Saving RAW files

Sisteron

Sisteron

Suspended / Banned
Messages
89
Name
Trevor Mc Grath
Edit My Images
Yes
i only shoot in RAW but have one question,

When save them to hard Disk or DVD is it a good idea to save them a RAW or should I save them a JPEG or TIFF.

I only ask because TIFF files are so big.
 
try lightroom or aperture in mac, then you just work with the raw files. Saves duplicating files ie original RAW file and JPG or TIFF file. Both have trial versions you can download.
 
Edit them so you don't keep any rubbish, and save them as the raw files just in case you ever need to come back to the image when you've learnt something new, or have a new idea for it

The raw file is your 'neg' equivalent, and most film users kept their negs for donkey's years - just in case
 
DiddyDave said:
Edit them so you don't keep any rubbish, and save them as the raw files just in case you ever need to come back to the image when you've learnt something new, or have a new idea for it

The raw file is your 'neg' equivalent, and most film users kept their negs for donkey's years - just in case
Click to expand...

That's very sound advice :agree:
 
Thanks for the advice lads.........

I'll be keeping my RAW files.
 
I have two hard drives. One external drive I use to dump all RAW files on and leave them there. I then select the RAW images I like, process and save as low compression jpegs on the internal drive.
 
I keep all my RAW files, converting only the ones I think are worth it to TIF but still keeping the original RAW as well. RAW is the equivallent of a film negative, if you have that you can always create another image from it.
 
Yes, save in RAW.
I save to a backup hard drive (they are cheap enough for say 300GHz) and also backup the files I'm going to keep to dvd.
That way you have litle chance of loosing anything.

I also backup to a temp ext HD (40GHz) from my laptop when travelling, it's small (abou the size of a fag packet) and powers off the USB socket so no extra power supply which is always a problem, particularly when flying.
 
I fill a 4 gig card up in camera and then put them as unedited RAWS on a dvd, I then pick the ones I want to work with and put them on the hard drive.
 
Saving in raw as a negative is fine-but as you will be working with images on the pc or uploading to net you only ever need a jpeg amyway so save in photoshop at setting 10 or above and its fine for anything online-if you want to print to paper then use the negative raw image.
 
What about problems with proprietary RAW formats becoming obsolete, or the software to access them?

I have recently read somebody's view that jpeg was a safer long term storage format as it complies with a universal standard.

Thoughts?
 
I can't see a RAW format becoming obsolete, sure they will be superceeded over time, but there will always be something that can either read "older" formats or convert them to the latest standard.
 
Wookie said:
What about problems with proprietary RAW formats becoming obsolete, or the software to access them?

I have recently read somebody's view that jpeg was a safer long term storage format as it complies with a universal standard.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is the biggest problem with RAW files!

RAW is NOT a standard file format, in that, Nikon RAW is not the same as Canon RAW, which is not the same as Minolta RAW etc.

Even RAW files from the same manufacturer are not necessarily the same as the information contained within the RAW file evolves over time!

Most professional photographers and image libraries now convert all their RAW files to Adobe DNG format.

DNG itself, seems to cause a whole lot of confusion within the general photography community. DNG is not different from RAW, it is still a RAW file!

Adobe DNG does however "future-proof" your RAW files as what it actually does is make your RAW file manufacturer "neutral" by stripping out any proprietory (i.e. manufacturer information relating to Nikon, Canon etc) information without removing any actual image information - the file remains a RAW file with all image detail etc intact, but is now more flexible and compatible with a wider range of software / hardware!

The Adobe DNG converter is FREE from the Adobe website!

JPEG is a compressed format and loses detail / information EVERY time the file is saved - i.e. even if you just open a JPEG file and then save it again you will continue to lose information as the file is "compressed" every time it is saved!

JPEG is not suitable for any storage where the image will be edited / altered at a later date.

Billy
 
Soooo ..... DNG is it then?

So what is Photoshop .RAW?
 
This is a bit of a stupid question but what is the difference between shooting in RAW and shooting in jpeg? i think atm i use jpeg but should i switch then? does it make a lot of difference? im a bit of a n00B still..
dont mean to hijack the thread, just wondered...:)
 
RAW basically contains all the information, so if you change white balance, or make minor adjustments, there is more information to work with. A JPG however, only saves what it needs for the picture. There is less room for adjustments later, plus each time you re-save a JPG information is lost. However Andy Rouse in his book digital SLR photography, re saves a Jpg several times and you'd have to look very hard to spot the difference.
 
I convert all my Canon Raw files to DNG, having said that I also archive the original RAW to CD/DVD. The DNG's are then saved on 2 drives ( Yes I am paranoid ).

HanC

The advantages of RAW as Netjag said is there is more information stored in them. Your digital camera will capture the image in what is effectively a RAW mode. This has a lot more information, or image detail (exposure wise rather than fine detail) in it than a jpeg file. When the camera converts the file to jpeg, it discards the data it no longer needs.This additional data is then lost forever. Working with the RAW information enables you to adjust exposure ( sometimes by up to 2 stops, something you couldn't do with a jpeg image) plus white balance sharpness saturation and a whole load of other parameters, before its the converted to a jpeg or tiff file. Products such as Adobe lightroom and the new Camera Raw options with CS3 enable you to work on an image with much more control and ease than ever before. It is a skill that needs learning , and does take some time. However once appreciated I don't think anyone who uses RAW would want to go back to shooting jpeg.
 
I would not worry about a type of .RAW becoming obsolete, I know all my canon raw files are "future-proof" as I have the CD that came with the camera and that has a raw converter on it.

Who says Adobe will not change thier DNG format in the future
 
The animosity between Adobe & Nikon/Canon is legendary.

Sounds like a lot of hot marketing wind to me.
 
DNG is not future proof its just like all the other RAW formats.

Adobe want you to think its the future but its not (the future is Garlic Bread, yes you heard me right GARLIC BREAD)

Seriously for a open Raw have a read here http://www.openraw.org/
 
Wookie said:
What about problems with proprietary RAW formats becoming obsolete, or the software to access them?

I have recently read somebody's view that jpeg was a safer long term storage format as it complies with a universal standard.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Save a copy of the software you are using along with the RAW files :)
 
Unfortunately it's not a simple as that, whilst saving your copy of the RAW software you'll also need to save a copy of your operating system, firmware, device drivers and chipset.

Do you think M$, Intel & Apple et. al. are happy to stick with a single 'future proof' operating system? How do you think they made their billions?
 
sprog said:
Unfortunately it's not a simple as that, whilst saving your copy of the RAW software you'll also need to save a copy of your operating system, firmware, device drivers and chipset.

Do you think M$, Intel & Apple et. al. are happy to stick with a single 'future proof' operating system? How do you think they made their billions?
Click to expand...

That's not a problem at all, most of use will get a new computer at sometime, just keep your old PC tucked away somewhere as the second hand value is so low you would not sell it.

I still listen to my old music compact cassettes. How can I do this when they are obsolete, well I still have my cassette player.


Also what about emulators! got some old spectrum games or that copy of Elite from a BBC computer then just download an emulator. There will be emulators in the future for OS we have now.

We are worrying too much IMHO. What are you backing up to, will DVD are Hard drives still be around in the future. I have backups of old stuff on Floppy's and Seagate Tape Drives, and where is the hardware for them now.

There is only one future proof way to backup, print multiple copies ALL your photos, and store in several secure locations.
 
Future proofing images is no easy task. You have to be prepared to make changes as technology develops. Where is the humble floppy disk nowadays. OK you can still get readers for it but if I had data stored on floppies, I'd be converting to another storage media

I back up onto multiple hard drives at the moment, with the original files also stored on DVD. Maybe in 5 years I will have to transfer all my images to another system. You need to be prepared for changes in technology, maybe next year I'll stop using DVD and go to Blue Ray, I don't know. You simply have to keep and open mind
 
whiteflyer said:
That's not a problem at all, most of use will get a new computer at sometime, just keep your old PC tucked away somewhere as the second hand value is so low you would not sell it.
Click to expand...

That's fine for people with large houses and a fetish for old electronic gear but I suspect most of us would struggle to do that, plus there's no guarantee your old tucked away PC will fire up after ten years in the attic.

The thorny issue of optical & magnetic media is difficult, CD's have been around for less than 30 years and their 'real' long term stability is unknown. With all this talk of digital storage, It's worth bearing in mind that there are still film negatives and prints over 100 years old still in pretty good nick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top