It's worth mentioning as people still don't do it or understand that opening a JPEG and resaving as a copy or a PSD it is not ruining the image.
The initial damage was done. Saving it now as a TIFF or PSD if you must simply reduces more damage from further compression after editing (which itself will produce damage).
Just because you know about something, you think is obvious, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Wreck was written as 'wreck' and 'wreck' referred to the "look of the RAW" and not the RAW file. Because you were not in fact wrecking the RAW image.
As I said, you simply produced an undesirable set of rendering instructions. You didn't wreck anything.
Once again I suggest you try reading posts more carefully and the context in which they were written, I was talking about altering the image to improve it and not about altering the pixels within the image itself.
How do you improve the image without altering the pixels?
But I haven't, in the sense I was talking. I always work on a duplicate layer/file. The original is always there. Just like the original RAW file is always there.
You still don't get the significant difference. The iteration undergoes damage from the original data source if that source is pixels. That's not what happens with Raw rendering.
And once you start to change how the RAW file looks, it is to all intents and purposes no different from editing a duplicate of an original, in that you can always resort to original
You do not alter the Raw, that's the point. And there's a very big difference, the difference being Raw to render, no damage. Alter the rendered image (alter pixel values), damage. Alter pixel value, save a copy, damage to the new saved file. The original rendered image received the damage in the previous step.
Who in their right mind gives a crap about that. I'm producing photographs not measuring the speed of light, where such things are actually important.
People who want to understand that advantages of Raw rendering in terms of speed, control, flexibility and then damage.
As I said above I'm not changing my original, just like I'm not modifying the actual RAW data.
You already altered the original, did you forget about that step?
But whether you alter levels in RAW or with a PSD adjustment layer all that is happening is the image on screen is being altered and not the actual photo underneath.
It is, on the PSD if you print it, or flatten it. So yes, if all you want to do is view the image on screen, you've yet to use the instruction set that defines the adjustment layer to damage the image by altering the pixel values.
I haven't touched the original pixels as such, so no degradation.
The only way to not touch the pixels is to not edit them. Get it?
And again it really doesn't matter, I tweak images to look good and don't care if there may be some rounding error at a level I cannot even detect.
The concept of altering pixel values is something many of us have been doing for a very long time because its absolutely necessary to do. You should still be aware of your actions. If you can render an image and produce the desired color appearance, you're going to be in a lot better shape down the road with that data, then trying to alter pixels which does damage the image (and saving it as JPEG is another insult to injury). Its faster, its more flexible because you can alter the rendering instructions as often as you wish, even AFTER you quit the app (unlimited, timeless history). It means you can build multiple iterations from one data source, that saves a great deal of disk space and file management.
RAW was not such a revolutionary way of working/thinking for me
it was simply an evolution of what I was already doing [I always had an untouched original] and allowed me to do essentially the same thing [even f the computer did it slightly differently], but in a more convienient manner and with more finesse as the editing tools have also improved immensely.
That you believe this makes me believe you don't understand the differences between rendering and pixel correction.
Even so I still put all my images through PS to finish them off as RAW convertors are incapable of getting the look I want. And that not my inability to use the tool, but I use PS only techniques to achieve the image feel I want.
NO one is suggesting otherwise. But use the right tool for the right job. All global tone and color work can and should be done by rendering pixels. Selective editing (pixel editing) is Photoshop's bread and butter. No one is suggestion you should never alter pixels, I've done this to a few since 1990. Unfortunately, some people have been using Photoshop for so long, they see it as their only tool.
As for the never giving the client your RAW files nonsense. And it's only nonsense if you say never and start being absolute about it.
That deserves a big "Duh". Yes, you need to stand your ground and be consistent.
IT also doesn't mean the person who shot the job has to render the Raw data. I can name a heck of a lot of really well known, highly paid and talented photographers who never handle the Raw. That's NOT the same as suggesting they blindly hand off their Raws to their clients, none do. I didn't have to process my E6 film, I had a good lab to do it, but that didn't mean I had to hand off the film to my client to process either.
Like some photographers never printed their own negs, some never touch Photoshop or LR. So, quite possibly it makes no difference to them if a client wants them to hand over the negs/raw files.
Right, so they either have to process the Raw themselves or the only other alternative is to hand off the Raws to the client. Pretty lame analogy.
But if they were giving lots of money to do less work, then why turn it down?
Because the definition of a true professional is, you can't pay them to do a poor job. That's not limited to photography either.