Non-destructive editing in Photoshop

[willrudd]

Victoria-
I am interested in learning how to do non-destructive editing in Photoshop. First I need to learn how to handle files as one moves images between LR and PS and ACR. willrudd

 

[Johan Elzenga]

I am interested in learning how to do non-destructive editing in Photoshop. First I need to learn how to handle files as one moves images between LR and PS and ACR. willrudd

In principle, Photoshop is a destructive editor. It changes the pixels in an image. There are some options to work non-destructively however. When you send an image from Lightroom to Photoshop, use 'Edit in - Open as Smart Object in Photoshop'. That will embed the raw file as smart object in the Photoshop file, keeping it intact. If you double click on it in the layers panel, you can edit the settings in Camera Raw. Most filters will be non-destructive if you use a smart object; they become 'smart filters'. However, not everything can be done non-destructively this way. Cloning in a smart object is not possible, for example. If you want to do heavy clone work, you have to accept that this is destructive. You can clone in a new layer, but that is still not really non-destructive: if you change the appearance of the underlying smart object, you probably have to do the cloning all over again.

 

[mcasan]

This is part of why Affinity Photo, Photo RAW, ACDSee, Aftershot and others have come onto the market. They are more or less doing non-destructive raw development plus advanced layers with masks, filters, and adjustments.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

This is part of why Affinity Photo, Photo RAW, ACDSee, Aftershot and others have come onto the market. They are more or less doing non-destructive raw development plus advanced layers with masks, filters, and adjustments.

I'm sorry, but I think that is misleading. Photoshop too has non-destructive raw-editing (Camera Raw). In fact, every raw-editor is non-destructive. And Photoshop has non-destructive layers, masks and filters too. The reason why these other editors come onto the market is mainly because not everybody likes the subscription model and because some of them are ridiculously cheap.

 

[mcasan]

With some of those other products you get one program which provides DAM, raw development plus advanced filters, layers, and effects. To do the same with Ps you need ACR for raw development, and Bridge for a DAM. Typically faster and easier to learn on program than 3.

On has to wonder why the output of Ps is a raw plus sidecar if you gave it a raw file to start with. If that approach works for Lr........

 

[Johan Elzenga]

With some of those other products you get one program which provides DAM, raw development plus advanced filters, layers, and effects. To do the same with Ps you need ACR for raw development, and Bridge for a DAM. Typically faster and easier to learn on program than 3.

Please remember that this is a forum about Photoshop for Lightroom users. Your DAM (and your basic non-destructive editor) is Lightroom. Photoshop is for those things Lightroom can't do. If you don't like that, by all means use something else. But I don't think this forum is meant for that discussion...

On has to wonder why the output of Ps is a raw plus sidecar if you gave it a raw file to start with.

The answer is simple. A non-destructive editor will not write any changes to the raw file, so it has to write the changes somewhere else. Other raw-editors do the same. BTW, if you don't want sidecar files, you can change the Camera Raw preferences so that the changes are written in a single ACR database file.

 

[mcasan]

I typed my previous message. To my knowledge Ps does not offer the ability to write edits as either instructions plus history into a catalog (like default Lr behavior) or as a sidecar (optional Lr behavior). Most of the other 3rd party programs either do a catalog or create their own format of a sidecar.

Well past time for Adobe to address the underlying architecture in these long-in-the-tooth apps.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

I typed my previous message. To my knowledge Ps does not offer the ability to write edits as either instructions plus history into a catalog (like default Lr behavior) or as a sidecar (optional Lr behavior). Most of the other 3rd party programs either do a catalog or create their own format of a sidecar.

It depends on what you define as 'Photoshop'. Camera Raw does both things: it can write the edits (but no history) into a central database, or into a sidecar file. Photoshop itself does not. You are comparing apples and oranges though if you ignore Camera Raw and only want to compare 'Photoshop' to other editors. Camera Raw is an integral part of Photoshop for raw-editing, so if you want to compare Affinity Photo or any other (raw) editor to Photoshop, you have to compare it to the combination Photoshop + Camera Raw.

Well past time for Adobe to address the underlying architecture in these long-in-the-tooth apps.

I ask once again that you do not hijack this thread with anti-Photoshop rhetoric. Feel free to start a new thread on that (but I won't participate).

 

[Victoria Bampton]

I ask once again that you do not hijack this thread with anti-Photoshop rhetoric. Feel free to start a new thread on that (but I won't participate).

No, don't feel free to start a new anti-Photoshop thread... remember, positive atmosphere...

Let's stick to the topic. Will, did Johan's answer help? Can we clarify anything further for you?

 

[mcasan]

My point is Ps does not do non-destructive editing, at least like Lr does. There is no output of a sidecar for a raw file. So know the limitations of all the post processing tools you use.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

My point is Ps does not do non-destructive editing, at least like Lr does. There is no output of a sidecar for a raw file. So know the limitations of all the post processing tools you use.

You are ill informed (and apparently you did not read my answers either). Now let's stop this, please.

 

[PhilBurton]

You are ill informed (and apparently you did not read my answers either). Now let's stop this, please.

And further to mcasan, some of those products you mention won't be around very long. Their extremely low prices show that they don't understand this market very well. Quite likely they will be out of business in several years. The "positive" part is that Adobe apparently does, to some extent.

Phil