RAWS - Save or Cull - what do you do?

gothgirl

gothgirl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
Original RAWS - do you Save or Cull?

What do you do?

After one too many failed hdds I've realised , I've spent a lot of time backing up raw files I tend never to use again

So for me now , I process my photos as soon as I get them on the laptop , and everything gets uploaded to Flickr
(Yay for automatic Flickr uploadr)

So for me ..JPEGS are more Important.

Do you save your RAWS ?

And if you do , have you ever actually gone back to months and years old RAWS ?

I used to go back and re-edit things when I learnt new PS / PP skills

But now I've finally accepted that you can't polish a turd , and focus more on getting it right in camera than relying on PP too much

Once I've converted it to to JPG , I'm normally done with the raw.

I don't delete them , but I don't stress about backing them up either
 
I appraise the RAWs once uploaded as in are they exposed well, are they sharp, is the composition OK or croppable to suit. In other words is it worth retaining...... if not it is deleted . Have I kept any that are sub optimal, yes but only for specific reasons of record.

I use light room and have found the newest 2012 process can yield a different/improved pp for some older files. So yes, I keep all RAWs worth keeping for the same reason that I used to keep negatives.

When I process to create the jpeg it is for a purpose, web and/or print. If I then need it for a different size or other output I return to the raw as the jpeg I produced is a finished product (note - output sharpening being one key aspect of relevance or if the jpeg has been softproofed to suit one paper and I then want to softproof tweak for another paper) and I may not reuse that again so possibly more likely to delete that later.

PS I am currently going through my older files and aggressively culling as needed....because I used to be less critical ;)
 
Last edited:
My problem is just culling in general, I could probably recoup a hell of a lot of disc space if I could just force myself to sit for say a whole weekend and work backwards deleting the mediocre and the garbage.
My biggest mistake was not giving myself a good system/workflow when I first went to digital all those years ago. With hindsight I should have categorised better and most importantly rated each RAW and Jpeg at the time of uploading. I have since learned (way too late) that the rating of shots is paramount and makes culling (even retrospectively) much easier.
e.g. pull up everything rated at 3 or below and only revisit the 3s and ditch the 1s and 2s (they shouldnt be there in the first place) then selectively assess and keep/cull the 3s. Anything rated a 3 or 4 is always worth a revisit as new skills or techniques are learned and of course the actual editing software is getting better all the time. That turd you cant polish today may be able to shine 18 months down the line in the Photoshop 2017 edition. ;)
 
gothgirl said:
, and focus more on getting it right in camera than relying on PP too much
Click to expand...

Then why bother shooting in RAW at all ? My point being.. if your not doing heavy editing and there going on flikr... If you dont shoot in raw then no problem..
 
•
There are two types of RAW files in my workflow — this is written as
pro photographer and not as father (kids stuff is not include here):
tests files and works files.

Tests files
From the tests files, only those containing the pertinent info will be kept
as RAW and the rest deleted —that may mean culling 90% to trash.

Works files.
These may be for clients, the image bank or special projects. Here will
be kept only what is perfect and can be sold.

I never keep JPEGs as they are published in a jiffy by my converter.
I archive and backup all my stuff methodically and rigorously and never
allow myself to fall behind in these tasks.
 
gothgirl said:
Original RAWS - do you Save or Cull?

What do you do?

After one too many failed hdds I've realised , I've spent a lot of time backing up raw files I tend never to use again

So for me now , I process my photos as soon as I get them on the laptop , and everything gets uploaded to Flickr
(Yay for automatic Flickr uploadr)

So for me ..JPEGS are more Important.

Do you save your RAWS ?

And if you do , have you ever actually gone back to months and years old RAWS ?

I used to go back and re-edit things when I learnt new PS / PP skills

But now I've finally accepted that you can't polish a turd , and focus more on getting it right in camera than relying on PP too much

Once I've converted it to to JPG , I'm normally done with the raw.

I don't delete them , but I don't stress about backing them up either
Click to expand...


Raw files are your "negatives". Even if you get it right in camera, the full bit-depth, uncompressed raw files should be kept as a master instead of the 8 bit, probably sRGB JPEG. I also keep a 16bit TIFF file of the finished, processed work, as not all "processing" is done in a raw program.. retouching for instance, is done to the TIFF in Photoshop.

JPEGs are throw away things I create a with an action by pressing a key in photoshop whenever I need one. I never save JPEGs. What's the point?

Jayst84 said:
I also don't randomly capitalise words that aren't acronyms, but that's another thing.
Click to expand...

LOL.. quite. Raw just means raw... it's not a file format.. it's not RAW.. just raw.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes go back to years old raws and reprocess them in much the same way that i sometimes go back to years old film negatives and re-scan them - I would never bother backing up a jpeg as I can re-export one in a matter of seconds if I ever need one again.
 
Like the others, I keep all my raw files and a processed TIFF. JPEGs are easy to produce for web use by clicking on 'export' in Lightroom so the only reason I have those saved is because I've simply not got round to deleting them after uploading to the web.
And yes I have gone back to old files and re-processed them. Sometimes with the passing of time I see new things or new possibilities in photographs I ignored first time round.
 
i only shoot in raw and cull the non keepers when i process them
what's left will be saved as processed jpg's and the original raw files, i keep the jpegs for a couple of reasons such as compiling slideshows, printing or just to add to a digital photo frame
what i don't tend to do is keep the processed raw info file because if i'm going to re process a raw with new improved software or just trying too improve on my original effort i think starting from scratch is a better option rather than being distracted by how i processed the photo in the first place

as far as backing up goes i keep the raw and jpegs on separate drives ( same folder name ) and then back those up to additional drives

i think we get stuck in our ways of doing things and it's how iv'e done it over the last 16 years or so, it works for me so iv'e never bothered changing
 
I never delete anything, at least not once I get the images out of the camera. I realised when I started in photography 10-12 years ago that my idea of what would count as a useable or important image would change over time, and sure enough a good number of images I'd written off at the time of taking now have a purpose or some other kind of significance. Storage is cheap these days so there's really no need to be too worried about running out of space, even doing 3 backups of everything.
 
I keep my raws as you would your negatives. The principle is no different, it's just that the resource is digital.
 
What's this RAW? Only stuff round here that's raw is pork-chops, 'cos they haven't finished cooking yet! ... well they were when I started typing... mmmmmmm.. yummy served with garlic & cheesy potato.....what was the question again? Oh yeah.. archiving....
I have a SHELF full of negative archive binders, and boxes full of slides & negs that won't go in them... that have never been used to make a new 'print' and never even looked at, apart from working through 'digitizing' them..... so since my widgit-al photo's are all-ready widgetized?
To me, widgetal is supposed to be about 'convenience' saving work, not making it... I shoot in J-Peg... and aim for Clean-In-Camera.. the 'advantage' of un-corrected data, for post-processing 'correction' is then rather redundant.
What PP I may do (usually little more than crop & straight) is done on from the initial J-Peg. Yeah, its a 'lossy' format.. but you only loose original data when you save. Open, Edit, Save, you 'save' the data 'as edited'; losses, if any, are kept to a minimum... saved J-Peg then goes to 'display' album, copy to the 'back-up' hard-disk-drive, along with out of camera original folder.... I don't need a RAW or PSD version of my edits, to go back and 're-edit'!! If I want to re-interpret an edit, then I can go back to the OoC Original. If not? I merely want another copy of the display edit? Well, its there in the display folder or on back-up HDD if it's been lost or corrupted.
NEF files are typically 10x the file-size of a low compression J-Peg. File Manager is currently telling me that 'My Pictures' folder currently contains almost 1/4 terra-byte of photos... so give or take 1/8th Terra-byte of 'originals'... if they were all in Tiff, or NEF, they would take up four times the total hard drive space on my computer!!!!!! I'd need to fill every single drive bay & HDD port on the mother board with Hard-Drives to find space for them all, and have a 'server array' to back them all up, rather than a little 'pass-port' drive!
This is NOT to my way of thinking 'convenient'! (and makes the shelf full of negative binders and boxes, look rather 'efficient', both of space & not needing any 'power supply'!)
File manager says that's 68 thousand files..... 30 thousand originals, perhaps? If I went through them all, and spent a whole ten seconds reviewing each one, it would take over eighty hours, two working weeks, sat solid at the screen, seven or eight hours a day!!!! am I REALLY going to even LOOK at them all? Let alone do anything with any of them? and if I don't, is any-one else?
There is perhaps 8 thousand 'display' images, currently copied at low-res to face-book as a family album, that MIGHT get looked at occasionally by any-one... still around three working days worth clicking through at 10 seconds a pic! Of them, I MIGHT get asked if I have a 'better' copy of one, for 'something', but then, a 10+Mpix resolution 'original' in J-Peg is more than likely 'adequate' over the sub 1Mpix display-res version, and if I gave them a NEF, chances they would even know what to do with it is negligible!!!
So, first law of 'quality control' is its not about superiority, its about 'fitness for purpose', and not taking photographs for sale or commercial use, or 'club' competition, the 'consumer' J-Peg format is 'fit for purpose'.. and helps keep widgital 'convenient' as it should be!
Hey! I would LOVE to drive a classic 1960's Ferarri; its a fantastic car.. but, would demand a lot of 'care' to diligently warm it up before I could use it, and an awful lot of maintenance to keep all its valve clearances in tolerance and 'stuff'.. which to pop to the shops? and NOT have room for eight bags full of frozen dinners? Its NOT 'convenient' its not so 'fit for purpose'.. so I drive a Honda! cos its convenient, and it Is 'fit for purpose'!!! Might not get enthusiasts going ''oooh' and 'ah!" but it gets the job done, with little 'faff'!
So, NOT shooting RAW avoids a problem that isn't really needed! Begging suggestion, why are you making the problem to start with?
 
Oh, Mike - let's talk snapshots, then ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
I keep almost everything I shoot , all RAW. I use the duds to learn from, and the good ones are rated once imported, and Jpegs created once processed.

I could save a lot of space by deleting the duds, (of which there are many:( :LOL:) but I have lots of space, and 'space' gets cheaper all the time. Occasionally I have gone back to old files processed some duds to make some dud images 'good', because they may have originally had a technical problem, such as excessively noisy. As the RAW processing technology has improved, some older image can become usable, maybe becuase noise reduction has got better.

Over the last few weeks I have gone back to what I consider some of my 'very good' images to put online. Since I have edited these image before, the process version in Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom had been improved, giving me more options. Also, my tastes have changed a bit since then, so with the different editing options and changes to my tastes, older images can look different. It is satisfying when an old image turns out looking like an older edit though. :)

I like playing about with images, some don't, and I understand that, but you still need to keep your best images safe and secure. The RAWs are your 'negatives', and while some my never look at them, or re-edit them, imho, you should keep the just in case. It is up to you though.

I have copies of my pictures on an internal HD on the computer. I have a portable HD with a back up of all the images. And I have another very large external HD with everything from my computer, including all the images, backed up. My images are very important to me.
 
droj said:
Oh, Mike - let's talk snapshots, then ...
Click to expand...
OK, lets do....
snap-shot
Click to expand...
noun
1. - an informal photograph, especially one taken quickly by a hand-held camera.
2. - Hunting. a quick shot taken without deliberate aim.
3. - Informal. a brief appraisal, summary, or profile.
verb (used with or without object), snapshot or snapshotted,snapshotting.
4. - to photograph informally and quickly.
Click to expand...
So, taking that 'little' care to try and get a shot 'clean in camera', let alone spending any time and attention to 'setting up a shot' such as using a tri-pod, or arranging a back-ground, or even just asking a subject to turn towards a window to avoid a shadow, would, by strict definition, deny it being a 'snap-shot'... wouldn't it?

However, I have no problem with 'snap-shots'...I actually quite like 'snap-shots'.. they are 'unpretentious', they usually have a certain 'honesty' and 'interest', certainly enough 'interest' for some-one probably not all that enthusiastic about cameras to pick one up and take the picture... qualities I find remarkably lacking in a lot of 'serious' photography, with yet another milked out water-fall, or over filtered sunset; strained model poses, over baked post-processing and ever more re-iterative interpretations on a themes and style tending to the cliche, without an awful lot of actual 'interest' beyond the demonstration of technical dexterity displayed, and that, only of interest to other 'serious' photographers!

So yeah... lets talk 'snap-shots' if you'd like....

But note, this is hardly a 'new' argument; "Real Photographers ONLY shoot RAW!" is the same old prejudice as "Real Photographers shoot SLIDE!" given a 21st century digital twist!
 
#1 Total technical failures I delete
#2 Famiy/memories I keep if I feel they are recovarable one day.
#3 Purely personal stuff I only keep the raws after they are published.
Normally #2 + #3 add up to about 1000/year (this doesn't include major vacations)

#4 Motor racing stuff (some of it for clients) - After about 18 months I delete all the unpublished ones (about 8000-10000/ year
#5 Choral ("clients") I only keep the published ones (about 200 (maximum) and delete everything else after about 18 months.

All my published ones are on the web (only)
The web published ones are mostly 2MP Jpegs and you never know when somebody may want someting larger.
 
Goth girl. Nothing wrong with that approach if that's how you like to roll just as long as your are aware of all the pros and cons. Though I would say to keep the RAWs of all your favourite photos, purely if you ever need to recrop, resize, re-edit, reprint in a higher colour space etc. To answer your question re going back to edit RAW files, yes I have. When I first started I shot RAW but had no idea about processing. I just converted them into JPEG but of recent I have gone back to some now that I have learnt how to use Lightroom rather than Picassa. Personally for me the amount of time to go through every single RAW file that I have ever shot and re-evaluate is near to impossible. I don't even have time to look through all my images I have taken in my lifetime, maybe that's something to look forward to when I retire!
 
Last edited:
Some great views here.

Well as stated i don't delete my raws, but I don't go out filling my external hdds up with them either .

I've found once I've converted it to JPEG I'm happy with it and generally don't go back.

As stated above if the photos were done for someone else or a client , and not just myself I would no doubt back up the raw file

But those ones for myself
I'm not deleting them...but not stressing about backing them up either.

I love how much "polishing" you can do in PP , but personally I'm not going to store thousands of raw files in case my post processing gets better or software improves in years to come.

Because frankly to me even when recovered that image will still be a technical failure on my part and something that i got wrong in camera

Id rather spend more time trying to get everything right in camera , than hoping better pp will come along to recover 1tb worth of raw files I have stored
 
grove39 said:
If you spend too much time trying to get it right in the camera then you already missed the shot.
Click to expand...

Not in all instances

I need to be more firm with myself .

It's easy to let yourself think you're a better photographer than you are because of the amount of recovery you can do now.

If I'm at home ... With my own animals and no time limit etc
There's no reason to get a shot wrong

One good thing about processing raws is by seeing what pp improved the shot .. Helped me to learn what was wrong with it, and why I'd got it wrong .

The way I see it , if PP didn't exist ... That image would have been thrown away as it was no good.

I would rather invest more time in getting it right, to the point I can shoot in camera and be happy with it...not to thinking hmm it has potential but I need to tweek that exposure or balance or levels etc

But that's just this girls opinion

I want to be a better photographer

Not a better photoshopper
 
gothgirl said:
But those ones for myself
I'm not deleting them...but not stressing about backing them up either.
Click to expand...
All my pics are for myself, so they are very important. :)

gothgirl said:
I love how much "polishing" you can do in PP , but personally I'm not going to store thousands of raw files in case my post processing gets better or software improves in years to come.
Click to expand...
That's fine of course, you just asked what others did. :)

gothgirl said:
Because frankly to me even when recovered that image will still be a technical failure on my part and something that i got wrong in camera

Id rather spend more time trying to get everything right in camera , than hoping better pp will come along to recover 1tb worth of raw files I have stored
Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily talking about any mistakes on my part. My camera is 6 years old, and so ISO performance is not very good in comparison to newer cameras. There have been times when I have been forced to use a higher ISO than I would have liked. Now at one point, the Noise Reduction slider in Adobe Camera Raw just moved, it didn't seem to do much. Then they improved it. So the odd older file that was noisy, can maybe be processed from a good, though flawed image, to a very good image.

I have improved the way I edit images. (I think) A year or two ago, I saw a demonstration of how to sharpen properly, and realised that I had been creating unnecessary noise the way I had been sharpening. So all the images that I thought were my best, and sharpened, could potentially all be re-processed and improved.

Obviously if you are the kind of person who takes the pictures, chooses the best ones, edits them, does whatever with the pictures, prints, posts, sells, etc and then forgets about those images and never goes back to them, then you back up differently. I treasure my very good images, because they there are not as many as I would like. :( :LOL: So I try to make my best ones the best I can whenever I think I can improve them. It is only me I need to please. :) And it is something to do whilst watching the telly anyway. ;)
 
redhed17 said:
All my pics are for myself, so they are very important. :)


That's fine of course, you just asked what others did. :)



I wasn't necessarily talking about any mistakes on my part. My camera is 6 years old, and so ISO performance is not very good in comparison to newer cameras. There have been times when I have been forced to use a higher ISO than I would have liked. Now at one point, the Noise Reduction slider in Adobe Camera Raw just moved, it didn't seem to do much. Then they improved it. So the odd older file that was noisy, can maybe be processed from a good, though flawed image, to a very good image.

I have improved the way I edit images. (I think) A year or two ago, I saw a demonstration of how to sharpen properly, and realised that I had been creating unnecessary noise the way I had been sharpening. So all the images that I thought were my best, and sharpened, could potentially all be re-processed and improved.

Obviously if you are the kind of person who takes the pictures, chooses the best ones, edits them, does whatever with the pictures, prints, posts, sells, etc and then forgets about those images and never goes back to them, then you back up differently. I treasure my very good images, because they there are not as many as I would like. :( :LOL: So I try to make my best ones the best I can whenever I think I can improve them. It is only me I need to please. :) And it is something to do whilst watching the telly anyway. ;)
Click to expand...

My 40d turns 9 this year and i have the same iso problem... But still managed a few shots I'm happy with.

Noise reduction i don't consider on the same level as other editing as that really is something that can't be helped .



I'm in the middle of going through and replacing and upgrading my glass , which as I get more serious is something that needed doing but at the same time i came to this conclusion

I've had some cracking shots with this camera and some really poor ones too

But I can't take the credit for the good ones and blame the kit for the bad ones ...

It doesn't work like that ...As they were all done by the same person on the same setup .

I look at the exif data in images I'm not happy with and they say hindsight is 20/20, I can always see what I could have done to make it a keeper.
 
I cull anything that is not workable or useful.

I then will keep all RAW files that I have worked on.

So my business

PP business - All files RAWs and Jpgs kept for 3 years. (why 3 no idea)

Wedding - All RAWs kept and Large Jpegs.

Personal - All RAWs - and only composite worked on Jpegs such as heavy editing, stitching etc.

Disk space is cheap, so have no problem backing them up, but I dont protect against fire, puff the magic dragon, or any other act of god. for each HDD in my machine, one copy kept in storage.
 
I just keep everything, i've got enough storage not to worry about it

like other have said, going back to an old raw file after years more practice can give much better results!
 
Im a wedding photographer and shoot exclusively in RAW, when i get home from a shoot i back up my images in three drives, one that i travel with, a back up that lives off site, and my working drive, I import them into Lightroom onto my working drive, i cull them, they are then separated into two folders, Selects and Rejects, the Rejects leave my Lightroom catalog, i then edit my photos as needed, and once I've finished convert them to JPEGS for the client, then every year, that years elders are removed from Lightroom and archived, rejects are kept for 12 months then deleted, Hard drives are so cheap nowadays why not keep everything.

I use a hard drive toaster to back up http://www.amazon.co.uk/TeckNet-Doc...=1452609953&sr=8-1&keywords=hard+drive+reader
 
I don't shoot raw, no need, just takes up space
 
I shoot in RAW & obviously upload/share/print as jpeg. I keep my "important" RAWs - Family, children, holidays, car, stuff like that. Photo's of car shows, sunsets, general city/park walkabout etc I delete the RAW's at some point.
 
grove39 said:
They take up space in 1995 not 2016 lol
Click to expand...

Not everyone has an unlimited pocket for technology
I have a 15mp camera and a 320gb HDD on my laptop

If I saved every raw , my hdd would be full in a few months.
 
gothgirl said:
Not everyone has an unlimited pocket for technology
I have a 15mp camera and a 320gb HDD on my laptop

If I saved every raw , my hdd would be full in a few months.
Click to expand...

I have a 24MP D3200 and i've just had a look and i've taken close on 20K photos in 18 months and all the RAWs and all the jpgs add up to 329GB. Even if i took every photo in just jpg then they wouldnt be much smaller and still take up nearly half the space.
 
grove39 said:
They take up space in 1995 not 2016 lol
Click to expand...

So if you were taking a couple of thousand shots per shoot you would shoot raw?
 
You might do - it would depend on what your ultimate purpose was. As always, define your context before brandishing an opinion ...
 
droj said:
You might do - it would depend on what your ultimate purpose was. As always, define your context before brandishing an opinion ...
Click to expand...

I might do too, but I don't, as I have said I don't need to, don't have the time, space (on cards) or backup. I have done events on jpg and weddings on jpg so why shoot raw?
A jpg file will take a fair bit of adjustment via pp if required
 
admirable said:
So if you were taking a couple of thousand shots per shoot you would shoot raw?
Click to expand...

I don't shoot anything else.

admirable said:
I might do too, but I don't, as I have said I don't need to, don't have the time, space (on cards) or backup. I have done events on jpg and weddings on jpg so why shoot raw?
A jpg file will take a fair bit of adjustment via pp if required
Click to expand...

Space on cards ? a 32GB card holds over 1000 RAW files. And on top of that you can get a very good 32GB SD card for about £10-15. The last sd card i bought was a couple of weeks ago, £11.99 for a 633x Lexar .I'm nowhere near well off but i'm not that skint that i cant afford a bit of storage that costs next to nothing. Even a 2TB Ext HDD is only about 60 quid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top