Destructive vs. non-destructive editing

If I send a sequence from FCP to a multitrack project in STP it will be a non destructive edit. Once I am in STP I right click on a track and select "Open in Editor" to take out clicks/pops, etc. Does opening this track in the editor from STP now change the edit to a destructive edit? I want to edit everything from my FCP project non-destructively in STP. Does creating a multitrack project in STP and THEN opening a track in the editor in STP change this to a destructive edit or is it still non-destructive?

Hi Brian:
I read the manual to see the difference between destructive and non-destructive editing in STP ...
What is STP?
This forum refers to DVD Studio Pro, the app to author DVDs.
FCP (Final Cut Pro is a non-destructive video edition software.
As far as I know iMovie (Apple entry level video edition software) is a destructive editing tool . . . no matter you can use some tricks to avoid source "destruction" (... I have not used it from some time ago).
Please, clarify your post and you'll get an answer for your problem for sure.

Similar Messages

I Dislike the Terms "Destructive" and "Non-Destructive" Editing

Some folks in the Photoshop realm use the terms "destructive" and "non-destructive" to describe ways of using Photoshop in which transforms are applied directly to pixel values vs. being applied via layers or smart filters or smart objects or other means.
Do you realize that the term "destructive" is actually mildly offensive to those who know what they're doing and choose to alter their pixel values on purpose?
I understand that teaching new people to use Photoshop in a way that doesn't "destroy" their original image data is generally a good thing, and I'm willing to overlook the use of the term as long as you don't confront me and tell me what I'm doing when I choose to alter pixel values is "wrong" (or when I choose to advise others on doing so).
For that people who claim editing pixel values is "destructive", I offer this one response, which is generally valuable advice, in return:
Never overwrite your original file.
There. The "destruction" has ceased utterly.
It's common sense, really. You might want to use that file for something else in the future.
If you shoot in raw mode with a digital camera, then you actually can't overwrite your raw files. That's a handy side effect, though some don't use raw mode or even start working with digital photographs.
In any case, when you open your image consider getting in the habit of immediately doing File - Save As and creating a .psd or .tif elsewhere, so that you can subsequently do File - Save to save your intermediate results.
There can actually be many advantages to altering pixel values, if you know what you're doing and choose to do so. But sometimes even the most adept Photoshop user might find that a given step created a monster; that's okay, there's a multi-step History palette for going back. I normally set mine to keep a deep history, to give me a safety net if I DO do something wrong, though I tend to use it rarely.
And for those who would tout the disadvantages to editing "destructively", there can be huge disadvantages to doing it "non-destructively" as well... Accumulating a large number of layers slows things down and can use a lot of RAM... With downsized zooms the mixing can yield posterization that isn't really there, or gee whiz, just TRY finding a computer fast enough to use smart filters in a meaningful way. Just the concept of layers, if one hasn't worked out how layer data is combined in one's own mind, can be daunting to a new person!
So I ask that you please stop saying that the "only" or "best" way to use Photoshop is to edit "non-destructively". There are folks who feel that is offensive and arrogant. I think the one thing everyone can agree upon is that THERE IS NO ONE OR BEST WAY TO USE PHOTOSHOP!
You go ahead and do your editing your way. I prefer to do "constructive" editing.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
-Noel
Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Aegis Kleais wrote:
When you alter image data in a manner that cannot be reverted, you have destroyed it.
Really?
That's one of those things that one is not supposed to question. It just sounds so right!
Problem is, it's insufficient in and of itself, and misleading... It's a rule of thumb that's way too general.
What IS "data" anyway? Arrangement of magnetic spots on a disk? My disk is still whole, so we're not talking about physical destruction here.
One could argue that all the data is all still there in many cases of pixel-value-change editing (e.g., where there has been no resizing). The image file is the same size! Same amount of data.
Upsampling, or making a copy of an image is actually creating more data, not destroying data. Thus there is no general "destruction", but the terms "construction" or "creation" could be used.
But wait, perhaps you're really talking about destroying information, not data... Well...
As it turns out the term "destructive" is still off base. I have altered the information, possibly even adding important information. If I make a copy this is a no brainer. Even if I don't, depending on a person's skill in editing, the altered result could still carry all the original information that was important plus information added by editing, and be quite possibly better for its intended purpose (human consumption) than the image before the edit. That's the goal!
So now we're talking about important information vs. unimportant information. And of course we're talking about fitness for a future purpose.
As with anything, there are multiple ways to get there and multiple ways to interpret the words.
The term "destructive" in my opinion was invented to further someone's agenda.
-Noel

Destructive and non-destructive buffer reads on branch wires

I was asked this morning what are "Destructive and non-destructive buffer reads on branched wires" are.
I was at a loss at first and the I thought some and read a posting by Jim that inspried me.
My first thought was the case of an array wired to a replace array element and an index array function. I that case the the index has to execute before the replace array element because the replace re-uses its input buffer. Not really detructive but seemed close.
There is also the case of a buffer (like a string) being wired into a CIN and the same buffer being re-used be the CIN to return the result. The CIN "destroys" the original values.
Jim mentioned the concatenate string having to destroy the buffer
s hold the strings that are concantenated and moved to another buffer.
Also when I do a AI read the buffer I read from is destroyed after I read it. Similarly with reading from VISA and the like.
What does the above phrase really mean and are there other examples that I have missed?
Trying to learn something here,
Ben
Ben Rayner
I am currently active on.. MainStream Preppers
Rayner's Ridge is under construction

That phrase may have been describing a combination of factors. Documentation from NI points out that if a wire branches, LabVIEW will try to avoid making a copy of the data, including scheduling (as in your example) read operations on branch A before write operations on branch B if possible. Since branch A doesn't tamper with the data, no copy is necessary.
The author of a CIN or DLL could indeed choose to create his function in such a manner that it uses the same physical buffer in memory for input and output. This is by no means the only way to return values from a function, but it's quite common for efficiency reasons. LabVIEW might even assume that a CIN or DLL always overwrites any buffer passed into it (and may therefore make a copy if a wire branche
s both to a CIN and somewhere else).
So to me, the phrase you cited connotes the G compiler's decision of whether or not a wire branch modifies the data (e.g., string concatenation, removing elements from arrays) or just reads it (e.g., an index or input to a calculation).

Bypassing the non destructive editing for emptying trash

Hey.
I am completey at my wits end over this. I have footage imported to three separate imovie projects. I have to try and combine these on the one timeline. However everytime I try to move anything it tells me I don't have enough memory. Fair enough so I empty the trash but it is restoring no memory to my hard drive or iMovie - From looking this up it seems to be because of the non detructive editing feature but I don't want to go back on any cuts or keep anything I've deleted just in case. I really need the space so I can begin to move clips around again and finish the project. Is there anyway of telling the programme to just empty the trash and ignore the non destructive editing feature?

Then I open a new blank iMovie project. I drag the desired clips to that project and save.
That, too, preserves the total lengths of the underlying media clips.
iMovie 5-6 dropped the ability to trim unwanted parts of the media clips. iMovie 1-4 allowed the user to do this at the expense of a more fragile project structure.
The workaround to trim the media clips is to:
1. export to tape and import back. Pros: preserves separate clips. Cons: clumsy & slow. Occasional dropped frames may make the process lossy.
2. export to Full Quality .dv and import back. Pros: No dropped frames -- truly non-lossy. Faster. Cons: clumsy, you have to manually break clips into scenes after import.
Cons for 1&2: effects are permanently burned into the image.
Regarding #2 see also this import shortcut:
http://www.sjoki.uta.fi/~shmhav/iMovieHD_6_bugs.html#quick_DVimport

Any way to non-destructively edit in PSE and save edits ?

any way to non-destructively edit in PSE ? or is this only available in CS and LR ....I would like to use Viveza and to be able to save my edits.
thanks

It is the way Apple has chose to deal with external editor edits.... as I have wrote below in various other threads so no one else has to talk to someone for over two hours on the same thing....
Okay.... so after being on the phone with an Apple senior developer for 2 hrs and 29 minutes, the duplicating of originals has been completely intentional.
Basically, in a nutshell, we have lost the ability to revert back to previous versions of a photo. So, KEEP YOUR ORIGINAL!!!!!!!! Once you make an edit in an external editor, there is no going back unless you go back to the original. There is no reversing any edit in an external edit.
It only makes a copy off the original. So, if you make an edit of an edit, you will only have access to the photo where it is after the second edit. The revert to original does not work on external edits.
I gave suggestions on how to make an original automatically hide or be tagged somehow so it can be hidden and also a check before you delete..... I discussed many different ways of going about this (other than reverting to the way '09 worked)... not sure what they will come up with. But, I played around a lot with this new way of editing... and I could give a full scenario of what is happening with your photos as you edit... but, basically, it seems that Apple has met Windows in this '11 upgrade in that if you want to access different steps of a series of edits, you need to make copies as you go.

Non destructive crop preserved when you "Edit in Photoshop"

I hope that there would be an option in the future to crop an image in lightroom, then when you open to "edit in photoshop" the image would be cropped using photoshop new non destructive crop. So that i can tweak color and retouch the whole image then close and i can do final cropping back in LR.

Sometimes, people crop pictures in LR before making many adjustments just to see if the image works, then go on to the next image etc... then batch export to psd or even edit in PS one by one to retouch. Its painstaking to make a virtual copy, reset the crop, export/edit in psd, then copy the original crop from the master raw, then paste it to the psd file. Another way, adobe can make this work is to have an option to have "Edit in Photoshop" command to not apply the crop from LR. Open the full image, then when it imports it back to LR have LR apply the non destructive crop.

Non destructive editing

Can any of you go into detail all the premise of non destruction editing in
LR? I mean, in the term in which LR goes about edit file. Does this mean
that the original file can 'never' be affected, changed, etc...? How does
one make sure of this?
I do ensure that I have backups, but I felt that I didn't quite understand
'enough' on Adobe's approach to this.
Any other detail in this matter is much appreciated! Look forward to what
some of you have to say on this! Thanks much!

thanks for the info! <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected].. > You seem to have a "lot" of very basic questions. So, you might be best > spending some time reading the material already provided on the subject > rather than asking other users to do the work for you. See the first > article on the linked page > <a href=http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html> > > You should find that some of the other articles address questions you've > already asked, etc

Non-destructive layer mask editing?

I just finished sweetening a mult-layered texture I was creating and suddenly had a thought - I create my texture in overlaid layers so that I can endlessly tweak, and my process is non destructive, but when I create layer masks for each layer, those have to be edited destructively... so I dupe layers in case I decide I want to go back. This makes for lots of extra backup layers.
So - is there some clever way of non-destructively editing a layer mask? It sounds kinda crazy, but would be super cool if there was a feature to have nested layers just for my layer mask.

Well, you could save as alphas, but then you are still doing destructive edits and archiving them. Only now, they are removed from the layers palette, and it would be easier to forget what goes where. If I leave the copies in the layers palette and turn them off, at least I can group in folders or something - I have a clearer picture of what goes with what.

Non destructive editing in ACR.

Many of the promo videos describe ACR editing as being 'non-destructive', is this meant in the way of not destroying the original file in any way, i.e. leaving in in tact, or that the changes made in ACR are not degrading the newly created image as opposed to editing in Photoshop? Is there any way / any Adobe plans to indicate which edits in Photoshop actually degrade the image, however slightly? Maybe for future Photoshop updates there could be an indicator of which edits would have been better to have been done previously in ACR?

Destructive is the wrong word. It gives negative connotations in cases where what is really happening is pixel values are being changed. This is not always a bad thing!
If you paint your house, do you consider that destructive? Sure, you may be destroying its old look, but isn't that the point?
However, the word seems to have stuck, and I guess we have to use it. Sigh.
Always keep this in mind:
Nothing is EVER truly destructive unless you save over your original file.
With some kinds of files, e.g., camera raw .CR2, .NEF, etc., you simply CAN'T save over the original file. With others, TIFF, JPEG, etc. you can - but no one says you have to!
Make a habit NEVER to save over your original file, and you will never destroy your ability to start over again.
-Noel

Non destructive method to edit clips?

Is there a non destructive way to edit clips? I am creating a multi camera edit, and 2 different but synched channels of audio. What i have been doing up until now is simply using the cut tool for deleting sections of the timeline to show or hide one cameras perspective. Already this has resulted in one big mistake where I accidentally cut video I meant to keep.
Seems to me there must be a better way. Can you simply hide sections of video / audio to get the same effect without permanently deleting them from your timeline?
Thanks in advance.
Using premiere pro CC.

If you right-click on any clip in the timeline, you will see the word "Enable" in the menu that pops up, with a check-mark next to it. Uncheck this and the clip will remain in your timeline but won't be visible (or audible).
Alternatively, if you click the eyeball icon to the left of each video track, this will hide the whole track from view.
Also, for multicamera files that are already synced, if you hightlight them all and right click and select "Nest" this will nest them together. Right click on the nested clip and select "Multi-Camera > Enable." Now you can easily switch between cameras. Not sure what computer you use, but you should be able to do this by just hitting 1 and 2 to move between cameras.

Are .jpg images non-destructive editing?

If changes to .jpg's are non-destructive in LR, how can you migrate the changes /w images to another copy of LR on another computer? I've noticed Exporting .jpg's export the changed .jpg's, which must mean that they undergo another round of compression in the copy, no?

I want to straighten up some issues with jpeg files in LR 1.0
1. By importing a jpeg file into LR you will notice that you can use the develop module but certain features are just not as good as they are with real raw files.
White Balance: It's there but without presets and without Kelvin readings. It is still better that everything else I saw so far in other applications to rescue a jpeg file with wrong WB settings applied
Camera Calibration: Only the Embedded Preset is available
Overall the adjustment sliders feel less subtle and precise because there is no additional headroom of 16bit (actually 12bit with most cameras) files compared with the 8bit jpeg offers
2. When you write back changes you have made in LR either by using "Metadata->XMP->Export XMP Metadata to File" in the menu or automatically with the Preference setting "Automatically write changes into XMP" the pixel information of the jpeg is never changed. There is solely an update of the metadata section of the jpeg file. This is what I refer to as 'Non Destructive Editing"
3. You need to use an application which is able to interpret LR adjustments to see changes of the jpeg file you made in the LR develop module. In the moment only LR and Photoshop CS3 beta (using ACR 4.0 ) are able to do that. For all other applications which can display jpeg files the changes are not visible because the pixel information didn't change.
4. If you use the LR Export function in the Library Module you can render a new jpeg file where the changes are reflected in the pixel section of the file. This is of course no longer non-destructive because the original compressed pixel information in the original jpeg file has been decompressed, changed according to the develop settings and then recompressed again in the jpeg format. This is just what you did all the years before with jpeg files.
5. You can also use the LR Export function to export a jpeg file as DNG file. Here it is important to understand that the JPEG file will only be compressed with a lossless algorithm resulting in a file which is roughly 5 times the size of your original file depending on your initial jpeg quality settings. This option allows you to open the file in Bridge/Photoshop CS2 and to see the adjustments there but it does not give you any real advantage compared to 2. if you use CS3 and I don't recommend it in the moment. Perhaps we see here more options in the future.

How can I tell if a non-destructive crop has been applied when opening an image?

I've wrapped my head around how to reclaim the stripped-out portion of an image that has been non-destructively cropped in CS6: click the image with the crop tool, or select Reveal All from the Image menu. Short of doing this every time I suspect that I may have cropped an image, is there anything in Photoshop's interface to tell me at a glance if the image has been non-destructively cropped? I guess I could check the document dimensions in the pop-up status display at the bottom of the window, but I'm looking for something more direct that doesn't make me search.
2009 iMac 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo; OS 10.8.1
Jeff Frankel

If you primarily edit files from a particular camera, then your idea to set the status box at the lower-left to show the image dimensions is a good one - just watch for dimensions that are not the norm.
You shouldn't have to set the readout to Document Dimensions more than once, though... Open one image, set that field to read Document Dimensions, then close the document and quit Photoshop gracefully. From now on it ought to read Dimensions when you open a new document.
I wasn't aware 10.8.1 was out.
-Noel

How do I non-destructively sharpen, re-size and save my images if I'm using both LR & CS6?

Hi guys {and gals}...
Ok... here is my dilemma. I am having an incredibly difficult time understanding the best way to sharpen, re-size and save my images for both posting on the web and giving them to clients. I completed my first paid photo shoot (yay!), but as I finished editing each image, I re-sized it and posted it on my FB photography page. I later learned from a fellow at my local print shop that this is a destructive and irreversible edit (not yay! ).
So... before I pull out every last strand of hair on my head, I REAALLLYYYY need to get a good grasp on how to do the following things so that I can establish a good workflow: 1. Sharpen my image well {w/ Smart Sharpen}. Does this have to be done on a flattened image... and isn't flattening irreversible? 2. Re-sizing my images for both web display and client work/printing. Is it true that once I set it to 72ppi for web display, that I lose a great deal of the detail and quality? Do I need to create a copy of the file and have 2 different image sizes?
I am self taught, learning off the cuff through tutorials and constant error... and I just want so badly to have a smooth and beneficial work flow in place.
Currently, my workflow is as follows... 1. Load images into LR and convert to DNG files 2. Quick initial edit & then send into PS CS6 3. Perform detailed/layered edit(s) 4. {I know I'm supposed to sharpen now, as the last step, but am afraid to permanently flatten my image in case I want to tweak the layers later..} 5. Save the file (unflattened) 6. Go back into LR and Export the file to the appropriate place on my hard drive
So... at this point, my image is still at 300ppi {not appropriate for web display}, unflattened {I'm told flattened images are ideal for client work and printing} and not as sharp as I want it to be {because I don't know when to apply Smart Sharpen filter}.
HELP!!!!!!!
Thanks in adavnce for "listening" to me ramble...
~ Devon

There are a lot smarter guys on this forum than I so will let them give you ideas on the sharpen workflow.
Is DNG the same as RAW in that all the edits are non-destructive? With RAW all the edits are put on a separate XMP file and believe with DNG the XMP file is written to the image. In this case would suggest you save the DNG then create a jpg to send to clients or on web. A jpg will not save layers so it is by its nature flattened.
Since you are new to this try this test to understand ppi. Click on Image/image size.
      Change Document size to inches.
      Now uncheck "unsample image" as if this is checked all the pixels will be modified to adjust to the new size. Unchecked no pixels will be changed.
      Now adjust the resolution from 72 to 300 ppi (pixels per inch). Note that the Image Size in pixels does not change, but the document size changes. This means resolution is unchanged.
      Now click "resample image" and change the resolution. Note how the image size changes and document size stays the same.
Bottom line quality of picture is the image size in pixels. THe larger the numbers the higher the quality.

How to create a non-destructive luminosity/b&w mask for (de)saturation?

Someone asked me this question: CG renders (created in Modo, Max, Blender, Maya, Vray, Octane, etc) can be made to look more realistic by desaturating the colours in the highlights. It was also requested that this move would be done in 32bpc as well (something that is often required in a CG compositing workflow).
This is easy enough to do: create a selection based on luminosity (or a black and white version of the image), and use that as a layer mask in the Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, and turn down the saturation.
However, this is a destructive action: suppose we want to import an external file as a smart object, and then we need the option to have the file automatically update with any change we make to the original artwork.
In that case we would have to recreate that luminosity mask again and again as well.
Ideally, an update of the external file will result in an automatic update of the entire layer stack.
Now, in Photoline this is easy to do:
Since layer masks behave like regular layers in PL, and layers can be virtually cloned (not unlike smart objects), it is a mere case of cloning the original external file layer twice, and adding adjustment layers. Finally, that one instanced layer is used as a layer mask for the adjustment layer that controls the saturation. Done.
Replacing or editing the original source will then automatically update and cascade the changes through the entire layer stack.
This is a very handy technique to have! Since I teach Photoshop classes, I thought this would also be handy to know how to do in Photoshop, and I tried several methods (clipping masks included), but I cannot seem to achieve the same non-destructive result. Clipping masks do not work with adjustment layers. Groups cannot be used as clipping masks. Layer masks cannot reference a smart object.
I have a feeling there ought to be a reasonably straightforward method to achieve this, but how?
Would anyone have a suggestion how to solve this in Photoshop in a non-destructive way?

csuebele wrote:
I'm still not seeing it. Your example does not have a pixel based layer clipped to the group which is causing my problem. I hope I can explain this. See below. the layers in the group create the "mask". In this case a b&w adjustment layer was added to control how the "mask" is converted to b&w. You can see what these layers look like in the mid section top section of the image. any color showing though is from the very bottom layer, as the group has a blend if on it allowing the shadows to come through. The top image has a curve layer with no adjustment, while the bottom image has a curve layer to clip more of the shadows. You can see this change in the upper right corner of both images. The curves are allowing more of the image to be clipped in the area is masked out on layer "Layer 0 copy 1", as more of the color of the base layer is showing though. However, that b&w areas are suppose to be just the mask and you should see the b&w, just color as seen in the bottom image. However, the curves are not changing the transparency in the areas that have the layer to return the color.
I don’t get it – what good is the pixel Layer ("Layer 0 copy 2") clipped to the Group supposed to do? Don’t you want to use the Mask on an Adjustment?
Edit: Maybe this can help clarify how I suppose the issue would be approached.

Non-Destructive Lighting Effects in Photoshop Touch | Learn Photoshop Touch | Adobe TV

Add dramatic lighting effects to your Photoshop Touch images non-destructively. Russell Brown demonstrates a technique for adding lighting to your image using a separate layer – thus allowing for infinite edits.
http://adobe.ly/AmWZ7t

Brilliant series. Love the app on nexus 10.
Many thanks

Destructive vs. non-destructive editing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for