Archiving

Hi guys.

I would like to know how you archive your photos.

I usually take the original raw shoot, but which format for retouched images?

Thank you

I just keep my whole photo library backed up on my server. With the ever decreasing price of hard drives, adding more space is never a problem.

Yeah, external hard disks are cheap enough. I keep one copy of the RAW on an external; and one copy on DVD which are stored well away form the hard disk

I have a mix of big tifs and smaller jpegs..

These days though seems mags are accepting jpgs all the time so i only need the big tiffs for agencies.

I keep them all on a variety of hard drives, not dvds

Hi guys.

I would like to know how you archive your photos.

I usually take the original raw shoot, but which format for retouched images?

 

Thank you

Hi Claustro

max res JPEGS or TIFs are fine for archiving finished images - but I would personally only use the RAW itself, a TIF or a PSD as a working file, since repeatedly resaving JPEGs will degrade the image. Modern workflow apps such as Lightroom go some way to negating the need to keep seperate file formats of processed RAW's , since they can store all image corrections that you would like to apply on the Raw files whilst leaving the originals unchanged. You can then output in a variety of formats as and when you need - say a JPEG or TIF for mag or agency.

hope this helps

Steve

hope this helps

 

Steve

Thank you all for answering:-)

Adobe Digital Negative (.DNG) format for me on Raid NAS and a backup USB External drive....

Joel, or anyone,

Help and old Missouri boy out. What is the advantage of using the DNG format? I've read in Scott Kelby's books that he recommends using it but I never understood why. I'm shooting a Canon 40D and backing up the files on my laptop and a 160G portable harddrive until I can get home to backup on the Seagate and store the good ones on disc. I've read the Adobe site specs but I'm ashamed to say it didn't help.

Steve

Hi Steve,

As I understand it DNG is an 'open' format - in that it is documented exactly where and how information is embedded in the file.

All of the 'raw' formats are vendor (Cannon / Nikon etc ) specific. Even given a single vendor each camera model produces a different 'raw' file format. This is why say Photoshop requires a camera specific bit of software to read each one.

As far as I am aware none of the major vendors release their internal formats other than to big OEM's such as Adobe.

Upshot is that in say 10 years time if you have a 'raw' file from say a Cannon 20D you may have a tough time finding an application to read it. Similar situation arises now in the computer world - anyone got an 8" floppy drive ?

In comes DNG - proposed by Adobe ( not a camera vendor ) and they have both made for format open to developers and indicated that they will support it in the future.

Time will tell - but if you are concerned about long term storage of data stay clear of CD / DVD and stick to HDD.

Paul C

Upshot is that in say 10 years time if you have a 'raw' file from say a Cannon 20D you may have a tough time finding an application to read it. Similar situation arises now in the computer world - anyone got an 8" floppy drive ?

 

Paul C

I think in reality staying with any of the current formats including all major camera manufacturers is likely to be viable for a long time, as it is quite likely that as long as there is a need, format convertors will be available.

Particularly if one uses programs like Lightroom and Aperture, it is easy to keep copies of the original RAW (any camera maker format) and any final images in whatever final format. I would also make a point that if one has an image that has a significant amount of layer work in Photoshop, keep an unflattened image with well labelled layers etc so that you can always come back and review and change what you did. Fortunately now storage space is getting cheaper and cheaper so keeping multiple files begins to make sense.

Joel, or anyone,

 

Help and old Missouri boy out. What is the advantage of using the DNG format? I've read in Scott Kelby's books that he recommends using it but I never understood why. I'm shooting a Canon 40D and backing up the files on my laptop and a 160G portable harddrive until I can get home to backup on the Seagate and store the good ones on disc. I've read the Adobe site specs but I'm ashamed to say it didn't help.

 

Steve

PRC and Loftus are exactly right, it's a open Raw image format, and it'll be a cold day in the future before either Canon or Nikon RAW is unreadable.

Its a nice middle ground for me using PS3/Lightroom on a number of computers, so a unified format helps keep me organized. I've notice a little speed edge over a Nikon/Canon raw image load speed, but it's probably just in my mind.

To change the subject completely, what part of Misery, err Missouri did you hail?

--Edit, I wrote an incoherrent paragraph that I didn't catch (circular thought process)

what part of Misery, err Missouri did you hail?

Now back to the question at hand. So if I believe that someday no one will have a piece of software for my great grandchildren to play with my images in CS47, I should save everything in DNG? So if I understand, Adobe is trying to do for photography what the pdf file did for word processing?

Steve

Sorry if I took the thread off track, I'm loving the answers. I grew up around KC and did my "open water" in your neck of the woods in Lake Stockton in 68. Got to 30', the mask was to keep the mud out of your eyes Did a couple of hundred dives in Table Rock before seeing the light and moving to California. Still have some great memories of dives off the "forest".

 

Now back to the question at hand. So if I believe that someday no one will have a piece of software for my great grandchildren to play with my images in CS47, I should save everything in DNG? So if I understand, Adobe is trying to do for photography what the pdf file did for word processing?

 

Steve

Yes, but Adobe could be gone then too, and your great grandchildren will have to find a convertor for all your DNG files to see what grandpops looked like.

Hehe! The first digital SLR cameras to become popular were the Kodak DCS series back in the late nineties. That company is COMPLETELY GONE as a DSLR manufacturer. However, their RAW files can still be read and processed in various software - probably coming out looking BETTER than when processed with what was available back in the day.

So I wouldn't be putting too much energy into DNG at this point - but that's just my opinon...

I archive everything in the native RAW format the camera produces.

Cheers

James

... I archive everything in the native RAW format the camera produce....

ACR is a good workhorse converter, so DNG might be an attractive option.

But if you do convert to DNG maybe you should click "embed original raw file" in the DNG conversion options, as this stores the original native RAW inside the DNG.

It makes the file bigger, but imagine if in 50,000 captures time, Canon/Nikon bring out the best RAW converters the world has ever seen, with film-like colour, all the automatic u-beaut lens correction tools and whatever else they are thinking of etc etc, but they only work with their native files....

lots of what-ifs with all this, whatever way you go.

I use High Resolution JPEGS for printing and slideshows, calendars, etc. I keep *all* my originals in RAW - never delete anything.

I have two 160GB USB drives to store archival data. I wouldn't worry about being able to read an old file format in the future. The real challenge is being able to use the data storage mechanism itself. Not many people can still get data off of a 5 1/4" floppy simply because all those drives are in a landfill somewhere. I will just move my archival to whatever the prevalent technology is every 5 years or so.

I agree the real issue is, what is the MEDIA you archive to. Apparently optical media degrades after a several years and you could wind up with a bunch of DVDs or CDs that have nothing when you need them most (when your magnetic drive fails). It seems a huge PITA, but I think I am going to go back to shooting film. Wait. I never shot film before.

My 2 cents, and it may be worth just that. If Adobe can convert the .NEF file to .DNG *now*, they will be able to do it *later*. So, when Nikon goes out of business, I'll convert to .DNG. In the interim, if Nikon software surpasses Adobe's in image manipulation, I will have the NEF file without creating overly large files by using DNG with embedded NEF.

However, an open source DNG file means there maybe other software developers besides Nikon/Adobe that allow you to read your data.

And, your next camera may simply use the open source DNG file.

And then, a google search reveals:

A second benefit of DNG format is the ability to save all the picture information contained in the proprietary raw files’ sidecar XMP files (keywords, description, copyright notices) directly into the DNG file. There is no longer any need to worry about sidecar files. They cannot get lost or disassociated from the image.

Another benefit of DNG is the ability to store a full-size or medium-size JPEG preview file. This allows for third party photo management software such as PicaJet to directly use the preview file instead of slowly parsing a large RAW file to display a preview image. [Of course, your DNG file may not work with your Nikon software (and if not, you "give up" the ability to use the next generation of Nikon software as someone else mentioned).

And then, one author commented that if you embed the raw with the dng, you may have to worry about there being software that can extract the raw from the embedded file, so you may wish to hedge our bet and keep the files separate.

The library of congress endorses DNG as the preferred raw format (but, then again, it recommends TIFF over any raw format, for whatever that is worth). Some magazines are requesting DNG submissions (of course, you can convert as needed).