Reading mode: Light Dark

What to save? RAW vs. ?

Go to last post
C

Carl PIesch

Well-known member
Messages
191
Reaction score
0
Location
CA, US
A friend of mine shoots as a stock photographer and has thousands of images from his 1Ds. He converts all his keeper images to Tiffs, and saves those to his 300+ GB Harddrive(s). He dumps the original Raw files. He says he is not interested in the saving HD space by saving RAW only and then converting the needed files at a later date for specific projects...He doesn't wan't to have the "duplicate" files...one raw and then the converted tiff file of the same image. HELP, I'm convinced he's causing himself more work, time, and space than necessary by converting all the files.
IS there a benefit to the way he is doing this???!!!
 
I tend to agree with you about wasting space but as you said he doesn't care. I'd rather save the RAW image plus a small jpeg (to know what was in the archive without having to open up a RAW converter application). This way does create extra work though as I would have to go back and convert the image to TIFF if someone ordered it. Your friends method allows him to just find the file and send it. I'm surprised he's not a little more concerned about space if he only has 300 gigs of storage, that's not a lot. I archive to DVD (tripple redundant backups in different locations) and often keep small jpeg galleries around for a while.

Cheers, Joe
Carl PIesch said:
A friend of mine shoots as a stock photographer and has thousands
of images from his 1Ds. He converts all his keeper images to
Tiffs, and saves those to his 300+ GB Harddrive(s). He dumps the
original Raw files. He says he is not interested in the saving HD
space by saving RAW only and then converting the needed files at a
later date for specific projects...He doesn't wan't to have the
"duplicate" files...one raw and then the converted tiff file of the
same image. HELP, I'm convinced he's causing himself more work,
time, and space than necessary by converting all the files.
IS there a benefit to the way he is doing this???!!!
Click to expand...
--
'Don't play what's there, play what's not there.' - Miles Davis
 
Joe Ciarcia said:
Cheers, Joe
Carl PIesch said:
A friend of mine shoots as a stock photographer and has thousands
of images from his 1Ds. He converts all his keeper images to
Tiffs, and saves those to his 300+ GB Harddrive(s). He dumps the
original Raw files. He says he is not interested in the saving HD
space by saving RAW only and then converting the needed files at a
later date for specific projects...He doesn't wan't to have the
"duplicate" files...one raw and then the converted tiff file of the
same image. HELP, I'm convinced he's causing himself more work,
time, and space than necessary by converting all the files.
IS there a benefit to the way he is doing this???!!!
Click to expand...
--
'Don't play what's there, play what's not there.' - Miles Davis
Click to expand...
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/
 
I tend to make a DVD of RAW files and another of the finished files which I save as PSD's. I use PSD's cuz they're smaller generally and I can save all my adjustment and corrective layers with the file. I can then remove or adjust a file at a later date if necessary. I save the RAW's cuz that way I have the "negative" should I decide I want the image processed differently.

Brian
Carl PIesch said:
A friend of mine shoots as a stock photographer and has thousands
of images from his 1Ds. He converts all his keeper images to
Tiffs, and saves those to his 300+ GB Harddrive(s). He dumps the
original Raw files. He says he is not interested in the saving HD
space by saving RAW only and then converting the needed files at a
later date for specific projects...He doesn't wan't to have the
"duplicate" files...one raw and then the converted tiff file of the
same image. HELP, I'm convinced he's causing himself more work,
time, and space than necessary by converting all the files.
IS there a benefit to the way he is doing this???!!!
Click to expand...
--
Personal Site: http://www.doxphotos.com
 
Carl

First off saving images to a HD only is very dangerous. Backup is essential.

After a long time i finally ended up with a system of storing files that i am happy with.

Let me start this by saying one thing. HD as well as backup media is cheap so i really dont care too much about how much space i use.

I do the following.

When i shoot i almost always shoot RAW+JPEG which generates the RAW file and the JPEG file at the same time.

When i get back i delete the bad ones and store all keepers as they come off the camera in a folder with the date on it. These folders get stored on DVD's as negative backup and are documented in a database.

Then i pick the ones i really like a lot and put them through post processing. Everything is done on the image except for sharpening. This post processed but not sharpened image is saved as filename_PRN.TIF to the name. After that i will resize the file to web size (best fit on 600x600) sharpen and add a copyright message and save as filename_WEB6.JPG.

So at the end i end up with the negatives as well as the processed TIF and webbed JPG. The processed TIF's and JPEGs get stored on a special categorized place and then a web site gets generated from the JPEG's.

May sound like a lot of work but goes rather quickly and i like the way it works now.

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo
 
Wayne, you make a good point. But I think we use RAW = Negative because it's an analogy that is universaly understood. But you are right in the sense that a RAW file is before processing (read conversion) and a RAW file can converted with another or future conversion software that would be like going back and redeveloping film with new chemicals/technique.

In the end, it's a little like saying "time is money". Well, it really isn't if you are a child or if you're retired, but it is an analogy that everyone can comprehend without a great deal of clarification.

How's that for walking both sides of the fence?

Regards,

Joe
Wayne Larmon said:
Joe Hardesty said:
What more can I say.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing people say "RAW is the negative", but isn't RAW more
like freshly exposed film before it has been developed? When it
has become a negative, it already has had some irreversable
processing done to it.

Wayne Larmon
Click to expand...
 
For how long are you planning to keep the files? RAW formats are camera specific. Will there be a RAW converter available for your current camera on the computer platform you are going to use in 10 or 20 years? The TIF format is more likely to be supported in the future.
  • Roey
 
Hi Carl,

Another reason that I would keep the RAW files: is in case you fight a copyright infringement. The RAW file will show that the pic it is yours (at least you have something to start with). Of course, if you registered all your files, then it's not a problem.

Val
Carl PIesch said:
A friend of mine shoots as a stock photographer and has thousands
of images from his 1Ds. He converts all his keeper images to
Tiffs, and saves those to his 300+ GB Harddrive(s). He dumps the
original Raw files. He says he is not interested in the saving HD
space by saving RAW only and then converting the needed files at a
later date for specific projects...He doesn't wan't to have the
"duplicate" files...one raw and then the converted tiff file of the
same image. HELP, I'm convinced he's causing himself more work,
time, and space than necessary by converting all the files.
IS there a benefit to the way he is doing this???!!!
Click to expand...
 
Carl PIesch said:
A friend of mine shoots as a stock photographer and has thousands
of images from his 1Ds. He converts all his keeper images to
Tiffs, and saves those to his 300+ GB Harddrive(s). He dumps the
original Raw files. He says he is not interested in the saving HD
space by saving RAW only and then converting the needed files at a
later date for specific projects...He doesn't wan't to have the
"duplicate" files...one raw and then the converted tiff file of the
same image. HELP, I'm convinced he's causing himself more work,
time, and space than necessary by converting all the files.
IS there a benefit to the way he is doing this???!!!
Click to expand...
Thanks Carl,

Good try, but I still don't hear much reason to keep RAW. One poster made
the point that propriatary RAW files will probably not continue at some
point. I do back up on hard drives and soon will have additional back up on
DVD. I have 800GB of hard drive space but only about 200GB used at this time.

It is the additonal time to manipulate and work with the additonal 14,000
files in RAW that I am concerned about, more than the hard drive space.

I appreciate all the suggestions, but it still seems to be the best for me to process the RAW file, keep the processed file on hard drive, another hard
drive back up and another copy on DVD. These processed files are easy to use,

see quickly in all the present software (ACDSee) etc. And I can make 95%+ of the changes that may be necessary later in PS. This allows me to make large submittals quickly without any additional processing. I know that I am losing the
possibility of later changing the RAW file, but that seems to be a rare
occurance. I process themn in C1 and I have rarely gone back to reprocess any.
And the trade off of having another 14,000 RAW files just doesn't
seem like its worth it.

The guy Carl is concerned about,

Greg Gilman
 
I agree, all you have to do is save a duplicate or triplicate copy of your converter along with your RAW files & you should never be without a converter.
Bern Caughey said:
Roey,

This argument is made all the time & I think it's pure bunk. Photos
are worth money (ask Bill Gates) & there will always be a way to
process old RAWs.

Regards,
Bern Caughey
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike,

Read your thread on RAW Archiving, way neat workflow!
and very similar to my own system.

I shoot NEF RAW then process the files in Nik Capture - really at this stage just weeding out the rubbish and archiving the best ones.

Later on i do pretty much as you have explained, like you storage space is not really a concern, the safety of the RAW files or 'Negatives' is paramount

so i save on an external 'Lacie USB2 HD 80GB', then onto a reference CD-R (not yet sure about DVD-R longevety or support), and then another 'backup' CD-R kept elsewhere.
.
So long as Nikons NEF RAW format is industry supported im ok!

if in later years a 'standard' RAW format emerges and is then dominant - well then i will have a mountain of work to convert from NEF to whatever, uggh..

Funny though my Slide film is archived in a steel cabinet, and is always available - now, tommorow, next year, 20 years etc for digital scanning etc, whatever the file system in current use........

regards Mike..
Michael Salzlechner said:
Carl

First off saving images to a HD only is very dangerous. Backup is
essential.

After a long time i finally ended up with a system of storing files
that i am happy with.

Let me start this by saying one thing. HD as well as backup media
is cheap so i really dont care too much about how much space i use.

I do the following.

When i shoot i almost always shoot RAW+JPEG which generates the RAW
file and the JPEG file at the same time.

When i get back i delete the bad ones and store all keepers as they
come off the camera in a folder with the date on it. These folders
get stored on DVD's as negative backup and are documented in a
database.

Then i pick the ones i really like a lot and put them through post
processing. Everything is done on the image except for sharpening.
This post processed but not sharpened image is saved as
filename_PRN.TIF to the name. After that i will resize the file to
web size (best fit on 600x600) sharpen and add a copyright message
and save as filename_WEB6.JPG.

So at the end i end up with the negatives as well as the processed
TIF and webbed JPG. The processed TIF's and JPEGs get stored on a
special categorized place and then a web site gets generated from
the JPEG's.

May sound like a lot of work but goes rather quickly and i like the
way it works now.

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo
Click to expand...
--
Nature love it or leave it - you cant ignore it.
 
I also shoot a lot of RAW and as of today, this is how it goes. Who knows about tomorrow?

1. This summer I bought an Apacer Steno portable CD writer which was intended to travel, but has since become part of the the workflow. The cards are dumped into a CD-RW in the Apacer and from there, that session on the CD is copied onto the computer(bypassing any card reader). The original CD is unchanged and when that CD is full, it is copied to a DVD-RW and eventually to a DVD-R. So that keeps the originals off and away from any harddrive. Of course, I am always trying to learn about the longevity of the CDs and DVDs---------as much as my nongeekness will allow! I would appreciate any enlightenment.

2. Using an organizing program, the photos are labeled and culled and put in their appropriate folders. Then they are corrected in photoshop, converted into TIFF and live in the main drive until they are copied onto DVD. They are then moved to the backup drive.

There are many people, who at the time of conversion, make a print copy and a web copy---------however, not all photos are printed or put on the web, so I just procastinate and handle that as it comes.

I would appreciate any criticism or opinions............thanks a lot....pat
 
Thanks a lot, Ken. I didn't see any mention of DVDs, which is where everything eventually ends. This stuff is an absolute moneypit!!!!

BTW, why is portrait maker your call name? I don't do much people photography (except candids), but in my previous life I painted watercolor portraits.

Pat
 
One also has to consider whether or not proprietary file formats such as .CRW will be readable in, say, 20 years when they have long since been discarded. Tiff is less likely to sufer from this.

Properly fixed negs obviously are readable for many decades. Raw? hmm....

--
Slane
 
Slane Masda said:
One also has to consider whether or not proprietary file formats
such as .CRW will be readable in, say, 20 years when they have long
since been discarded. Tiff is less likely to sufer from this.

Properly fixed negs obviously are readable for many decades. Raw?
hmm....
Click to expand...
This point has been repeatedly raised and answered. The answer is to put a copy of the RAW conversion program on the backup disk. Windows is as likely to existing in the future as long as the TIFF format is.

Another answer is that any form of responsible digital archiving involves periodically moving your archives to more modern media. (Floppies to CDR to DVDR, etc.) This is also a real good time to evaluate the suitablilty of any formats and decide if any additional conversion is warrented.

But the bottom line is that a TIFF file holds less information than a RAW file. Saving the TIFFs and discarding the RAW files is more like like saving your prints and throwing your negatives away.

Wayne Larmon
 
Carl PIesch said:
A friend of mine shoots as a stock photographer and has thousands
of images from his 1Ds. He converts all his keeper images to
Tiffs, and saves those to his 300+ GB Harddrive(s). He dumps the
original Raw files. He says he is not interested in the saving HD
space by saving RAW only and then converting the needed files at a
later date for specific projects...He doesn't wan't to have the
"duplicate" files...one raw and then the converted tiff file of the
same image. HELP, I'm convinced he's causing himself more work,
time, and space than necessary by converting all the files.
IS there a benefit to the way he is doing this???!!!
Click to expand...
Carl,

You can't do anything directly with a RAW file except look at in a converter. To edit and process the RAW file it has to be converted into either Tiff or Jpeg. Tiff is prefered as it's a more stable file type not affected by jpeg compression factors.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Maui
http://www.DiveSlates.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top