Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Though edits are only reversible after closing files because they are non-destructive, not to mention that destructive editing is PS is reversible too though the undo facility [until files are closed]. So hammer has in fact missed the nail and may have even hit the thumb.  .

I have to say I'm a bit baffled by how something so very simple is proving so very difficult. But then Andrew was involved.  
Neither do I think 'non-destructive' is marketing speak or overly dramatic, but a simply an accurate way of describing the activity.
Imagine some photos on slide film that I want to project with a yellow tint - two basic options I project through a yellow filter or I stain the slides yellow. The equivalent in PS is adding a yellow filter adjustment layer or changing the pixels in the layer to be yellowish. With the second options, the film the slide will be stain damaged and with PS the non-yellow pixels will be changed/destroyed. The non destructive option in both cases is removing the yellow filter. Simples.

But when the file is printed or viewed on screen etc, then the image and all the edits to the image being viewed/printed have been destroyed in that printed/viewable version, just like a flattened, saved and closed file in PS, yes I know you can undo stuff in LR etc, but the output file is a fully baked file, no matter what you have used to get to that point - I think that was the sticking point, but we are now clear that 'non-destructive' editing only means the steps of image manipulation that are maintained, it has nothing to do with retaining pixels unchanged in the output file, or being somehow less damaging to their original integrity as they travel through the pipeline to the output file.

There seems to have been a confluence of terminology that has taken place here and lots of people assumed that one thing meant the other, but I for one am now totally clear on what it all means, even though it has taken me a while to see it for what it truly means, I now do, although I imagine the majority of users out there still don't.

I taught computing for many years at Uni up to MSc level and one of the first things I realised, was even if I thought something was easy or obvious because I fully understood it and so couldn't see why everyone else didn't easily understand it, that it doesn't automatically mean it is easy or obvious for other people to understand. We all have different ways of rationalising things in our heads and sometimes even 'clever' people, need the most basic of ideas explaining to them in an easy to understand way until they get it. A lot of lecturers didn't understand this basic tenet of teaching BTW and decided that if you didn't understand something, then it was because you were thick and had nothing to do with how they were unable to explain something in an easily understood way.

Dave

[digitaldog]

Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...

Exactly! And the reason I asked if 'non destructive' editing is about the edits or the results of the edits. Clearly the results and as you point out, now we have degrees of the non destructive editing results. The reason I asked about the JPEG + raw non destructive editing scenario. The results are not the same in terms of the data it would appear but no one as yet has placed that into the increasingly necessarily language of what non destructive means.

Jeff has produced an excellent example of why some feel the term is so ambiguous, to the point one could state: Non destructive workflows are non destructive unless they aren't. Silly!

Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...

So adjustment layers are or are not non destructive? Question isn't addressed to Jeff, but jjj and other's who seem to feel the one sentence explanation from Adobe, or the other equally undefined explanations thus far cover this without a lick of ambiguity?

Dave wrote:

There seems to have been a confluence of terminology that has taken place here and lots of people assumed that one thing meant the other, but I for one am now totally clear on what it all means, even though it has taken me a while to see it for what it truly means, I now do, although I imagine the majority of users out there still don't.

Another Amen to that Brother comment. The reason we got into this rabbit hole in the first place: I asked jjj to define what he's going to mean when he tells me all about Smart Objects and blurted out the non destructive editing language again. As yet, the definition isn't as clear as Adobe's one sentence marking generated language would have some believe!

The plot thickens. The definition of non destructive editing remains spotty at best.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Exactly! And the reason I asked if 'non destructive' editing is about the edits or the results of the edits.

Workflow is not the same thing as the edited result. A particular workflow can be destructive while still being reversible. Of course different workflows can still result in better results for the more destructive workflow (if the non-destructive workflow is worse at getting the desired result).

So it's a lot of play with words, but in the end it's the result that counts to me. I can do things in Photoshop that I cannot achieve in Lightroom, so all of the discussion becomes meaningless pretty soon.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Workflow is not the same thing as the edited result. A particular workflow can be destructive while still being reversible. Of course different workflows can still result in better results for the more destructive workflow (if the non-destructive workflow is worse at getting the desired result).
So it's a lot of play with words, but in the end it's the result that counts to me. I can do things in Photoshop that I cannot achieve in Lightroom, so all of the discussion becomes meaningless pretty soon.

I don't disagree with a single word Bart. I'm more than suggesting using the terminology non destructive is thrown about with no clear definition, it's ambiguous and largely the result of marketing, nothing more. Hopefully if and when jjj gets around to his illustration of how SO's are going to be useful to me and others, and uses the term, he'll fully explain what he's talking about when using it!

[jjj]

I taught computing for many years at Uni up to MSc level and one of the first things I realised, was even if I thought something was easy or obvious because I fully understood it and so couldn't see why everyone else didn't easily understand it, that it doesn't automatically mean it is easy or obvious for other people to understand. We all have different ways of rationalising things in our heads and sometimes even 'clever' people, need the most basic of ideas explaining to them in an easy to understand way until they get it.

Well possibly you [and others] are looking for complexity where there is none and that's the problem. I've explained this to non-computer people and it's not been an issue.

But when the file is printed or viewed on screen etc, then the image and all the edits to the image being viewed/printed have been destroyed in that printed/viewable version, just like a flattened, saved and closed file in PS, yes I know you can undo stuff in LR etc, but the output file is a fully baked file, no matter what you have used to get to that point - I think that was the sticking point, but we are now clear that 'non-destructive' editing only means the steps of image manipulation that are maintained, it has nothing to do with retaining pixels unchanged in the output file, or being somehow less damaging to their original integrity as they travel through the pipeline to the output file.

That's Andrew adding to the confusion there I would say. He can make simplest things incomprehensible.
Also files output from say LR are not like a PS file flattened and closed, it is more like a save as a copy from a PS file that you can re-edit later.

[jjj]

I don't disagree with a single word Bart. I'm more than suggesting using the terminology non destructive is thrown about with no clear definition, it's ambiguous and largely the result of marketing, nothing more. Hopefully if and when jjj gets around to his illustration of how SO's are going to be useful to me and others, and uses the term, he'll fully explain what he's talking about when using it!

Stop wittering on about marketing, it's very tedious and has very little to do with the term which I recall being used a fair bit before ever being used in product literature.

[digitaldog]

Stop wittering on about marketing, it's very tedious and has very little to do with the term which I recall being used a fair bit before ever being used in product literature.

Whether that's a request or a demand, I have no intention of doing so, that's simply my opinion and I'm entitled to it. If you'd spend less time attacking and more creating a salient and well structured definition of the term non destructive editing, you'd be taken more seriously and perhaps, maybe, I'd change my opinion then stop about the marketing hype I today believe to be true. Otherwise you and John simply appear to me as childish poster's who are unable to effectively communicate your POV's and would rather insult and distract from the topic.

Are adjustment layers non destructive? Or is Jeff wrong?

[digitaldog]

Well possibly you [and others] are looking for complexity where there is none and that's the problem. I've explained this to non-computer people and it's not been an issue.

It's the computer literate you're having issue with! And yes, it is complex but if you want to make it silly and ambiguous and simplistic, don't blame others for asking for clarity.

[john beardsworth]

It looks that you're the childish one, Andrew, with your infantile line of argument - and let's add your babyish English ("other's, "poster's" for instance). You're just stamping around and throwing up dust, and it does little for your credibility.

The term's been explained numerous times here - and yet you're still whining that it hasn't! Talk about a dog and his bone.... Sorry, but as a number of posts show, non destructive editing is a reasonably-defined and useful term, whether you like it or not. It walks and quacks.

[Manoli]

Are adjustment layers non destructive? Or is Jeff wrong?

As we're dealing with semantics, what Jeff said was :

Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...

Jeff didn't say they are. Just said they CAN be.
In other words he didn't say much ( or he said both depending on which way you want to interpret it)

--
Question:
I save a new PS file with a bunch of adjustment layers, a clipping layer and a background layer.
No flattening, merging or export.
I save the file.
I re-open the file.
Have any of the original background layer pixels been indelibly changed ?
--

So guys, at what point can we determine exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Short answer : We can't. There ain't no pin-heads in Heaven.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Well possibly you [and others] are looking for complexity where there is none and that's the problem. I've explained this to non-computer people and it's not been an issue.

But did they truly understand what you were telling them, or did they just nod their heads pretending they did. Again having once been an educator, I am fully aware that a lot of learners do exactly that just to satisfy the teacher, or to try and not appear unintelligent.

It looks that you're the childish one, Andrew, with your infantile line of argument - and let's add your babyish English ("other's, "poster's" for instance). You're just stamping around and throwing up dust, and it does little for your credibility.

Come on John, there is no need to get so personal with Andrew to the point where you are nitpicking at his grammatical errors and belittling him, it does no one any good and doesn’t reflect well on you. I believe Andrew is trying (as I have done) to understand what the terminology really means.

If you want to succeed in educating someone, because that is surely what we are trying to do here and on this forum, then the first thing you need is patience and lots of it, because it is so easy for those that know, or believe they know, to think that anyone who dares to question that knowledge, are somehow unworthy of further reasoned explanations and dignified discussion.

Dave

[john beardsworth]

Sorry, Dave, but if he refers to others' arguments as childish then he deserves to get it back - but with hard evidence. Are you convinced Andrew's wanting to understand, or just trying everyone's patience by kicking up dirt? He's been given numerous explanations and any rational person would have said "I see what you mean" long ago.

[digitaldog]

Come on John, there is no need to get so personal with Andrew to the point where you are nitpicking at his grammatical errors and belittling him, it does no one any good and doesn’t reflect well on you. I believe Andrew is trying (as I have done) to understand what the terminology really means.

First off, yes he does have to do this.
2nd, yes, I do want to understand the terminology. And yes there are semantics at play which is critical. This isn't about religion or politics were we can interrupt by bias. It's digital image processing and non destructive can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. We've seen it defined in one sentence and over 19 pages and a lot in between. What I've learned thus far is Non destructive editing/workflows are non destructive unless they aren't.

[john beardsworth]

First off, yes he does have to do this.
2nd, yes, I do want to understand the terminology. And yes there are semantics at play which is critical. This isn't about religion or politics were we can interrupt by bias. It's digital image processing and non destructive can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. We've seen it defined in one sentence and over 19 pages and a lot in between. What I've learned thus far is Non destructive editing/workflows are non destructive unless they aren't.

What we've learnt is that you're unwilling to recognise a duck when it quacks! You've had reasonable explanations, and you're still whining.

[Wayne Fox]

interesting ... I checked out this thread because of the title ... this may be the record for wandering off topic the furthest ...

[jjj]

interesting ... I checked out this thread because of the title ... this may be the record for wandering off topic the furthest ...

Nowhere near Wayne. 

[jjj]

But did they truly understand what you were telling them, or did they just nod their heads pretending they did. Again having once been an educator, I am fully aware that a lot of learners do exactly that just to satisfy the teacher, or to try and not appear unintelligent.

I'm aware of that too, but it is very simple to understand. Well, that's except when someone is muddying the waters as in this thread.

Come on John, there is no need to get so personal with Andrew to the point where you are nitpicking at his grammatical errors and belittling him, it does no one any good and doesn’t reflect well on you. I believe Andrew is trying (as I have done) to understand what the terminology really means.

Well seeing as we are debating semantics, the fact that Andrew often uses words incorrectly is quite pertinent.
As for his trying to understand, somehow I doubt that. Because if he did, then that would undermine a lot of what he has previously written/ranted about [incorrectly] on this subject.

[Fine_Art]

Dave,
I had two reasons for my comment.  People engaged in the ongoing debate will most likely disagree with both.
 
First, I thought the "combative" tone during an off topic discussion of semantics on a photo forum was, a little like kids in the playground kicking sand at each other, just for the pleasure of kicking sand.  Yes, I know.  I'm sensitive. 
 
Secondly, all of this is happening well over 400 posts into a topic about Adobe Creative Cloud's reception/implementation.   Long ago in this thread, long trains of posts went off into new, unrelated territory to the Topic.   The semantics of Destructive/Non-Destructive is the most recent example.   How would anyone browsing the Topic Titles have any idea that there was a "destructive/non-destructive" semantics debate occurring.  None of those searchers will ever get the chance to be either fascinated or informed by the discussion (as you have been), or shake their head as to the uselessness of this back and forth discussion (as I have been).  I say useless because all of the participants in the discussion understand exactly how all the software being discussed works in this regard, so a heated, semantics battle about what to call the software's behavior seems useless to me.

I assumed that if the moderator followed my suggestion and closed this Topic, then one of the participants would open a new topic with a title that somehow remotely identified what was being discussed.   Or one of the participants would come to their senses and start that new topic themselves now.   Focused Topics that more or less stay on track......I think they are a much better way to enable people to come to a discussion of interest, or avoid a Topic of disinterest.

Brad

A mod could also split the whole nondestuctive editing diversion to a new thread.

It seems to me the process is more important than the label. The software can hold the original file with a list of instructions to do on that file. The software may have a built in sequence that is deemed optimal (such as noise reduction is done before deconvolution which is done before, gamma, which is done before curves. The software could also let the user see/modify the sequence to be done. editing and reversing of the editing are done to the list of instuctions, not the data file. These are done to render a result to the screen which the user sees, then finally to the output file. The saving of the file is the saving of the original and the instruction list.

I really don't care what it is called.

[jjj]

The software could also let the user see/modify the sequence to be done. editing and reversing of the editing are done to the list of instuctions, not the data file. These are done to render a result to the screen which the user sees, then finally to the output file. The saving of the file is the saving of the original and the instruction list.

I really don't care what it is called.

How about Bernard? 

[digitaldog]

I really don't care what it is called.

Neither do I (I like Jeff's name). I care about what it's supposed to do! Big difference.