Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: RAW, Tiff, PSD : What to keep?

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Quebec City, Canada
    Posts
    400
    Threads
    59
    Thank You Posts

    Default RAW, Tiff, PSD : What to keep?

    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.
    Last edited by P-A. Fortin; 01-11-2012 at 06:07 PM.

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member Doug Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    11,879
    Threads
    917
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.
    Upcoming Workshops: Bosque del Apache 2019, Ecuador 2020 (details coming soon)
    Website -
    Facebook - 500px

  3. #3
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Euclid, Ohio
    Posts
    1,031
    Threads
    188
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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).

  6. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Quebec City, Canada
    Posts
    400
    Threads
    59
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Daniel Cadieux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    26,266
    Threads
    3,976
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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).
    Last edited by Daniel Cadieux; 01-12-2012 at 09:11 PM. Reason: added a missing word

  8. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Quebec City, Canada
    Posts
    400
    Threads
    59
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Cadieux View Post
    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).

  9. #9
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P-A. Fortin View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator Daniel Cadieux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    26,266
    Threads
    3,976
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P-A. Fortin View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parsonsfield, Maine
    Posts
    2,183
    Threads
    199
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.

  13. #13
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,016
    Threads
    2,604
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Ashton View Post
    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

  15. #15
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Palm Coast, Fla - The Hammock
    Posts
    68
    Threads
    3
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Clark View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Poole View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics