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

Similar Messages

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

Can I delete the original photos that my "non-destrucive" edits were made upon?

My iPhoto libarary is way larger than it needs to be and having a way to remove the original files the non-destructive edits were made would give me around 15 GB of space back. Is this possible?

No
iPhoto is a Digital Assett Manager (DAM) and always keeps the original (the digital negative) - if that is not what you want you need to use a different photo manager
LN

Elements 9, not non-destructive?

I'm using the trial version of Photoshop Elements 9. MacOS X 10.5.8. I imported some test photos from a folder into the Organizer. I rotate the photo, and Elements rotated the actual photo! I can't undo it! I check the file on finder, and it's rotated permanently. Now I never use Elements before, but I have Lightroom. In Lightroom, everything is non-destructive. Why is it not the case with Elements? Isn't this dangerous, the fact that Elements is targeted for lay people? Any other photo organizer program like iPhoto and Picasa are all non-destructive. Am I missing something?
Oh, and I press the Auto-fix, tried to undo it, Elements gave me an error, saying it's not possible to undo. ????

For all edits, Organizer 9 creates a version of your photo.
Rotation may be an exception to this rule. In case of rotation, a new version of file may or may not get created. For rotation, it depends whether your preference "Rotate Jpegs/Tiffs" using orientation metadata" is checked or not, whether the aspect ratio of your images falls in multiples of certain image dimensions or not to meet lossless rotation.
In case of rotating a file using orientation metadata tag, the version would not be created as the rotation of files only happens through metadata and in windows browser, you would see the file unrotated unless your file is read only and a new version has to get created.
Yes, LR and organizer are different. LR does non destructive editing while Organizer creates separate version on editing.
Hope that clears a bit!
~V

Destructive editing problems.

Why have apple made imovie a destructive editing programe? As far as i can tell, the only way to safely edit your movies (without editing the source material) is to copy and paste the movie into your timeline, which chews up hard drive space. What's more... there's no way to add length to a clip (as in the opposite of trimming a clip); if you make a clip too short and save your movie, thats it, it's short for good unless you delete it and start working on that clip again.
If you are trying to edit clips precisely to music, then you really need the functionality of being able to trim and lengthen clips, but imovie makes this even more frustrating because the scrub function doesn't work properly (it lowers the pitch and the play head drags a way behind your mouse) so just when you need to hear when the exact peak of a sound is (so you can put in a perfectly timed transition) all you get is low distorted noise that you can't make out.
So you're left to try trimming tiny bits off the clip until it's exactly right on time... and make sure you don't take too much off... or you'll have to repaste the whole clip and start again!
I know finaly cut has all this awsomeness (for a price that i currently can't afford being a student) but it would be great if imovie could add something like non destructive editing because it's so much more functional. I'm not trying to say that imovie *** or anything... I think it's great to have an easy to use video editor that keeps it simple... but please please Apple make imovie a non destructive editing programme.
Does anyone have any suggestions or workarounds to these problems i've mentioned above? Or does anyone know if there are any plans to add a little more functionality to imovie?
-thanks for putting up with my complaining - Ben.
using imovie 5.0.2
imac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Why have apple made imovie a destructive editing programe?
You are incorrect. Beginning with iMovie 5, the iMovie application uses NONdestructive editing, similar to Final Cut. If you find you have trimmed too much of a clip, you can easily move the playhead to the edge of the clip in the timeline where it will change to an arrowlike icon and you can drag that to either lengthen or shorten the clip. If you have split the clip and deleted the portion you wish to have now, you can click on the remaining clip, go to Advanced and choose 'restore original' and get the entire clip back.
Regarding your difficulty with timing to music, iMovie does have problems with audio and video skipping and stuttering. There is a huge discussion on this topic, with 28 pages of work-arounds written by Karl Peterson. Have a look at this and see if one of his recommended methods will help you.
Find that here: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=534252
Don't worry about complaining a bit.....working with iMovie can be frustrating. That's why these discussions exist

Destructive editting workflow suggestions, please.

Like many, am converting dozens of VHS to digital, but would like to intensely edit them down. Would like to do the final editing with FCE, but its non-destructive editing will clog my HD's with hours of useless footage.
Which app/apps do I use to import from VHS, edit destructively, then export keepers to FCE for final production? I've got the horsepower and would like the final quality to be as good as possible.
Much obliged.

The choice is actually a compromise between your time and how much hard drive space you can afford. And I think you're doubling your work or more if you capture in some other app first if you really intend to use FCE for editing. Personally, I think hard drive space is a lot cheaper than my time.
To import VHS you will need an analog-digital converter (another subject if you need help there). The converters are non-controllable devices which means you have to capture using Capture Now. While you could conceivably jog your tapes back & forth enough to capture individual clips (theoretically saving hard drive space) you will spend an enormous amount of time capturing clip by clip.
It is much much faster, and easier, to capture the entire tape at once (or, say, half a tape ... 60 mins at at time) and then in FCE pick & choose which segments you actually want. Then, if you really want to, you can export your selected clips to QT Movie 1 by 1 (as self-contained QT movies) thereby giving yourself individual clip files of only the material you really want to keep.
There are other apps like Foottrack and iDive that will enable you to capture video but you face the same time issues as you would capturing with FCE or iMovie.

UTILIZING iMovie's non-destructive feature

K, I've seen dozons of post regarding the dislikes and work arounds for iMovie's non-destructive default functionality. However, the true purpose of this feature im yet to take advantage of, and would like to do so if possible.
New to iMovie, just started using it last month. Dig it. I've popped in some sound trax and am now editing the timing of the clips to the music. What Im finding is that I'm left with small gaps of dead space in the timeline pane where I'd like to 'extend' or add the rest of the clip to soak up that .24 sec. (or whatever) between the two clips. Can the non-destructive element 'add' in this missing time from the native clip?
Timing would'nt have been much of an issue if I didn't have to delete transitions constantly to splice in clips n' pic's, which consequently shifted the timing a bit. Now that the montage is done, and the clips are timed to the music, I gotta fix them gaps!
Any help, much appreciated. Thanks all.

pixel punk, the non-destructive editing feature of iMovie isn't really intended to help you 'add' stuff to fill gaps. But it DOES let you re-lengthen a clip that's been shortened. That may be all you need.
Basically, it lets you restore a clip to it's original length (or something less) if you've shortened a clip. So if you change your mind after shortening a clip — even after emptying the iMovie Trash — you can restore the clip to (up to) its original length.
That means that Yes, if you have shortened a clip on either side of a gap you can use Direct Trimming to lengthen the clip to fill the gap. The non-destructive editing feature guarantees that the "stuff" removed from the clip is still there in the clip. You can re-lengthen the clip to get it back.
If the clip hasn't been shortened, then you must fill the gap some other way. If the gap is small, one way is to fill it with a picture of the last frame seen before the gap. Don't use iMovie's Create Still Frame command to fill the gap for the image quality is poor. Rather, use the Save Frame command, save the frame as a PICT, then re-import the PICT back into the project. Use Direct Trimming, if necessary, to shorten the PICT clip to fill the gap.
The gap will look good. If the view notices anything, he will assume the videographer simply paused.
Karl

Is QT Pro a non destructive editor only?

Hi Guys.. I've posted something similar on the Quicktime Forum too, but this is QT Pro so maybe it belongs here..
I have FCS2 on some computers, but not on others (licensing) so I want to use Qt Pro to do simple editing on those.. mainly to cut off extra blank footage when I capture too much from an analog source.. (I'm talking about the Video Transfer to DVD section of my business)
I know how to edit the footage in QT Pro, but even though the finder shows the new duration, and if I import it into FCP it shows the new duration, the finder shows the file size as the original huge size..
Eg. I capture a 30 min tape, but let the capture run for 2 hrs say.. So the DV codec file I have is 25 Gb or so.. I edit it down to the 30 mins, and it shows in Finder as having this new 30 min duration, but the Finder also says the 30 min file is still 25GB.
I understand non-destructive editing in FCP, and one can use Media Management to get rid of the excess footage.. (to kinda make it destructive..?)
Is Quicktime Pro a non-destructive editor only? I'd love it if someone could tell em that it's not... that with a certain quick action or two I could scuttle the excess footage without having to go through an export scenario..
Pete

Just trim/edit as normal Pete, then use "Save As" ... either self contained or reference movie should be fine for your workflow. If you make self contained then you can trash the original capture, if you make it a reference movie then you'll need to keep the original capture.

IPhoto '08 Sort Of Non-destructive!

Hi,
I just noticed something in iPhoto '08. If you edit a photo by moving some of the Adjust sliders around, close the app then reopen it, you'll see that the sliders remain in the positions you left them in. This is REALLY useful because you can always see exactly what you've adjusted about the image, and tweak it if you don't like it.
The same is true of the Effects. If you, for example, set Antique to 9 and Vignette to 7, close the app, then ropen it, you'll see that those numbers are still there. So you can always see what effects you've applied to a certain photo, and how much of each you've used. And, of course, you can dial those effects back down any time you want, if they're too much.
So, this is kind of non-destructive, wouldn't you say? I know that behind-the-scenes, iPhoto '08 is still making Modified jpgs, but any Adjustment or Edit you make to any photo is fully undo-able, even if you quit the app and reopen it. Great!
Message was edited by: Reuben Feffer
Message was edited by: Reuben Feffer

Thanks. Sorry for the post, I just wasn't aware and somehow didn't notice that iPhoto '08 does proper non-destructive editing. Apple should probably emphasise that feature more, because it's really impressive. I always knew you could Revert to Original, but I didn't know all of the Adjust and Effect sliders remembered the exact positions you left them in. Fantastic
Message was edited by: Reuben Feffer

Non destructive editing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for