Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Absolutely. Different people have different needs. Personally, I save everything. But that's more a personality quirk. I readily admit that I can't make a rational reason for saving everything, other than It makes me happier. Truthfully, I really do prefer to work on new images than old image. I think that over the years I have gotten better with framing composition, etc.Spend a dime by comparison is an expression. I closely follow the cost of storage and I would say for most, it's really not that expensive. I tried to keep it simple as opposed to muddying the waters and trying to address every single case usage.Some people would prefer to take new photos, instead of spending time going back to re-process old photos.Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.
All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).
But this is a matter of personal preference, and the needs of your situation.
If you are taking photos of your kids growing up, you may enjoy going back and improving older photos that you took when they were younger.
If you are an event photographer, there may never be a need or desire to go back and reprocess images from years ago.
.
Storage is not always trivial. I've had days where we have had grueling shoots of models in swimwear for online web sales. We have about 2 to 4 minutes for each product to shoot the model in multiple views for the Amazon listing. We use two models, so one can change while the other is being shot. We shoot in high resolution as some of the shots will be used in printed catalogs. We can easily generate over 100GB of raw files in a single day. I have no desire to go back and rework images from this sort of shoot. Storing and keeping track of all those images costs a bot more than a dime.
I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with keeping all your raw files. I am merely suggesting that different photographers are in different situations and have different needs. Some photographers really don't need to store every image forever.
I can shoot well over 10GB of raw data in less than an hour in my normal early morning walkabouts . But I don't get paid a dime for doing so. So folks actually getting paid, might be able to actually find time to keep and store, everything. If that's what they actually want to do. Of course, your mileage may vary.
As someone who saves everything, I can tell you that there can be a little more to it than just buying some low cost disk drives.
In addition to storing the images, I need a system to keep track of the images. It's doesn't do much good to keep an image if I can't find it when I need it.
Next is the realization that all storage media fails. Therefore I need to keep multiple copies. Furthermore, I need to transfer archived images from old media to new media as technologies become obsolete. At this point, I can no longer access anything that I have stored on Syquest cartridges, or even SCSI disk drives. Those multiple copies are kept in different locations, to minimize the chances that a single incident takes out all the copies.
When keeping multiple copies, I need a system to keep all the copies in sync.
All of this takes time and effort. The tools to make this easier cost money.
If you don't enjoy maintaining your archives, you might prefer spending that time doing something that you do enjoy, or something that directly generates revenue.












