Photoshop's newest terms of service has users agree to allow Adobe access to their active projects for the purposes of "content moderation" and other various reasons. This has caused concern among…
Destructive in that many edits are lossy. Change the transform of an object, then go do a bunch of other edits, and then go back and edit that same transform again. What you’ll be editing now is the edited image, not the original one (as in Photoshop), so there’s massive data loss and it looks absolute crap. If you want to edit with the original image as origin you have to undo all edits back to before you edited the transform the first time.
Non-destructive editing should be coming in the future, and they might have implemented some non-destructive things since I last used it.
Layers aren’t edits, they’re layers. Edits you make to layers or parts of layers. That image whose transform was being edited in my previous example would be on its own layer.
Also, it’s been a while since I used Gimp so I’m going off of very vague memories that I have tried to erase with copious amounts of alcohol.
On second thought, maybe it’s the way I work with layers as well. I tend to keep duplicates of the base image as layers to work with effects and mask them so that I have flexibility with applying them and editing them as needed. Perhaps the benefit of non-desteuctive editing is the same thing as I end up with, but more automated…?
So wait, if you’re editing the original image, wouldn’t the result just be wrong? I’m genuinely confused. You edit something, you want to change that, you should be changing what to you edited it to, right? Isn’t that the only thing that makes any sense, because if you were editing what you had before, the change you make wouldn’t be right in the context of the new edit?
And if you want to keep something, this is why we have layers. Which Gimp has and just works. That’s the real way to do “non-destructive editing”.
Maybe just not understanding how things work in PS because I’ve never used it extensively, but common sense tells me that if you edit something, you want it to look like that and any further edits would be on what you edited it to, not some unknown echo of the past that would interfere with how the image currently looks, which is what you should be editing, right?
You’re right, but you’re missing a key point. Every edit changes the way the image looks. With destructive editing those changes are “baked” into the object you’re changing, and that is data loss. If you want to make a change to that edit you want it to still have the information from the original image so it can be included and changed into the new result you want. Destructive editing doesn’t allow for that. It’s like if you bend a metal wire, you just crumple it up, and then you want to straighten it again - you won’t be able to get it perfectly straight. Non destructive editing does allow for that because it still has the original information, it just doesn’t display it in its original form, it displays it with the edit you’ve made to it, and the edit is “live” so you can change it. It has nothing to do with layers per se, but using layers can be a way to do certain edits in a non destructive way.
If you don’t grasp the difference just open Gimp and do the transform test. Paste an image into a new layer, change the transform and squish it to the extreme (non uniformly), make it a few pixels wide only. Apply the transform. Change the transform again and pull the image out to its original aspect ratio. You’ll have a blurry image because of all the data that was lost in the first edit. Non destructive editing has been like the most requested feature for Gimp for the past forever for a reason.
Destructive in that many edits are lossy. Change the transform of an object, then go do a bunch of other edits, and then go back and edit that same transform again. What you’ll be editing now is the edited image, not the original one (as in Photoshop), so there’s massive data loss and it looks absolute crap. If you want to edit with the original image as origin you have to undo all edits back to before you edited the transform the first time.
Non-destructive editing should be coming in the future, and they might have implemented some non-destructive things since I last used it.
I tried to read up on it, i understand it in theory, but in practical terms I don’t get what’s the difference to just working with layers…
I guess I might have to play around a bit with it to get it? I dunno…
Layers aren’t edits, they’re layers. Edits you make to layers or parts of layers. That image whose transform was being edited in my previous example would be on its own layer.
Also, it’s been a while since I used Gimp so I’m going off of very vague memories that I have tried to erase with copious amounts of alcohol.
On second thought, maybe it’s the way I work with layers as well. I tend to keep duplicates of the base image as layers to work with effects and mask them so that I have flexibility with applying them and editing them as needed. Perhaps the benefit of non-desteuctive editing is the same thing as I end up with, but more automated…?
So wait, if you’re editing the original image, wouldn’t the result just be wrong? I’m genuinely confused. You edit something, you want to change that, you should be changing what to you edited it to, right? Isn’t that the only thing that makes any sense, because if you were editing what you had before, the change you make wouldn’t be right in the context of the new edit?
And if you want to keep something, this is why we have layers. Which Gimp has and just works. That’s the real way to do “non-destructive editing”.
Maybe just not understanding how things work in PS because I’ve never used it extensively, but common sense tells me that if you edit something, you want it to look like that and any further edits would be on what you edited it to, not some unknown echo of the past that would interfere with how the image currently looks, which is what you should be editing, right?
You’re right, but you’re missing a key point. Every edit changes the way the image looks. With destructive editing those changes are “baked” into the object you’re changing, and that is data loss. If you want to make a change to that edit you want it to still have the information from the original image so it can be included and changed into the new result you want. Destructive editing doesn’t allow for that. It’s like if you bend a metal wire, you just crumple it up, and then you want to straighten it again - you won’t be able to get it perfectly straight. Non destructive editing does allow for that because it still has the original information, it just doesn’t display it in its original form, it displays it with the edit you’ve made to it, and the edit is “live” so you can change it. It has nothing to do with layers per se, but using layers can be a way to do certain edits in a non destructive way.
If you don’t grasp the difference just open Gimp and do the transform test. Paste an image into a new layer, change the transform and squish it to the extreme (non uniformly), make it a few pixels wide only. Apply the transform. Change the transform again and pull the image out to its original aspect ratio. You’ll have a blurry image because of all the data that was lost in the first edit. Non destructive editing has been like the most requested feature for Gimp for the past forever for a reason.