JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It can be destructive if you make changes to a photo which can't be modified or reversed. But if you do all of your processing on layers, the original image underneath is not changed and the layers can be modified or even deleted.

Photoguy120

I think the discussion started with where we go from raw. PS raw processing is not destructive, it just has the sidebar. We can agree that making edits to .jpg in PS is destructive.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

You can certainly invoke non-destructive features, in PS, if you're careful.

Photoguy120

It’s not hard to be non/destructive in PS. Have not lost an image because of destructive editing since daughter was in the 7th grade. She is a pediatric hematologist today.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Great examples Bob. Your post process photo is gorgeous. Looks 3D.

Jim

JR45 Loc: Montgomery County, TX

I find it best to archive the RAW files. What I save after PP depends on what I want to do
with to finished pic
If it is to print, I save as a TIFF (Canon PRO-100).
To post as JPG.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

My work flow: Create 3 folders: RAW, JPG, Post Process.

I shoot in both RAW and jpg and use the jpg as web and for mailing sample photos to recipients/client.

I let client pick what photos they want from my resource directory, and then post process the RAW and place into Post Process folder.

All three folders are backed up on 3 different external drives. Never lost any photos x10 years. If I were to lose photos it would be human error.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

As long as you have the original RAW file, you can keep/and or edit to file.jpg.
it's almost halloween.
Take that shote of the wedding presentation shot (with groomsmen, bridesmaids, etc) and play
Make all the guys kinda wolfish, the ladies kinda vampirish. Save as filexx2.jpg
Still bored? Add the big red full moon, and some zombie fog. filexx3.jpg
As long as I have the original RAW file, I can do anything, and keep all the original data.
If all I have is the original SOOC, I'm limited to what I can do. Working on somebody else's work.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Only if you save over top of the original jpg, which no one should ever do if they want non-destructive.

That's like setting the camera to F22, ISO 100, F2000 and no flash in dim light then complaining your camera doesn't work right in low light conditions. Actually, it's worse than that, it's like taking pics with your lens cap on, then complaining your camera doesn't work right...

No software I know of forces you to overwrite your files. Some annoying software won't let you overwrite files even if you want to.

It's not the arrow...

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

What you say may be correct in some extreme, but I've yet to find a jpg that I can't fix errors in white balance, and I use exclusively auto white balance.

I like to refer folks to this photo editing session to see what can be done with color cast in a jpg photo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y8YcKnRm0

Sure raw has more editing capability than a regular jpg, but the claims are grossly exaggerated and about non existent if the picture is not extremely out of wack, which doesn't happen often enough with today's cameras to justify raw for the average photo buff.

Some of the false claims that I see all the time are:
...You can't adjust white balance in a jpg.
...If you want to edit, you must take raw.
...Why let your camera make all the decisions for you!
...Jpgs are destructive.
...jpgs throw away most of the data

These are just some of them, there are more. This doesn't mean there is never a reason to shoot raw, or that some folks are wrong to always shoot raw, but this stuff has way too many folks wearing the "I shoot raw" T-shirt.

On the other hand, I guess that's OK if it gets more folks into editing their photo's, considering raw forces one to edit. I'm a big fan of editing, mostly just jpgs for me though. SOOC is boring to me, and raw is overkill 99% of the time.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You can do a little adjustment, but usually with color shifts elsewhere in the image. With raw, you can recover some highlights and shadows not present in SOOC JPEGs, correct exposure +/- about two stops, and get as close to perfect white balance as the light source allows.

The paradox of JPEGs is that the closer to “perfect” you bake them in camera, the MORE latitude you have to adjust them — and the LESS latitude you need!

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Perhaps, but for most jpg photo's, todays editors do all the color adjustments needed, including fixing white balance issues.

What do you say about the jpg editing link I provided?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y8YcKnRm0
This guy took a B&W jpg portrait, and made it a "perfect" color portrait. That is pretty darn "extreme" in my book, and demonstrates that jpg can be edited adequately, with more than "a little adjustment" for most needs. Not saying you want to do this to every image, but fortunately, with today's camera's and jpg editors, you don't have to do all that, but you can.

True enough. Todays camera's make getting a good jpg picture, easily edited by a slew of editors, a rather simple matter. This includes composition, which can also be easily edited to make a ho hum photo shine.

It's also a simple matter to edit a raw file, assuming the right raw format and right raw editor, and enough disk space to store everything, and a good file manager to keep track of all the files and so on. I'm not really against raw, just against the gross exaggerations related to them in this forum.

Photoguy120

Everyone is allowed to determine the quality of their work, the pathway thereto, and the tools whereby that quality is achieved.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

That's a given.

However, once one decides to publicly pontificate the merits of their methods, and recommend their methods to others, then others are allowed and expected to express any opposition to such claims, particularly if those claims are considered false or grossly exaggerated. This leads to endless and interesting discussions on the issues at hand, and is the essence of forums like this.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Ever notice almost every comment begins with " I " ? Different strokes for different folks... No need for pontification as each has its place. Memory is cheap, so do both and have the instant JPEG at hand for the net ( yes, I know, you can just get it from the RAW ), but its not quite as convenient. All the RAW info is there for future use and you can have your cake and eat it too... The fact that you can specify a JPEG picture style when converting from RAW has a certain appeal rather than having the JPEG recorded in whatever style you have prev. specified in camera. Just another opinion... No Preaching involved !