PSD vs. RAW

Dan7312

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all...

I shoot raw images. If I open a .CR2 file as a Smart Object, then save result as a .PSD file I don't see any reason to keep the original .CR2 file.

I know that this is the antithisis of going the .dng route and sort of locks me into Photoshop, but if I don't care about those things is there any reason to hang onto the original raw file?

In Photoshop I can always edit the content of the Smart Object and get back to the ACR editor or export the Smart Object as the original raw file if I need to.

Thanks of any insights...

Ric Grupe

Each individuals needs vary. One never knows what the future holds.

From what I know...saving your raw file is prudent. I've even read that saving as a .tiff is better than as a .psd. I can't recall the argument offhand...I try to get to the heart of the matter and leave the technical mumbo-jumbo to others.

As a hobbyist, saving the edited .tiff and the original raw image files is the way I have chosen...works for me.

Dan7312

Both a .tiff and a .psd file can save a flattened image and the layers that were used to make it. However a .tiff can be read my most image programs but only some know how to pull the flattened image out of a .psd file, so the .tiff would be a bit more generic. You would still need Photoshop to work with the layers in either kind of file.

Ric Grupe wrote:

Each individuals needs vary. One never knows what the future holds.

From what I know...saving your raw file is prudent. I've even read that saving as a .tiff is better than as a .psd. I can't recall the argument offhand...I try to get to the heart of the matter and leave the technical mumbo-jumbo to others.

As a hobbyist, saving the edited .tiff and the original raw image files is the way I have chosen...works for me.