sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 935
Loc: York
|
|
Hi everyone,
I was just wondering what all your thoughts were on archiving/cataloging your digital photos.
Personally, I've decided to shoot RAW but can't decide how to store the photos once I have "processed" them.
Option A - Store the RAW, final Tiff, and web jpeg all together in one "categorised" folder.
Advantages - I have the option to go back to RAW if I decide to (but I think that would be unlikely). I could also go back to the tiff to either edit or create different sized jpegs if needed.
Disadvantages - HDD space would disappear very quickly. Could become difficult to locate photos with 3 versions of the same image cluttering up the folder.
Option B - As above, but only permanently store tiffs/RAW and create jpegs as and when needed, deleting them after they have been uploaded/printed.
Advantages - Slightly smaller disk usage, simpler file structure (less clutter).
Disadvantages - Slight hassle having to go into the tiff and re-save to jpeg...no big deal though.
Option C - Only keep tiffs following editing. Create jpegs as and when needed.
Advantages - Much lower disk usage, far less clutter in folders.
Disadvantage - Fewer options for going back to re-edit if I decide I've badly cocked it up... but then, how likely is it to cock up the editing so much that editing from tiff would be a bad thing?
Other options
Store RAW+large edited jpeg - Lower disk usage but if having to re-size from jpegs I believe I would sacrifice some quality.
Store large jpeg only - Best for saving on disk space but too many sacrifices here.
...so, what do you think? I guess if storing RAW files it would be best practise and more organised to keep them in the same file as the edited versions and under the same file name (different extension obviously)...or do people archive their RAW files away somewhere?
Advice needed! 
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4241
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
My "solution" is to store the RAW plus a JPEG in VGA resolution (640x427) which is used for browsing the archive. I store finished high resolution TIFF only in rare cases.
|
Burgy
Grateful not to have one
Reged: 13/04/2001
Posts: 5185
Loc: This far, from beating 7 shade...
|
|
I store RAW files and any jpgs that are sent to customers. If they need them resent they can be, if they need additional images then I create new jpgs from the RAW files.
I certainly wouldn't consider storing Tiifs and RAW files
--------------------
Cheers
Burgy BSRIPN, BSc, DSO and Bar (now open 24/7).
it's not what you've got, its who you do it to
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 935
Loc: York
|
|
Quote:
If they need them resent they can be, if they need additional images then I create new jpgs from the RAW files.
But if you're happy with how the picture turned out, don't you find it a pain having to go back to RAW, or do you have such a good workflow that it doesn't really add any extra time?
Also, is a possible to save the adjustments you have made to the RAW file or when you open it up again do you have to start again with adjusting the white balance etc?
Sounds like the favourite so far is to store RAW plus jpegs...and I can see the logical behind this. I guess that having the large jpg available for printing then re-sizing that for web display would be fine since you're not likely to notice any drop in quality when viewing on the web anyway by doing that (correct?).
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4241
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
But if you're happy with how the picture turned out, don't you find it a pain having to go back to RAW, or do you have such a good workflow that it doesn't really add any extra time?
Post processing is rather subjective - unless I was working for a third party (in which case I'd keep TIFFs, until the job was wrapped up) I'd probably want to do it slightly differently the next time through.
Quote:
Also, is a possible to save the adjustments you have made to the RAW file or when you open it up again do you have to start again with adjusting the white balance etc?
I think this depends on your camera & software. If you use certain recent Canon cameras with Canon's DPP software, there is a "sidecar file" which gets attached to the CR2 (raw) file describing the changes made so they will be applied again exactly the same next time you open the image with DPP. The CR2 file itself isn't altered, so you won't gain the same benefit when using a third party application (unless the application is sidecar enabled). Still you could export 16-bit TIFF from DPP if you wanted to fossilize the changes applied.
|
Burgy
Grateful not to have one
Reged: 13/04/2001
Posts: 5185
Loc: This far, from beating 7 shade...
|
|
Quote:
But if you're happy with how the picture turned out, don't you find it a pain having to go back to RAW, or do you have such a good workflow that it doesn't really add any extra time?
It doesn't really apply to me, if the image was right, then it was saved as a jpg and sent to the client, if they require another copy, I will send the saved jpg, if they require something new then the RAW files will be revisited, new images saved as a Jpg and sent to the client. I can't recall ever having to re-open a RAW file and reworking an image that I have already sent.
--------------------
Cheers
Burgy BSRIPN, BSc, DSO and Bar (now open 24/7).
it's not what you've got, its who you do it to
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 976
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Thanks for asking the question. I was going through the same thoughts. I'd certainly never fail to save the RAWs. I regard them the same as negatives. I was wondering whether to save the TIFFs and DxOed JPEGs but BJB's suggestion seems the answer plus any that are elaborately edited. Anything else can then easily be reconstituted.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
