Hi, I was going to start this thread a few days ago, then posted it into another thread - but no replies. Hope this is not breaking protocol. Here is what I asked on Monday.

Hi,

I am new here (today!!!!) and I was going to start a thread about file back up, and in particular, file size.

Right, I realize that what I am about to ask will probably have everyone throwing their hands in the air, but here goes.

Why keep CR2, DNG or PSD files at all???? Why not just jpgs?

My wife and I have just ordered our first sample wedding album from La-Vie, and I noticed that the first image in the album, with all its layers, is a whopping 157mb.

Now, if the album company only want files in jpg format, around 6-7mb, then why would we ever need such a huge original? All the work has been done on the image, so why do we have all these layers stored? We could flatten to a smaller psd, but why not jpg? The finished images will either be in an album, a frame, or on a computer screen, none of which require huge file sizes.

Especially since we can now edit jpg's in camera raw (CS3), it seems to me like we are storing lots of stuff for absolutely no reason.

Please don't misunderstand, we shoot EVERY image in RAW. I am simply asking about the ongoing storage of files. The files we might never ever need again, and if we did, what would we output them from? Jpg?

For those folks who will sell on the images to the client, now or in the future, what format will you hand them over in? I would guess jpg, but maybe that would be a wrong guess. Do you normally sell the RAW images?

Anyway, I am ready for the barrage of abuse I may be about to get!!! :-) I just want to know if we should keep on buying large SATA drives to store all these huge psd's we seem to be putting together.

Thanks for any help you can give.

Hugh

It's all about your comfort level. I keep RAW files, because ... well, you never know. You never know when you might need them or want them. You never know when you might want to post process an image differently or need to be able to go back to the original data or anything.

I don't keep *all* my RAW files. I edit out the crap and discard that. The remaining RAW files are renumbered sequentially and backed up to multiple DVDs. Then the processed JPEGs are also backed up to multiple DVDs.

I'm anal that way.

Karen

I totally agree Hugh! Currently we do keep the RAW files, but I do separate my Favorites RAW files from the general files of the wedding. That way we can throw away the majority of large files, while I still have my favorite RAW files set aside in case I would want to go back and process them differently as the conversion software gets better.

You're smart that way. Keeping backups is so incredibly important!

A good reason to keep files in raw, psd or tiff format is b/c none of these are compressed files. Everytime you open a jpg you are losing some information. Now just opening it a few times you probably won't notice but its nice to have the safety of the non-compressed files. YOu will be happy you did this one day when the client comes back and wants to order a decent sized image and you open up the jpg and realize it looks like crap at that size.

there is my 2 cents

It was stressed to me so much at Brooks Institute and I am so glad it was!

I've read the opposite. Just opening/reading a file doesn't change it.

From About.com's JPEG Myths and Facts:

False. -- JPEGs lose quality every time they are opened and/or saved.

Simply opening or displaying a JPEG image does not harm the image in any way. Saving a JPEG repeatedly during the same editing session (without ever closing the image) will not accumulate a loss in quality.
Copying and renaming a JPEG will not introduce any loss, but some image editors do recompress JPEGs when the Save As command is used. To avoid more loss you should duplicate and rename JPEGs in a file manager rather than using "Save As JPEG" in an editing program.

True. -- JPEGs lose quality every time they are opened, edited and saved.

If a JPEG image is opened, edited, and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It is very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use a image format that is not lossy (TIFF, BMP, PNG) for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving within the same editing session won't introduce additional damage. It is only when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again.

For me it is totally a comfort level as well as one of practicality. In the grand scheme it isnt that much work to back up all RAW files to DVD. While it is true that you may not use them all, there have been times when I've gone back and for an album background an image i would never have used as a primary one works there.

Since I don't know what the harm is, Ibackup all RAW files to DVD and then start my edit process where I work down to the final onces for the client which I then backup.

I'm anal about it as well, but i would rather err on the side of having an image than wishing I had.

my .02

So it looks like you gave both opinions on this topic you say its true and false, so where do you really stand??
I am gonna go with what I had originally thought, I have seen this happen with some of my files and I would rather be safe than sorry!

Damon beat me to it: Opening a JPEG does not damage it. You can open and close a million times and nothing will change. SAVING changes to a JPEG will recompress it, and then you'll lose data.

Edited: Lucinda, reread what Damon posted. Opening and saving doesn't harm. Opening, changing, and saving does. There's no contradiction there. This isn't "opinion". It's measureable fact. You can measure the size of a JPEG and see when you're losing data - that's factual.

karen

wow! that's an interesting read! thanks for sharing.

Sorry I missed that on his. I am so drugged up right now strep throat etc! Yes what he said is what I was trying to say. I keep all my raw files in case I want to go in re edit etc. Its just a good idea to keep them. Thats just how I feel about it though. I wan't trying to change everyones opinon I was just responding to the post to say how I felt on the subject.

this topic is like asking "why save film negatives?"

HMMMMMMM

i'll hold onto my RAW files guys, thanks.

hmm, looks like I have started something here. Let me just push the boat out a little further. :-)Of course, those that say simply opening a jpeg several times does not alter the quality are correct. What does seem to be coming through is an opinion that there just "might" be a time in the distant future when some client comes back and asks for something, or maybe we will find another use for a file.The original question still applies - what format would you send to the lab to have the print done? If the answer is not RAW, then why do we need the RAW file?If there is a very slight possibility that we might want to alter the file in some way, firstly, why can't we simply do that with the tools we now have to edit jpg's (CS3 Camera Raw 4), and secondly......Is it REALLY worth all the effort, all the hard drives, all the costs, just in case someone comes along and asks for a print we will output in jpeg in any case??!!Sorry if I am stirring the pot a little, I am just having a little trouble figuring out the validity of storing files in a format we are almost certain not to need.Does this all make sense to anyone?HughSorry Meeksdigital, I totally disagree with your view. If we threw away negs we would have nothing. That is not the question here, it is more of what format is best. The one we output from, or the one we seem only to store?Sorry to disagree.

Sorry MeeksDigital, but I totally disagree.

If you throw away negs you have nothing.

The question here is not whether to throw away all files, but rather what format to keep them in. The one we output from, or the one we seem to store huge amounts of.

Sorry to disagree.

Hugh

You may get different and varied answers to this question based on a number of factors, factors that may be important to some and not to others. So take this for what it's worth. I send JPEGs to the lab, to answer your question. But I save the RAW files, the PSD files of my favorite images, and the processed JPEGs of all images. Since I don't save PSDs of all images, I keep the RAW files, just in case I need them. However, I only keep the client's images for 1 year, so after the 1 year is over I remove them and I only keep my favorites in PSD and the JPEGs and trash all the RAW files.


Well, if you are going to edit a file differently, do you want to start with a lossy, compressed 8-bit file or with a lossless, uncompressed, 12 or 14-bit file? My preference is to start with as much data as I can, but that is just me. I know many JPEG shooters that edit JPEGs coming out of the camera. This again, is a matter of preference, what may be important to others may not be important to you, and it doesn't mean that one is right vs. the other. Secondly, HD space is dirt cheap right now. I can store a year's worth of events in one 250Gb or 320Gb HD right now, and the whopping cost for that is around $100. So I don't get your complain about the cost and effort. Click and drag the 2006 folder to the external HD and leave running over night. Not much effort in that department either.



Yes you are. So remember, what may be important to you may not be important to others and vice versa. There is no right or wrong answer to this question. It's a matter of personal preference and the reasons can be many.

I am a pack rat and love to keep my raws:) I'd feel so vulnerable without them!

I do the same thing, keeping just my favorite RAW images handy in case I ever want them for marketing or something. I do have backups of all the Original RAW's though, just in case, but they're on DVD's in a safe deposit box.

dude, no biggie about disagreeing. thats what we're all here for! if we all agreed, this place wouldn't be interesting.

if you throw away your negs, you would have prints (providing that you had printed them). then, you could scan them. = sh*tty quality in the long run.

in my opinion, same goes for JPEGs. I always keep RAWs because i never know what i'll want or need to do with them (the images) over time, whether it's printing huge canvases for display or different versions for my portfolio. RAW allows me hundreds of times more control over my images than with JPEG, and that's huge incentive to keep at least the "picks" from each shoot in RAW.

Well, many different opinions, all interesting. One thing that nobody seems to be talking about is speed. Shooting a burst of jpg's will allow the camera to catch up faster than shooting RAW. Any opinions about when this might be a good idea? Does anyone switch for the bouquet toss then switch back? Does it even make a difference???This RAW - jpg debate also seems to be raging herehttp://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum/index...showtopic=10398entitled "Tell Me Why I Shouldn't Switch From RAW to Jpg?" Many people switching to jpeg only, many sticking with RAW. It's getting a bit like the Apple - PC thing isn't it. (Of course we ALL know that the Mac is wayyyyyyyy superior!!!!Oops. Did I just write that??????? Better be careful and not press the SEND button before editing that out. :-)Thanks to anyone who contributed.Hugh

why not keep the raw files.

Hard drives are built into what I charge for my weddings.

I can buy 2 500-gig external hard drives for less than $300 on most days. Backing up is cheap.

Why not keep around the highest quality copies possible if you can?

If you can't afford hard drives, then I totally understand.

And to go back to the orig question:

I only export my jpgs at 1200 px on the long side compressed like mad. These are uploaded to my pickpic cart.

Then, when it comes time to make a print for a client, I can go back to my RAW file and digitally master from the original.

I can only imagine someone going to a movie studio and trying to pitch to them:
"Hey, I think you should throw out all of the original film, just get rid of it, it's not what you're showing the viewers. Just toss it, and just keep a copy of the final film around. This will save you money, and storage space."

If it works for you to toss the raws, go for it. As for me, I have a new part to add to my sales pitch for my clients. "Some photographers throw away your original pictures, and only keep smaller sized files so that they can save space and money. Our studio on the other hand keeps nothing but the highest quality files in storage, we also keep every single file in case you ever want something you didn't see..." This is another huge confidence builder for clients.

As for shooting in raw or jpg for bursts such as the boquet toss... I LOVE my MarkII... 8.5 frames a second, I've never missed anything because of my slow camera...

But as for anything in this crazy business of wedding photography, to each his own. And, if you believe in what you're doing and can educate your clients, more power to you and there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with the way you're doing things if you're keeping your clients happy.

Tim, it's not really about the affordability, as someone new to this business, I suddenly became aware of how much effort goes into safe storage of files.

My initial thoughts were actually not started by the size of a RAW file strangely enough, it was a 157MB .psd file that got my brain whirring. Especially since La-Vie were asking for 6-7 MB Jpg's for an album. If we were going to reduce the size of the finished file for output, now or in the future, why keep it in it's large form?

My wife is all for keeping these huge .psd files, my first impulse was to try to figure out if we would want to store files as big on a consistent basis. Hence the question, why not flatten the layers or convert to jpg for archival purposes?

We are just starting and already have a couple of TB storage. I shudder to think what it will be after a year!!!! :-)

Hugh

so the question then is less about keeping the raw files and more about keeping your worked up files and keeping them in layers as a psd...

and in that case, I would say if there's one or two, then save them, but if you're doing this with every single file from a wedding, flatten them. Sounds like you've done all the work you need to.

ok Tim, you had posted your second post as I was answering your first! :-)Sadly, we don't have a MKll yet. We have a 5D and a 20D, but are busy eyeing the Mklll. We might decide to push the boat out!.My original question was not just about RAW files but also about the worked on .psd files. Maybe your new sales pitch should not say.... "Some photographers throw away your original pictures, and only keep smaller sized files so that they can save space and money. Our studio on the other hand keeps nothing but the highest quality files in storage, we also keep every single file in case you ever want something you didn't see..."....If based on truth, it should perhaps say... "some folks were asking on a forum if there was any benefit to storing large files, and I decided to make a sales pitch from it". :-)Or maybe it should say "we keep these high quality files, and if you want an image, we will compress it down to the same size as the files being kept by those other guys"Remember, I have never at any time suggested that the client should be compromised in any way. I simple said that the album files were output in jpg form, so was there any benefit to keeping other formats? Your "sales pitch" mentions the client wanting something they didn't see - surely they have seen, and do have, the images that are in their album.That being the case, I was asking, should we store the retouched huge file, or the files that were sent to the album company. If they want a reprint, it will be from those files., right?Am I explaining myself properly here???Tim, this is friendly banter from me, hope it doesn't come across as argumentative.Hughlol, playing post tag with you!!

Hehe... hope I didn't offend... I read back through what I wrote and could see how it might...

I wasn't trying to take a personal poke at all. It's honestly a good point to make when talking to clients and planting seeds of trust with your business.

The funny thing is, I actually do tell my clients about OSP and being involved on here and chatting about business and learning from others. Our clients think it's pretty awesome! (And I know of at least one of DJ's former "clients" who is now on this forum and has become a VERY successful wedding photographer)

Hehe... the more I'm reading your post the more bad I'm feeling... I totally came across being an arse back there... sorry about that.

Didn't mean to be demeaning by any means. I will honestly use it in my sales pitch though because it is true that some photographers are already doing this, and it's another point of trust for our clients...

I think it's great to use those same files over and over again to order the same print, but as soon as a client asks for a 60x90" print and you need to go back and interpolate up, you're going to start seeing a huge difference in quality starting over from the RAW vs. starting where you left off with a compressed jpg file.

I actually feel sooo strongly about keeping the raws, that I've now started deleting all jpgs I have.

As for should you keep the compressed jpgs or the psds, I'd vote for the jpgs if there's a high number of them. But if we're talking only a handful of files, I'd just keep the psds so when orders in the future come in you can just grab the file and keep going with it rather than starting from scratch like I do. (again, not saying what I do is the best... though it works well for me and I strongly believe what I do works best for me...)

Totally friendly man, I hope I didn't come across as bad as I feel I may have.

On my D70s, at 3fps and with only a 3 frame buffer for RAW, this was an issue. Since upgrading to the D200, shooting speed is no longer an issue. Whether shooting RAW or JPEG the speed is 5fps and the buffer is 19 frames or more. I don't switch, I keep my camera on the 5fps setting all the time so I don't have to monkey with switching back and forth when I need the speed. If I need the speed, I just point and spray


Now this is a more valid question than the RAW vs. JPEG you've been asking. I only keep a select few as layerd PSD files, maybe 20 at most from about 800 proofs I delivered to the client. But no, I don't think it makes sense to save all or most of the layered PSD files.

I only keep PSD files after the images are delivered if

a) I do some tedious layer masks which I don't want to have to recreate but might want to use to reprocess the image. This has never happeded.

b) I do something cool and might want to go back and study the layers to replicate. More rare than a dodo bird

s

Sounds like your normal self! j/k

I agree with Tim that if your talking about he PSD files that you've already done your work on, then it would probably be best to flatten them and save as jpegs and then toss the huge PSD file.

FWIW...at E2 back in June we met uber-talented photographer Curt Littlecott. Curt saves his CF cards in each client file! How's that for back-up?

Like what Tim said about the cost of hard drives, I suppose Curt just builds the cost of new cards into each shoot. (Though I think he's primarily, if not totally, a jpeg shooter...)

just something to add...

Well many opinions here - I really appreciate the input. Thanks everyone for taking the time to participate.

Hugh

I heard that too. I was surprised until I heard the jpeg part. Has Curt done any research into the long term viability of flash memory vs. a hard drive vs. dvd's?