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

Question

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.

Answer 1

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