Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Walter Soyka] “A levels adjustment is considered destructive when applied directly to a layer, even though the operation may be undone via the history stack.”
Walter,
Well, one thing that is interesting is that I can’t find the term “destructive edit” at adobe.com except with references to “modifying file information”.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/search/index.cfm?loc=en_us&term=destructive%20edit&cat=support&product=photoshop&self=1
(I didn’t search through more than one page, so I may have missed more)“Non-destructive” editing is used often and interchangeably with phrases like “the original image layer is not altered. You can go back and tweak the adjustments and no image information is discarded.”
So I’m not sure that “destructive editing” is such a widespread term in image editing base on that (very limited) sample. In any case, Adobe seem to be careful about it’s use where they often use “non-destructive” as a term.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “It’s just that the word is already in use in an adjacent discipline in a way you guys don’t like.”
Walter,
I’ve been more or less limiting my thought to NLEs, but actually I am not familiar with exactly how “destructive” is used in image editing – did you outline it? What are the parameters for use? Examples?
Franz.
Edit: for example, I have trouble finding a contradiction of my understanding here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/nondestructive-editing.html -
[Walter Soyka] “From the perspective of the timeline, NLEs lack uncommitted toolsets. Every operation in the timeline is direct and committed (relative to the timeline, not to the media).”
[Herb Sevush] ” … an act is destructive when it limits the future options you have in regards to both the media and its representation in the software.”
Three further thoughts on this.
The first is that this revolves around the idea of a meaningful memory of decisions. Over the course of an 8 month edit, I am not sure that every past iteration of every clip and clip order and fine adjustments and filters and levels etc. necessarily represents a meaningful record (ie. one that can be put to use well). The idea of “versions”, “snapshots” etc. stands at the other end of the scale – in other words, one is an automated recorded of everything, the other is a selective and intentional record of what the editor chooses as meaningful (something she might want to go back to).
Another idea (alluded to by Walter) is the contrast between a trail (an undo stack) and “random-access” uncommitted decisions. One only traces back things in the order you’ve executed them, the other allows you to change any decision at any time. I’m not sure image-editing is a good model for NLEs with respect to the implications of each method.
Finally, as I mentioned before, I think the current nomenclature is important.
If not “committed / non-committed” then “undoable” indicates a certain relationship with things you are doing in the software. “Destructive” indicates an action that affects media files which the software works with. “Recoverable” files indicate OS level or hardware level things you can do for protection. If I think about teaching, these words help someone to understand what is possible and the implications of their actions, and further, a meaningful model of the various levels at which they are interacting with an NLE and computer. The words lead to understanding, in a way that “destructive timeline” simply doesn’t.
Franz.
-
[James Ewart] “Thought… Do you think Apple should be paying us for this?”
James,
I do think there are lots of experienced and thoughtful views, perceptive speculations, and informed critiques in this forum, and I would think all that would be valuable to software designers …
… if that is what you mean.
Franz.
-
[James Ewart] “Is this a tired debate that is done and dusted?”
James,
This has been much discussed, if you’re interested here is one recent thread (audio discussion starts with my first comment there):
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/68781
Franz.
-
[Herb Sevush] ” On the other hand metaphor and analogy are, in every culture I’m aware of, one of the primary tools of human communication, and while less accurate, in some ways, than mathematics and logic, are generally much more fun. When chosen wisely.”
Herb,
I guess I think of analogy as a rhetoric tool (for argument) and metaphor as a literary device (form).
In that framing, analogy is useful where the audience is unfamiliar with the terms or subject at hand, but will inevitably fail under any sort of scrutiny, and thus requires both a charitable reading and that it be abandoned at some point.
Metaphor, on the other hand, is fire.
Franz.
-
[Herb Sevush] “… maybe it was a badly thought out metaphor.”
Herb,
If nothing else, I like to think of this forum as one long demonstration on the weaknesses of analogy in argument. It never disappoints in that respect.
And, also, re: “structure” in NLEs … I wouldn’t want to throw out the baby with the soup. From what I have seen, all of them could use more development in terms of “grouping” clips in the timeline.
Franz.
-
[Rich Rubasch] “Doesn’t the term destructive edit come from the film days when an actual slice was cut from the negative, thereby destroying the original linear piece of film?”
Rich,
It may have, … but my first exposure to the term was via early audio editing (DAW) software; I’m not sure it would have inherited any nomenclature from neg cutting.
Franz.
-
Walter,
I think the distinction you made earlier is something crucial to recognize … the difference between operations on media and internal project operations.
In NLE land, media operations are destructive or non-destructive; internal project operations are something else – let’s say “committed” and “undoable”.
Maybe there are better words, but if I were teaching someone, there’s a meaningful difference to be learned there.
I can’t speak to the Photoshop distinctions, but I am sure they are trying to transmit some conceptual framework that has practical implications.
Franz.
Edit: It strikes me that your Time Machine question reframes things (to a data / OS level) and thus the language is context sensitive – ie. Time Machine is meta to the project and shifting the question there is shifting the frame of reference (against which we measure recoverable / non-recoverable changes).
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I just want to make Franz angry enough to start quoting conversations we had 2.5 years ago.”
Jeremy,
I assure you that my chronic habit is never based on anger.
Franz.
Edit:
[Jeremy Garchow] “Well, I’m a weird one.”
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/25198
(2.5 years ago)