Workflow Check & Balance

BradfordBenn

Hello All-

I am organizing, again, my photos. Mainly cause I just found a bunch of old pictures that did not get included in the process. I would like to ask for a quick sanity check, just to make sure I don't do something dumb.

When I imported the original RAW files into Lightroom, I converted them to DNG. My understanding is that these are identical to the RAW files in terms of non flattened image, but it is a more open standard, does not have a sidecar file, embeds a preview... etc. So is there any reason to keep the RAW files?

I know the first comment will be that storage is cheap so having them around is not a problem. Media is cheap, archiving is complex. So to reduce the number of files by almost 50% if I do not need the RAW files, well think about how much easier it just became - one image it doesn't make a difference 10K images it adds up pretty quickly.

So just as a sanity check before I hit delete.... is there a reason to keep the RAW if I have the DNG file?

Thanks

BinaryFx

I think that would depend on which settings you have/had selected in the conversion preferences.



Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

cmason

Technically, no. The image information is lossless so its all there, just in a different format. Whether you should save the RAW I think depends on your bet as to which format will stand the test of time: Will it be Canon/Nikon preserving their formats so 40 years from now software will be available to access them, or will in be Adobe providing this service?

Granted, Adobe has opened their DNG spec, but it is not a standard, nor is it widely supported by much of anything but Adobe software.

And if you think this is trivial, speak to folks who have very important Wordstar docs on 5 1/2 in floppies.

There is an option to embed your RAW in the DNG, thus keeping both. This does not save any hard drive space of course.


I personally am on the verge of moving to DNG, for the simple reason that I can save my edits in one file, rather than RAW+XMP or RAW plus a backup of Lightroom. In fact, I suspect that my current way of saving the RAW plus the Lightroom database is even LESS 'stable' over time than RAW+XMP or DNG.

BradfordBenn

Thanks for the sanity check. While sitting on the plane I got rid of a few Gigs in LR. That way I could look at them both, see if I even changed them, then delete. Plus since media is cheap, I somewhere have the originals if I really truly need them.

Richard

How much time, effort and money you put into your archive scheme should be a function of how much risk you are willing to run. An archive is usually a lot more important to a pro whose income depends on it than to an amateur.

IMO, it is overkill to keep DNG and RAW files for every pic. Pick one or the other based, as cmason suggests, on which you think has the best chance for long-term survival. You cannot recreate a RAW file from a DNG file unless you actually save the RAW as part of the file, which effectively doubles its size. So if I were to pick one format, I would keep the RAW. You could also just keep both formats to be doubly sure. If you go this route, you could keep everything in large DNG files, which are easier to manage than separate DNG and RAW files.

The key to long term viability is to keep your eye on the changing software and media reading capabilities of your computer. Software is still available to convert WordStar files to modern formats, but how many of us can still read floppy disks on our machines? If you are using DVDs for backup, remember that they don't last all that long, so you should check them periodically for integrity. You should plan on completely replacing your archival storage scheme every five to ten years depending on hardware developments. Finally, don't assume that software you are running today will be usable two computer generations from now. Some companies take backwards compatibility more seriously than others.

These changes don't happen overnight, and as long as you are paying attention there will be options for converting your data to newer media and/or formats. Keep a minimum of two copies of everything on separate media at all times. Online backup is getting pretty cheap as well, but don't put all your eggs in that basket either--the cloud is going to be stormy for a while and not all of the companies are going to survive.

Oh, and don't worry, be happy.

BradfordBenn

Thanks for the thorough response Richard. Given my photographic skill way back when, I am not sure that some of the images are even worth the CD space to archive.

I have been having an interesting time deleting about 70% of my images from 2000 to March of 2004. More to go, but no more plane flights for a little while....