Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
TIFF vs CR2 files
Page: <<prev 1 2
Aug 30, 2017 07:54:00   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira
 
cthahn wrote:
If you start with a RAW file, you can most anything in LR or PS. Once you convert to another file format, you are limited. If learn and understand LR, you can go back to a RAW file anytime.


As you can with many other software packages. There's nothing magic or mystical about LR.

The important thing is to retain the original raw files, not which brand of software is used.

| Reply
Aug 30, 2017 08:10:09   #
bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur
 
Thank you everyone for your thoughts and information. I am going to be more consistent in my workflow in the future. Although storage memory is cheap these days (at least in the amounts I would ever use), I did not realize that 16 bit TIFF files were as large as they apparently are. I also need to become more discriminating in my rejects to minimize my long term storage needs.

| Reply
Aug 30, 2017 08:48:39   #
Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona
 
One of the better discussions I have seen on this subject. That you all for your input.

| Reply
Sep 1, 2017 17:30:09   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, IN, USA
 
bajadreamer wrote:
Sometimes I do store as RAW. Many of my photos are taken during travels and so I end up just deleting my discards and then copy and paste to an external HD (s). I then will edit them and discard many more when I get home. I should be more consistent with my storage techniques but old habits sometimes die hard.

Back in the day of film, each time a box of slides came back from Kodak, my wife and I would have a slide show, triaging the slides. I dumped some, but the box of "decide later" just kept growing. After I switched to digital, I still lugged it along on a move as I slowly scanned the keepers. Finally, recently I started going through those, some nearly fifty years old, and I found that a second look sometimes caused me to have a completely different view of one.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-449362-1.html

This has affected how I look at digital images. You may be a much higher volume photographer than I am - my annual shutter count is under 1500 for all cameras I use - but I have a policy of deleting only real problem cases, and leaving the others for future consideration.

| Reply
Sep 1, 2017 22:54:47   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
rehess wrote:
Back in the day of film, each time a box of slides came back from Kodak, my wife and I would have a slide show, triaging the slides. I dumped some, but the box of "decide later" just kept growing. After I switched to digital, I still lugged it along on a move as I slowly scanned the keepers. Finally, recently I started going through those, some nearly fifty years old, and I found that a second look sometimes caused me to have a completely different view of one.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-449362-1.html

This has affected how I look at digital images. You may be a much higher volume photographer than I am - my annual shutter count is under 1500 for all cameras I use - but I have a policy of deleting only real problem cases, and leaving the others for future consideration.
Back in the day of film, each time a box of slides... (show quote)

Rehess - excellent discussion of your processing and historical development of this approach! Thank you.

Let me provide a different perspective. I don't shoot every day, but when I'm out I'll fill a 32GB card with a 1000ish RAW images over the course of a day or maybe a weekend, depending on the subject. I'm not shooting in bursts. Rather, I'll carefully consider a subject and may shoot from a variety of perspectives or take the same image repeatedly until I'm sure I've captured a "perfect" sharp image, exposed to the right without blow-outs, and preferably with no need to crop or straighten in post.

I've become very aggressive in culling. I don't need all those versions and sadly too often, none of them work when viewed full-sized on a computer monitor. Again depending on the subject matter, my goal is to get that 1000 count down to just the 20 to 50ish best that tell the story I went to capture. Everything else is deleted without further consideration or remorse.

I average a roll of film too every week or few. Here the "cost" is tangible and each frame is nearly $1.00 after the cost of film, processing, scanning and postage. I used to keep all 36 from the roll except the worst disasters. I don't even do that anymore. If it won't be edited and won't be shared on any social media platform, the frame is deleted.

My point is I have a large storage requirement in a workflow that keeps at a minimum 1 RAW, 1 16-bit TIFF and 1 full-sized JPEG (output) per image. But, I don't keep anything that isn't shared on some medium, including my at-home digital frame.

| Reply
Sep 1, 2017 23:18:43   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, IN, USA
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Rehess - excellent discussion of your processing and historical development of this approach! Thank you.

Let me provide a different perspective. I don't shoot every day, but when I'm out I'll fill a 32GB card with a 1000ish RAW images over the course of a day or maybe a weekend, depending on the subject. I'm not shooting in bursts. Rather, I'll carefully consider a subject and may shoot from a variety of perspectives or take the same image repeatedly until I'm sure I've captured a "perfect" sharp image, exposed to the right without blow-outs, and preferably with no need to crop or straighten in post.

I've become very aggressive in culling. I don't need all those versions and sadly too often, none of them work when viewed full-sized on a computer monitor. Again depending on the subject matter, my goal is to get that 1000 count down to just the 20 to 50ish best that tell the story I went to capture. Everything else is deleted without further consideration or remorse.

I average a roll of film too every week or few. Here the "cost" is tangible and each frame is nearly $1.00 after the cost of film, processing, scanning and postage. I used to keep all 36 from the roll except the worst disasters. I don't even do that anymore. If it won't be edited and won't be shared on any social media platform, the frame is deleted.

My point is I have a large storage requirement in a workflow that keeps at a minimum 1 RAW, 1 16-bit TIFF and 1 full-sized JPEG (output) per image. But, I don't keep anything that isn't shared on some medium, including my at-home digital frame.
Rehess - excellent discussion of your processing a... (show quote)
I am a member of a discussion forum dedicated to certain steam railroads. Several months ago there was a serious "rumble" - during a "charter run", one guy had flown his drone over the train, resulting in some really nifty shots; however, the drone showed up in shots taken from the ground by members who had paid for this charter, planning on taking pictures exactly like they could have taken in 1950's {when there were no drones, of course}. When asked to show the ruined shots and video, with the thought that perhaps these efforts could be saved, the unanimous response was "I deleted it in the field". This is my real concern - making decisions in the field based on what one can see "live" and on a 3" screen.

You and I has each provided a reasonable approach to culling images based on personal volume, processing, and reasonable storage. And this is why our discussion fits into this thread - the choice of culling / archiving strategy is closely tied to what data is kept in what form, and having at least a "ballpark" understanding for how these choices of file format affect size and accessibility {if you keep files in CR2 format, for example, then you need to keep the means of reading that format on whatever computer is used to look at them}

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2020 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.