RAW, Tiff, PSD : What to keep?

[P-A. Fortin]

Oi,

Due to the "bad" influence of some people who shall remain nameless, I got myself a copy of Photoshop CS5 less than 2 weeks ago. I started to play around with some images I had already started to process in Lightroom: added layers, masks, filters, adjustments, etc.. Then I saved the file (before the resizing/sharpening of course).

800mb....

Then I started to read around to find out how people stored their images, and what they actually kept and deleted. If I read 15 items, I found 15 different options, with not much explanation as of "why or why not". Some keep all their original unprocessed RAW files, some only keep their processed Photoshop files, some save as Tiff, some as PSD, some flattened, some with all layers, some 16 bits, some 8 bits, some JPG, some keep only their original "master file", some keep the Photoshop file for every "output" they generate.

I know that I keep way too many images right now, and I know that hard drives are not that expensive. Yet I am pretty sure there is some way to store files that would make sense and minimize storage space required without sacrificing image quality and options for "future work".

So all of this to ask pretty much: what do you keep, how, and especially why.

[Doug Brown]

<embed id="application/x-exifeverywhere" type="application/x-exifeverywhere" width="0" height="0">Good question. I'll be interested to hear what others do. It goes without saying that I keep the original RAW file. I save a master 16-bit layered TIFF file with no sharpening applied. I also save resized 16-bit layered TIFF files with sharpening applied (for example BPN-sized). TIFF is an open industry standard in publishing. PSD is a proprietary format. That's why I go with TIFFs.

[Jay Gould]

PA, you have opened more issues that perhaps obvious at first glance:

RAW cf DNG

PSD cf TIFF

I generally convert my RAW to DNG as I do not want to deal with the XMP sidecar every time I move an image. I do save the RAW until I have completed processing all of the images from a particular shoot.

I keep lots of copies during the processing in PSD format. At the conclusion of all processing I save a flatten TIFF Master and make duplicate copies to size for various purposes. I sharpen the resized copies.

Perhaps, if I were the Professional (with a capital P that they deserve) like Doug and my brother, I might consider saving the RAW files too.

I cull and cull and cull. It is not part of my "thing" to save images because later - years later - I might want to go back and reprocess with new processing technology.

For me, too many other choices for my time as a full-time traveler.

[Doug West]

I guess the best way to answer is, there really is no right or wrong way. Whatever way you decide, then that's the right way.

Me?

I save all my raw files, just in case something happens to the tif file I created from it.

Then after that, it really just depends on what I might need the image for. If its going to be an image that I know I'm going to
use for framing, slide presentations, print only, etc., I'll just create a jpg file(s) from my master tif.

As far as backing up, I just back up my raw and tif files since I can create a jpg file whenever I want.

Doug

[John Chardine]

If I had my choice of what one file to save, I would of course choose the RAW file. As Doug mentioned above, "this goes without saying". The RAW file can never be saved over top of itself whereas all the other non-RAW formats can. This is reason enough but there are other reasons too. You always know for sure that a RAW image is unedited and that the processing techs are saved in an XMP file (in the case of ACR). As you develop as a photographer you may find that your RAW images require less and less processing, making the processing task quick and almost trivial. Fater the RAW files, the question then is what else do you keep? I do the same as most above. I keep an optimised but unsharpened layered TIFF or PSD file, and also the resampled sharpened ones I use for the web. I will save a PSD instead of TIFF if for example I have used Smart filters or have a selection saved- these are not saved in the TIFF version. If I optimise an image for printing I of course also save that version. If you want to be able to retrace your steps in Ps, consider Smart Filters and always include the original image in one of the layers (usually background for me).

[P-A. Fortin]

Jay, Doug (West) and John:

Do you save your master PSD/TIFF as 16 bits or 8 bits?

I've read of people converting to 8 bits to save on size. However I guess the impact on image quality could be significant. But I can understand after seeing that 800mb (and that without too much processing, only 3-4 layers/masks) PSD/TIFF of mine. I already have about 30gb of RAW images, and no processed master file saved yet. Of course I will not process every single image, but adding 1GB of data per processed image, I can see it becoming a serious issue a few years from now.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I save my RAW files and processed but unsharpened (and unNR'd if applicable) jpegs that I then use for "final" print or web versions (which I also keep ). All my work is done on TIFFS but I convert to jpeg after all is said and done. I do not see any reason to keep the TIFFS over the jpegs (nothing that I can see with my naked eye anyhow).

[P-A. Fortin]

I save my RAW files and processed but unsharpened (and unNR'd if applicable) jpegs that I then use for "final" print or web versions (which I also keep ). All my work is done on TIFFS but I convert to jpeg after all is said and done. I do not see any reason to keep the TIFFS over the jpegs (nothing that I can see with my naked eye anyhow).

So I guess you keep those JPEGs at full resolution with minimal compression?

Would there be any limitation to the size/quality of prints you could produce out of these images? (compared to the output you would generate from a tiff/psd).

[John Chardine]

Jay, Doug (West) and John:

Do you save your master PSD/TIFF as 16 bits or 8 bits?

I've read of people converting to 8 bits to save on size. However I guess the impact on image quality could be significant. But I can understand after seeing that 800mb (and that without too much processing, only 3-4 layers/masks) PSD/TIFF of mine. I already have about 30gb of RAW images, and no processed master file saved yet. Of course I will not process every single image, but adding 1GB of data per processed image, I can see it becoming a serious issue a few years from now.

P.-A.- Always 16-bits. Why throw information away when there is little cost to keeping it? Yes hard drives have gone up in price lately but they will come down again to bargain prices, and the technology is always improving.

[Daniel Cadieux]

So I guess you keep those JPEGs at full resolution with minimal compression?

Would there be any limitation to the size/quality of prints you could produce out of these images? (compared to the output you would generate from a tiff/psd).

Yes, full resolution and saved at maximum setting (e.g. 12 in PS). I cannot see any limitation in print size potential between the two formats.

[Roger Clark]

I convert my raw files to 16-bit tiffs, and work in 16-bit throughout my workflow (except in one program where it works internally in 32-bit floating point). If I have layers, I save as PSD, otherwise as tiff. Save intermediate steps, at least for a while, then delete them much later (months to years) after my satisfaction with the image has stood the test of at least some time. My final image is the largest I can produce and is sharpened (I generally use true sharpening with Richardson-Lucy image deconvolution). From that final image, saved as 16-bit tiff, I produce all other images, from prints to web. For high-end prints (e.g. Lightjet on Fuji Crystal Archive photo paper) I produce a custom 8-bit tiff with the ICC profile applied for that printer and paper. I save that printer image too. Disk space is cheap and getting cheaper. So what if an image takes a gigabyte, that means one can have a thousand final images on a 1 terabyte drive. And 4 terabyte drives are available now for the cost of a pretty low end lens ($300). Along with the final full resolution 16-bit tiff file, I also save an 8-bit jpeg saved at maximum quality. I can preview that faster than the tiffs just because disk I/O is less. I always save the original raw file too. And I archive copies of DCRAW source code so I know I can read any old format. Google dcraw and you can find the code.

Roger

[Grady Weed]

I agree with Roger here. I keep any RAW CR2 file I intend to make an image of! Period. I then convert the adjusted CR2 to a tiff, then to a high resolution jpeg, for printing online at MPIX. My final total of the same image can be be 4 different types, including the original RAW file. Never ever delete the RAW file or the converted tiff file. Better to have around copies of files than not any at all. Disk space is cheap and getting cheaper.

Just my two cents.

[Jonathan Ashton]

I keep the RAW file and I keep a file that would be used for printing as a TIFF, I also keep my web size jpegs. I don't routinely save TIFF as large file my reasoning being that I can always recreate one, I would otherwise end up with hundreds/thousands of TIFFs and probably would not use 95% again.
It is true that occasionally I wish I had saved a large sized TIFF of a file that took a lot of Photoshop work - but it is not very often.

[Roger Clark]

It is true that occasionally I wish I had saved a large sized TIFF of a file that took a lot of Photoshop work - but it is not very often.

Note, one can put over 12,000 16-bit tif files (from 16-20 megapixel cameras) on a 2 terabyte drive for under about $200.

Roger

[Chris Poole]

Note, one can put over 12,000 16-bit tif files (from 16-20 megapixel cameras) on a 2 terabyte drive for under about $200. that's what I did, hard drives are dirt cheap, it's doesn't cost that much to hold on to your data.

[Roger Clark]

Note, one can put over 12,000 16-bit tif files (from 16-20 megapixel cameras) on a 2 terabyte drive for under about $200.




that's what I did, hard drives are dirt cheap, it's doesn't cost that much to hold on to your data.

But don't forget backup. I am not comfortable unless I have a minimum of 3 backups. I have had backups fail, including raid systems. Raid ensures against a drive failure, but not against a controller failure, or power supply or fan failure. Examples: fan fails in the evening, and by morning the drives are cooked and none work. Controller failure: randomly writes data all over multiple raid arrays. And even worse scenarios: flood or fire wipes out all backups on site.

So back up that data, and keep at least one set off site. So that $200 2TB drive turns into $800 for the drive and 3 backups. Still very low cost.

Roger