LR users: do you delete or keep processed jpgs?

eoren1

I have been using LR since it came out and have been processing my CR2 files to JPG and then using sendtosmugmug to post them. I then move the photos (CR2 and JPG) to a descriptive folder.
With the new LR to smugmug uploaders, I'm realizing that I can skip the jpg step and save some much needed hard drive space. I'm now contemplating going back and deleting all of the processed jpg files (with the exception of those that have had further work done in PS).
What do you do? Keep all of the JPGs or delete them knowing that the sidecar files allow you to produce them in the future?
Thanks,
E

arodney

Considering that Raw data and metadata instructions (and a permanent history in LR), you can always quickly re-render the JPEGs or TIFFs for that mater, at any size and a number of color spaces whenever you wish. So, I'd toss em.

LiquidAir

I, too, toss my JPEGs the minute I have shipped them to their final destination.

When I do work in Photoshop, I archive the .psd file and generate JPEGs from it in Lighroom when I need them. The net result is that I have no archival JPEGs on my local machine. Every file is either a .CR2 + .xmp or a .psd.

eoren1

Thank you both.
I'm unfortunatly not much of a 'deleter' - I even keep blurry shots (though have been rating them as a 1 star photo).
After posting this last night, I went ahead and started deleting that bunch of shots and will work on the JPGs next. That should free up a fair amount of HDD space.
Thanks,
E

cmason

eoren1 wrote:

Thank you both.
I'm unfortunatly not much of a 'deleter' - I even keep blurry shots (though have been rating them as a 1 star photo).
After posting this last night, I went ahead and started deleting that bunch of shots and will work on the JPGs next. That should free up a fair amount of HDD space.
Thanks,
E

Interesting. With this new LR plug-in, I can actually reduce .jpg creation. With S*E, I am forced to creat .jpgs before they can be uploaded.

On the other hand, I do use the .jpgs in a separate 'edit' folder to remind myself which photos I have completed edit on.

SloYerRoll

eoren1 wrote:

I'm unfortunatly not much of a 'deleter' - I even keep blurry shots (though have been rating them as a 1 star photo).

I recommend using 0 stars for absolute non keepers. I'd also think about scalability. As a photographer, you are always improving your work and what you think is a 4 or 5 star now may only be a 2 star down the road. Martin Evening also had a great Idea in one of his books by saying unless the shot is part of his masterpiece collection (or absolute favorite) he acts as if the 4 & 5 star ratings don't exist. This gives options to help narrow down your collection. This is especially useful when your image count is in 6 digits+.

To answer your question though:
I cull through the shots when they are first imported and get rid of the obviously bad shot. closed or partially closed eyes, soft or blurry shots, etc..
Then I rate the shots and color code them. Once you get used to color coding, it's much easier than stacking. Even though stacking is great for virtual copies.

-Jon

eoren1

SloYerRoll wrote:

I recommend using 0 stars for absolute non keepers. I'd also think about scalability. As a photographer, you are always improving your work and what you think is a 4 or 5 star now may only be a 2 star down the road. Martin Evening also had a great Idea in one of his books by saying unless the shot is part of his masterpiece collection (or absolute favorite) he acts as if the 4 & 5 star ratings don't exist. This gives options to help narrow down your collection. This is especially useful when your image count is in 6 digits+.

To answer your question though:
I cull through the shots when they are first imported and get rid of the obviously bad shot. closed or partially closed eyes, soft or blurry shots, etc..
Then I rate the shots and color code them. Once you get used to color coding, it's much easier than stacking. Even though stacking is great for virtual copies.

-Jon

Hey Jon,
Thanks for the post. The reason to use 1 star is to separate them from the uncatagorized shots.

My rating system:
1: blurry, unuseable...to delete (i just don't...)
2: 'documentary' - decent shots but not great. ok if eyes closed as long as has some documentary (of my kids) quality to it.
3: good - good enough to consider in the develop module (where i limit review to greater than/equal to 3 stars. most fall into this catagory.
4. great
5. superb

I was using the color labels in lieu of collections until I learned to use those more (uhhh just last week).
Not really using color labels effectively yet. How do you color code?
E

SloYerRoll

eoren1 wrote:

How do you color code?
E

I use them the same way I used to group images in bridge. Normally I do searches using keywords, but on the time when I go into an actual folder to browse around. I can scroll very quickly through a folder and get to where I need.
i.e.
I have a family folder which cotains all family shots.
My 2yo daughter is yellow
Family shots (my daughter, wife and I) are red
My family (all relatives on my side) are green
Wife's family are indigo
Distant relatives are blue

There are tons of ways to use colors. This is jsut one of the ways.

CatOne

SloYerRoll wrote:

I recommend using 0 stars for absolute non keepers. I'd also think about scalability. As a photographer, you are always improving your work and what you think is a 4 or 5 star now may only be a 2 star down the road. Martin Evening also had a great Idea in one of his books by saying unless the shot is part of his masterpiece collection (or absolute favorite) he acts as if the 4 & 5 star ratings don't exist. This gives options to help narrow down your collection. This is especially useful when your image count is in 6 digits+.

To answer your question though:
I cull through the shots when they are first imported and get rid of the obviously bad shot. closed or partially closed eyes, soft or blurry shots, etc..
Then I rate the shots and color code them. Once you get used to color coding, it's much easier than stacking. Even though stacking is great for virtual copies.

-Jon

Isn't 0 stars the same as "no stars" meaning the shots haven't been rated? It's tough to act on that because unless you always rate ALL your images, you will have your unrateds mixed in with your rejects.

Aperture has the concept of negative stars, and LR has a "reject" flag which is completely separate to star ratings. I find it's great for pruning. If I go shoot action (sports, my dog chasing the ball at the park, whatever) and get tons of shots (the 1D mark II can take a lot of pictures ;-) the reject flag is great because I can quickly mark 1/2 or more of my shots as rejects. Then there's a "delete rejected photos" command which deletes all those marked as rejects in one fell swoop. It's a nice way when you've come back with 500-1000 shots and you *really* only need to keep 50 of them. Because let's face it, few people want to see more than 5 of those shots (unless, of course, it's kids sports and then they want ALL shots of THEIR kid ;-)

eoren1

CatOne wrote:

Isn't 0 stars the same as "no stars" meaning the shots haven't been rated? It's tough to act on that because unless you always rate ALL your images, you will have your unrateds mixed in with your rejects.

Aperture has the concept of negative stars, and LR has a "reject" flag which is completely separate to star ratings. I find it's great for pruning. If I go shoot action (sports, my dog chasing the ball at the park, whatever) and get tons of shots (the 1D mark II can take a lot of pictures ;-) the reject flag is great because I can quickly mark 1/2 or more of my shots as rejects. Then there's a "delete rejected photos" command which deletes all those marked as rejects in one fell swoop. It's a nice way when you've come back with 500-1000 shots and you *really* only need to keep 50 of them. Because let's face it, few people want to see more than 5 of those shots (unless, of course, it's kids sports and then they want ALL shots of THEIR kid ;-)

Great point! I've been using the flag on all processed photos and never thought to use the reject flag before. That extra functionality to delete all would definately come in handy.
E

SloYerRoll

CatOne wrote:

Isn't 0 stars the same as "no stars" meaning the shots haven't been rated? It's tough to act on that because unless you always rate ALL your images, you will have your unrateds mixed in with your rejects.

Aperture has the concept of negative stars, and LR has a "reject" flag which is completely separate to star ratings. I find it's great for pruning. If I go shoot action (sports, my dog chasing the ball at the park, whatever) and get tons of shots (the 1D mark II can take a lot of pictures ;-) the reject flag is great because I can quickly mark 1/2 or more of my shots as rejects. Then there's a "delete rejected photos" command which deletes all those marked as rejects in one fell swoop. It's a nice way when you've come back with 500-1000 shots and you *really* only need to keep 50 of them. Because let's face it, few people want to see more than 5 of those shots (unless, of course, it's kids sports and then they want ALL shots of THEIR kid ;-)

negative stars. That's takes pac ratting shots to a whole new level!

SloYerRoll

eoren1 wrote:

Great point! I've been using the flag on all processed photos and never thought to use the reject flag before. That extra functionality to delete all would definitely come in handy.
E

Using flags is how I cull through shots.
After importing, I go though and "X" the obviously bad shots. Then I filter by viewing only rejected photos. Then I select all and dump them.

CatOne

SloYerRoll wrote:

Using flags is how I cull through shots.
After importing, I go though and "X" the obviously bad shots. Then I filter by viewing only rejected photos. Then I select all and dump them.

With LR it's quicker. Command-delete is explicitly "delete rejects" and it shows you the rejects before you delete. No need to filter ;-)

SloYerRoll

CatOne wrote:

With LR it's quicker. Command-delete is explicitly "delete rejects" and it shows you the rejects before you delete. No need to filter ;-)

Thanks for that Cat. I didn't know about that one! I assume that shortcut removes the shot from disk as well?
I still like to filter so it gives me a chance to look at shots again. It doesn't happen often, but there are times where I look at a shot a second time and see something I didn't see before and take it out of the reject pile.

Cheers,
-Jon

BradfordBenn

I keep the JPEGs up on SmugMug I typically delete them as a I can recreate them easily. However for stuff that is project specific, I keep those files with the rest of the project stuff when I do the archive. Of course I am just shooting for fun, so my projects are more stuff like - digital picture frame load, photo album for wife... etc.