Removing Distractions - Part 2 - Making a Copy (Page 2): True for PS in LR no need to make a copy cuz it will not allow you change the master! And with cameras creating bigger and...

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

NCMtnMan wrote:

Why would you ever want to work on the original when making a copy is so simple?

True for PS in LR no need to make a copy cuz it will not allow you change the master! And with cameras creating bigger and bigger photos, what a waste of space. Sure space is cheap but still a waste. You doing a wedding and need to offer color, B&W, special crop, etc. That's one copy per.

Joexx

billnikon wrote:

As long as you have your original image protected on your camera's memory card, your fine.

It is not a good idea to use memory cards as long term storage or backup. They are dependable, but hard drives are a better backup medium. Also, always backup to more than one physical device. Any device can fail.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

gvarner wrote:

PS is not destructive and I would go farther and say that no editing program is destructive. Just apply a little common sense and work from a copy of your original, or, like in PS and Elements, save your edited version as a PSD or rename it when you save it to differentiate it from the original...

PS can be destructive or nondestructive. It depends.

If you start with a raw file, PS is nondestructive. It does not alter the raw file. It passes the raw file through ACR, then you do the editing, then you save it either as a jpg or a psd (there are other choices also). The original file is not changed.

If you start with a jpg or a psd, PS will happily overwrite the original if you tell it to save. You can change the name (recommended) or save it in another folder, in which case the original is not altered. But you have to force PS to save the original. PS does not do that by default.

As far as saving a copy of your original, that is always a good idea. Send everything to your archival system before working on it.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

bobmcculloch wrote:

Mrs Murphy's Law is why to make a copy before working on a photo, preferably stored off the computer, in my case on an external drive, if something can go wrong it will. IMHO YMMV

Bang on...

Dik

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

KerryF wrote:

First of all, thank you to everyone for their suggestions on how to proceed with editing my tiger picture. The question that yesterday's discussion raised is why do I need to make a copy before working on the picture? I realize that PS is a destructive program and that makes sense, but I have Lightroom and it is nondestructive so there shouldn't be any need to work on a copy, unless you are being ultra conservative.

Photoshop is not a destructive program by any means. All you have to do is learn how to use the File > Save as command, the Undo command, and the History panel.

dpfoto Loc: Cape Coral, FL

X is the mathematical symbol for the unknown. Spurt is a pressurized drip.
Therefore, an "Expert" is just an unknown drip under pressure. ;)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

russelray wrote:

Photoshop is not a destructive program by any means. All you have to do is learn how to use the File > Save as command, the Undo command, and the History panel.

My point was that you have to know how to use Photoshop to keep it from being a destructive program. It can be a destructive program unless you take action to keep it from overwriting your original.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Nikonnorm wrote:

Hope you don't mind

Looks good.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

KerryF wrote:

First of all, thank you to everyone for their suggestions on how to proceed with editing my tiger picture. The question that yesterday's discussion raised is why do I need to make a copy before working on the picture? I realize that PS is a destructive program and that makes sense, but I have Lightroom and it is nondestructive so there shouldn't be any need to work on a copy, unless you are being ultra conservative.

If you are using LR as a base there is no need to make any copy, not even a virtual copy, as when you hit the open PS command a copy is made automatically and that will become your new image. It will be a PS copy or a TIFF copy depending on what you have set in the software. Everyone does all of this differently, some much more complicated than others. I work in LR and PS. I simply open PS from LR and begin to work on that image, then save it all and it goes directly back to LR as a new image. You can use layers in PS or even work on the original, I do both depending on what adjustments I am making.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Linary wrote:

I have removed the offending twig in your photo using Photoshop. If you would like me to post it, please say.

I did have a go in Lightroom, if anyone says they can do it in Lightroom, ask him to prove it. (It probably can be done in LR, but will take an expert to achieve a decent result.)

I am told that I am an expert, even though I don't generally claim that, and I agree with you. LR is very limited as to what the spotting tool can do. For this type of image it would not work out very well.

KerryF

Hi Nikonnorm,

Very nice job, I'm assuming you used PS too?

It seems, from reading all the responses, that while a number of programs can remove distractions, but when it becomes complicated as with my tiger picture, PS is the way to go and have it look good/great.

greenwork Loc: Southwest Florida

traderjohn wrote:

A lot of people are experts. Just ask them.

Well said and something I'm adding to my stock of observations .....

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

gvarner wrote:

PS is not destructive and I would go farther and s... (show quote)

I'm not sure you completely understand the use of the word destructive in this context. It means that no permanent modifications have been made to the original image file being edited. PS and most other pixel editors are destructive which is why ones needs to make backup copies or convert to a different format to retain the integrity of the original image. Lightroom, DXO Photolab, ON1, Capture One Pro 12 and other raw editors are non destructive because edits are NEVER applied directly to the edited image regardless of the file format being edited. Non destructive software generally has no save option and any edits are automatically retained in a database and/or sidecar files. Edits are only permanently applied to exported versions of the original file, usually in tiff or jpeg formats.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

NCMtnMan wrote:

Why would you ever want to work on the original when making a copy is so simple?

When using destructive software I agree, but for non destructive software its completely unnecessary.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

DirtFarmer wrote:

My point was that you have to know how to use Photoshop to keep it from being a destructive program. It can be a destructive program unless you take action to keep it from overwriting your original.

You can do various things to protect the integrity of the original image, as you mention, but the only reason one has to do that is because PS is destructive. So to suggest that it "can be a destructive program " is not really accurate. PS, by definition, is a destructive editor.