good for sales and as I have already pointed out in a previous post above, I did say all this two years ago, but nobody wanted to listen.

Dave

[digitaldog]

Using "Save As" isn't non-destructive, it's just a previous copy.

Where in the definition by Adobe do you see Save As not producing and following what they say NDI achieves?: Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data, which remains available in case you want to revert to it.

Non-destructive implies, I believe, that within the image that you are using, you can revert to the original state (pre-editing).

The key word above to observe is implies. In Adobe's definition it implies to me that NDI is editing that doesn’t overwrite the original. And Save As accomplishes that IMHO.

Using Save As doesn't allow you to do that within the image that has been edited.

Correct, but that's not part of Adobe's definition. Hence as written, it's ambiguous. It's qulte largely marketing speak, my only argument with John who feels' it isn't. IF Marketing had done their job properly and had the definition been properly written, there would be no argument in what NDI really is. Took Peter 19 pages to fix what Adobe originally wrote that John feels is marketing hype free.

Is it hype?  Not really.  There is a difference in terms of workflow and file.  It's not difficult and it's also not worth getting hung up about.

I don't agree. The terminology from Adobe is vague and simplistic enough that we've had pages of debate over it's semantics. We see the term used often in various forums without knowing just what the author is implying, the reason I asked jjj when submitting his article.

It's like saying "This is high resolution'? WTF is that supposed to mean? Or "This is accurate color" another pet peeve I have and hate hearing. The more precise the language free from marketing hype, the better it is to discuss and understand what someone is talking about in terms of technology. If someone wants to write "I have a 21MP capture which I feel is high rez", or "the accuracy is within a dE 2000 of 4" the marketing speak is reduced/eliminated as much as possible. We can agree or disagree with the two statements based on language that's free from any hype and/or ambiguity. Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data, which remains available in case you want to revert doens't even start to fall into that camp!

I see that the use of imprecise marketing language from Adobe is enough for John to come to their defence and do so in a rather insulting manor when attempting to support his side. Which is rather  telling.

[Farmer]

Meh, I guess I'm just used to there being a difference between what technical people expect and will consider and then the rest of the world (I'm one of the technical ones) - so I try to take the time to consider it from the other perspective and then I'm usually happy.

Sure, it could be more precise and it may or may not be more precisely defined somewhere in a white paper or internal specs - I've certainly experienced that with Adobe in various programs so I know you have, too! :-)

I just don't think it's such a big deal.  For a layman, the term is pretty easily explained and I think that anyone who uses the workflows can readily identify what is meant, what the differences are, and what the advantages are (versus using Save As, for example).

I don't think anyone should be abusing anyone about it, that's for sure.

If this was a definition being used in an SDK and affecting others who were creating apps or similar to make use of features and they were misdirected, it would be a problem (a big one), but it's not.  Rename it by all means, but, again, I don't think it's too complex or worth getting hung up on.  I don't think it really needed 20+ pages to offer a simple explanation - it took me just a few seconds :-)

[jjj]

A 'Save As' will accomplish the same resluts albeit one with lots of iterations and wasted time. Yes, adjustment layers and such are useful for going back within the editing but calling this non destructive is a marketing hype statement.

It's nothing to do with marketing hype. I refer to it as non destructive editing because that describes what I am talking about, no more no less.
It certainly became a more popular term once LR and similar programmes appeared, but I used it before it ever was used in that context.
If I do some editing in PS and no pixels are actually changed, why is it somehow destructive, just because it's PS [and not LR] which very obviously can do destructive editing, i.e changing pixels with no going back?

As for your constant wittering about 'save as', only a complete eedjit would argue that that is 'non destructive editing' or as Schewe prefers 'infinitely re-editable' which means exactly the same thing.

[jjj]

We see the term used often in various forums without knowing just what the author is implying, the reason I asked jjj when submitting his article.

You seems to be confused in thinking your misunderstanding is a problem the rest of us have with what the term means. Most people grok it, you're the only person I recall having the difficulty with what is quite a simple concept.

[jjj]

Is it hype?  Not really.  There is a difference in terms of workflow and file.  It's not difficult and it's also not worth getting hung up about.

1. Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can not be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (which also prevents you *partially* reverting edits).

2. Non Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (and you are not prevented from *partially* reverting edits).

Note that "undo" doesn't apply because it is lost once at a certain number of steps and after closing the file.

I would clarify and say that if you can revert back to the original image without using undo, then that would the concise description of non-destructive editing.
Which can be done in both PS and LR.

[digitaldog]

I would clarify and say that if you can revert back to the original image without using undo, then that would the concise description of non-destructive editing.
Which can be done in both PS and LR.

So will any application if that's your definition as stated! Open doc, edit all you want, close doc, don't save, undo wasn't used. Kind of pointless and expresses my view as to how ambiguous the term is, even with that explanation (you can revert back to the original image without using undo). Exactly what I did in that example.

You seems to be confused in thinking your misunderstanding is a problem the rest of us have with what the term means. Most people grok it, you're the only person I recall having the difficulty with what is quite a simple concept.

I'm not misunderstanding it at all, I'm illustrating that simplistic definitions have plenty of ways to interpret what the term is supposed to mean. It is why several of us here are upset with both the terminology and how it's 'explained' using simplistic language. I'm sure you can build a sentence or two to define what you mean by non destructive editing such there is no ambiguity. Of like Jeff, come up with a better name than 'non destructive editing' which wreaks of marketing speak (again, my ONLY point).

[jjj]

So will any application if that's your definition as stated! Open doc, edit all you want, close doc, don't save, undo wasn't used. Kind of pointless and expresses my view as to how ambiguous the term is, even with that explanation (you can revert back to the original image without using undo).

What is pointless is your 'reasoning', if it can indeed be called that. Claiming 'not saving' is non-destructive editing is up there with the dumbest things ever posted on the internet. If you haven't saved then you haven't done any editing in the sense that people who aren't being deliberately obtuse mean.
The whole point of non destructive editing is to keep your edits even after saving/closing programme/computer and so on. You damn well know that and are simply flailing around trying to redefine English/argue a bonkers point to defend your silly stance.

Exactly what I did in that example. I'm not misunderstanding it at all, I'm illustrating that simplistic definitions have plenty of ways to interpret what the term is supposed to mean.

No, over various threads you have backed yourself into a corner re PS/smart objects/non-destructive editing/LR etc and are wriggling like a worm on a barbed hook rather than admit you are wrong about something. As I said before don't think your confusion is the norm it simply isn't, I've never had anyone else struggle with this concept like you do. Though I suspect you know exactly what the term is understood to mean and are simply flailing desperately. However if your confusion is genuine, please accept my condolences for your condition.

 

It is why several of us here are upset with both the terminology and how it's 'explained' using simplistic language. I'm sure you can build a sentence or two to define what you mean by non destructive editing such there is no ambiguity. Of like Jeff, come up with a better name than 'non destructive editing' which wreaks of marketing speak (again, my ONLY point).

Objecting to a term because to you it reeks [not wreaks]** of marketing speak is rather pathetic. It's not marketing, it's simply a description for what is is even if it is used [quite accurately] in marketing for many different products. As for Jeff's alternative description, well it means exactly the same thing just with different phrasing. If Adobe had adopted Jeff's description instead, you'd probably claim that was 'marketing speak' too.

**I normally wouldn't correct spelling/grammar etc but seeing as you are banging on about accurate use of language, maybe you'd better start with your own Andrew.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Let's keep it civil, and not personal. The thread has become a somewhat entertaining exchange of thoughts, but it's main purpose seems to be to get another thread about the Adobe Subscription model closed by the moderator ...

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

What is pointless is your 'reasoning', if it can indeed be called that. Claiming 'not saving' is non-destructive editing is up there with the dumbest things ever posted on the internet.

Both your sentence and Adobe's explaining the definition fall into that camp. If you're unhappy with how sentence is read, clarify it!

The whole point of non destructive editing is to keep your edits even after saving/closing programme/computer and so on. You damn well know that and are simply flailing around trying to redefine English/argue a bonkers point to defend your silly stance.

I understand and damn well know what it is supposed to mean, that doesn't change the sloppy marketing speak. Nor how some (as Jeff points out, a few on DP review) read and understand the sloppy ambiguous Marketing Speak.

The whole point of non destructive editing is to keep your edits even after saving/closing programme/computer and so on is a good start in a well defined explanation of what I asked you to define in the first place!

[digitaldog]

Let's keep it civil, and not personal.

I agree. Such language is a sign that the other party isn't able to communicate their POV and have to lower the discussion to this level dismiss their inabilities. Considering this recent 'debate' is on the use of language, I'm not surprised.

[john beardsworth]

Nonsense. It's a sign of exasperation with your inane contributions.

[digitaldog]

Nonsense. It's a sign of exasperation with your inane contributions.

Ah, that's your excuse for behaving less the adult here?

Haven't you got a brain the size of a planet?
Looks like it's you doing all the whining about Adobe's example workflows and who doesn't have the wit to recognise how they're different from Save As. Poor you. Maybe stop chewing gum when you're trying to think?
Time to give your head a quick wobble.
Just because you repeat that doesn't make it any more true, and it may just reveal your own blinkered outlook.

John, we'll never agree with each other on the semantics under discussion here, as I said, time to move on. Unless your tactic is to get the thread closed. I see your frustration, and I know why, your points are pretty weak and I suspect even you realize that. Some here agree with me, some agree with you. Lurkers can examine the language from each side and make up their own minds.

[john beardsworth]

Ooh, aren't we a Mother Teresa! Sorry to disappoint you, but lurkers can readily see that your infantile tactics were designed to exasperate and invited derision. You ask for an explanation, you get one, then you whine that you've not had an explanation.... Here, yet again you bleat that my points were weak, a judgement all the more ludicrous as it comes from someone who makes the moronic comparison between Save As and non-destructive workflows. What are you smoking? What's your problem?

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Ah, I get it. So non destructive editing means, that the history of all the steps you have done to an image is not destroyed and has nothing to do with preserving the integrity of the underlying pixels, as everyone seems to have mistakenly assumed it means.

So if I record an action in PS of everything I do to an image, no matter how much I wang the slide bars around, or pixelate the image, or introduce banding and noise etc, the fact I have retained a record of what I have done via an action, which I can later change, or jump back in time to any point in that editing process on a fresh version of the raw, that I have in fact performed a non destructive edit, even though the image itself might end up being entirely ruined, because the history of how I trashed the pixels, has been retained?

I can see why a lot of people have been confused by this vague and somewhat disingenuous use of terminology.

Wouldn’t it be better to call non destructive editing, something like non destructive history or retained history?

Dave

[digitaldog]

Sorry to disappoint you, but lurkers can readily see that your infantile tactics were designed to exasperate and invited derision.

So you walked into my parlour Mr. fly.
Speaking for other's (Lurkers) again.
Let it go John.

[john beardsworth]

No Dave, it's not so related to history and is not disingenuous.

The term refers to image editing methods that preserve the editability of the object (file, layer etc) that you are working on, by applying your edits as parameters that can be refined or completely-removed in subsequent sessions. Adobe give some examples of PS workflows, and smart objects are a good example in that you can apply transforms, for example, which you can re-edit later. The same would apply to a LR workflow.

Your example might fall inside or outside that definition depending on whether you're baking the results of your actions onto the file that you save. If you're only adding adjustment layers, it might fit inside, but if you're baking your edits into that file's pixels, then you can't remove your edits in subsequent sessions. You'd have to go back to your original and repeat the work with whatever refinements you want to make.

John

[john beardsworth]

So you walked into my parlour Mr. fly.
Speaking for other's (Lurkers) again.
Let it go John.

You're making a fool of yourself, aren't you? It's not only here that your online behaviour has deteriorated, is it? What is your problem?