 Phillip Corcoran |
Archiving RAW files - yes or no? What's the consensus on archiving your images in RAW format? I've been told that shooting in RAW is fine (which I do), but archiving them as RAW is unwise because in years from now you may not be able to read them since it's not a standardised format - it's proprietary and varies according to the camera manufacturer (which is true). Much better, I'm told, to convert them to a universal format (low-compression jpeg or tiff)and archive these instead. I've already archived a couple of hundred ORF (Olympus RAW)files and now wonder wether that was a smart move. Anyone?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I use photoshop and convert all images I deem worthy to both JPEG (for websites) and TIFF so I have an uncompressed version for future viewing. It only takes 5 seconds more and store them on my 300GB drive.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David Earls |
Phillip, A few points worth mentioning: First, why would you archive TIFF or JPEG when you can archive RAW? You can create a JPEG or TIFF any time you want to from a RAW file; you can't create a RAW file from a TIFF or a JPEG. Second, RAW is not a single file format. Each camera manufacturer has its own version of RAW, and while RAW files do pass CCD/CMOS data to the image editor, there are differences in the sidecar files. Third, Adobe has already created a single format called .DNG (digital negative) which they hope will emerge as a single format for raw sensor data. DNG files include unaltered RAW data from the camera sensor. Fourth, not archiving your RAW files is kind of like pitching the negatives and keeping the prints. If you're concerned about making extensive edits to your RAW files, you can record them manually in the sidecar file so that if you ever re-open the RAW file, you can see exactly what edits you performed on the RAW image. HTH
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
it's technology, everything will change eventually. jpeg is the std now, but who says that will be the case in 10 years? you can't really think about all that. saving your raw files is smart. but, I also save my jpeg's. I know, i'm nuts, but that's what I do. when technology changes, you have to make sure you keep up somehow. so if your camera's raw is going away, convert it to something that can read it, at that time. although, adobe will probably support many different formats for a long time. jepg is the most std and have heard of photog's who convert to jpeg and get tid of the raw files, but sometimes I find myself going back to the raw, and doing something slightly different with it. it was so much more simple with film neg's wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kari Strube |
I'm very new to RAW. In fact, I haven't even edited a RAW file yet. But in the mean time, I have shot all my pictures in both RAW and JPG at the same time. Now I see that the RAW files are taking up space on my computer, will I be alright if I remove all my un-edited RAW files to an External Hard Drive and work with the files at another time. I guess my question is....I don't have to keep my JPG file with my RAW file on my computer, I can archive my RAW files somewhere else, is that correct??
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
I'll echo David E. A better question to ask is "How will I catalog all my images?"..and "How much redundancy is too much?" This seems to be a far greater problem than standardizing formats.
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
I process RAWs to TIFFs, and create JPGs (if required) from the TIFFs for use, but I keep/save the JPGs no longer than a year. I archive/backup the RAWs and TIFFs zipped (no image degradation) on 2 mirrored external HDs, and a third off-site. Have fun!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
I have to mostly agree with David here and the line: "not archiving your RAW files is kind of like pitching the negatives and keeping the prints." If/when technology changes it will not be like the rug will zip out from below you and you will never see those RAW images again. Likely you will at least have the software you had before that was reading the files if there is a change, and you can make a decision then. You will likely have notice of a loss of support in more obvious way: for example, those who have RAW files off a Konica-Minolta (no longer in the biz) camera should likely take a step toward finding a common file format because it is probable that those file formats will become unsupported. Canon and Nikon users whose file types may be less likely to become unsupported have longer to make a decision. Converting to DNG may be the answer in those cases where a decision needs to be sooner than later. Converting to TIFF or JPEG is not the same thing as backing up a RAW file. The advantage to archiving RAW files is that you can access the exposure as shot; TIFF or JPEG will already have been converted -- even if you accept the defaults when you open them up, it is a conversion! If/when RAW file handling and conversion improves and you have a bunch of TIFF or JPEG files, you are SOL in taking advantage of the change/improvements. My hard opinion: you can never substitute for the original capture (which is NOT the equivalent of the JPEG or TIFF file after it has been opened). "it was so much more simple with film neg's wasn't it?" Well, what part of simple? If you want to duplicate or back up exact copies of your film negatives, it is really pretty hard (read: impossible)...digital allows it in an instant with no fees. I would liken the idea here to the bit of difficulty one might have getting B&W film processed these days -- used to be that everyone would do it, but not any more. My estimation is that the advantages of digital far outweigh any small inconvenience of learning about file types. But don't forget the considerations you needed to make for space for your film negatives, climate conditions, how to file and store...to me, there are more similarities than differences. "I guess my question is....I don't have to keep my JPG file with my RAW file on my computer, I can archive my RAW files somewhere else, is that correct??" JPEG and RAW files are distinct entities and you do not need one file for the other to function. They can be separated and stored separately. Here is what I do for backup/storage: I keep plenty of hard drive space and add more as needed. Drives are just dirt cheap. I keep the RAW files and archive to DVD after a year on the local system (2 DVD copies, one onsite and one off). I keep PSD images with all corrections in one (often large) file that I use for making temporary print or upload files as needed. This way there is only ever ONE working copy of an image (backed up in two or three identical RAID drives all at once). I archive these PSD files separately from the RAW files as working files. I use a RAID for immediate backup of all images downloaded from my camera, and external drives for periodic backup (one onsite, one off) of the RAID, all handled by an automated backup system that comes with Mac OS 10.5. This may seem like a lot to some as far as safety, but I have worked for a database company where it would be seen as completely insufficient for important data (anyone here think their images are important?!). They write to on- and mirrored off-site locations at the time of transactions (when data is entered). I consider the images on thee card as a failsafe, and don't worry about losing the card during transfer -- though it can happen. "too safe" would be making the process so complicated that it can't be rather easily managed with minimal effort. Most people do far too little. Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I shoot RAW + jpeg(small) just so I can show my models the images in windows without opening the HUGE RAW files...plus JPEGs POP a little more. I then save them all but I don't think it'd bad to save all the RAW files and dump all the crappy JPEGs it just doesn't save you much space and I use 17/22 mgpxl Canons. Just bought 2 new external Seagate 500GB harddrives for only $79....so cheap.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
If you save everything you may not know what is the latest version unless you update all files...and why? Easier to stay more focused. JPEGS 'pop more'? That should not be unless your color management settings are causing an issue. JPEGS uploaded to view on a browser may drop profiles that are getting in the way... Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Yeah Rich, never really thought about why but my JPEGs out of the camera and downloaded look brighter than the RAW files...??? Don't think the color management settings are jacked up but my print results from the 2 labs I use are Spot ON...I ain't touching it...its not really a big difference but it is a difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
If I understand correctly you are comparing two things: JPEG Image > Printer JPEG files coming off the camera are pre-processed by the camera (using the same RAW info, but the camera's set decision making). You need to do the processing of the RAW files to make the most of them. The Camera RAW plugin makes its best guess based on exposure information, but likely that will be different than what happens in the camera. Therein lies the difference. Color management can be a factor, but need not be here for there to be a difference looking at these two workflows. Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Rich, I'm comparing my RAW files to the small JPEG kicker I shoot at the same time. When downloaded the RAW file is flatter till I tweak it a bit, add a touch of contrast, use curves and saturate a color or two... Never tried nor wanted to print a RAW file, get paid for my finished product and am too vain to allow an image out without post production. Like I said the RAW looks great, always use flash meters and Whibal white card just not as saturated as the small JPEG.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||