Want to cut down on storage needs when using Lightroom

<p>Have recently bought Lightroom and have spent hours before and after learning to use. I love what it can do, but am perplexed about how blindly non-destructive it is. For instance if I happen to take a photo of a sign in RAW but when I edit, then sure I can crop downsize etc for my final need, however I still have the original RAW file. What I want to do is to get rid of the original RAW file and just keep the very small JPEG. How can I do this please - with the least amount of effort possible to keep my workflow moving ?? Will be very grateful for responses as I will find it difficult to move forward without understanding a bit better !</p>

<p>....one way is to download your raw files from the camera's card to their own folder. Import into LR using the "add to catalogue without moving" at the top middle "Add" of the Import tab in the Library setting. Than work, crop, do whatever, and when satisfied, select and export your files as whatever size and resolution jpg you want into a new folder. If you are satisfied with the results, keep the jpg folder and dump the folder with the raw files.<br>

Or, when importing, move from your card to a file, also in the import dialogue and follow the rest of the steps.</p>

<p>Throwing away the raw file is a pretty bad idea - you'll throw away the possibility to re-visit the file, process it differently and so on. I really, really would not ever do this. Hard disks have become too cheap to worry about storage space, just get an additional 1-2 TB drive.<br>

(Personally, I only export the JPEG or TIFF in the resolution needed when I need it, and delete that after posting online/printing/sharing/... . In case of need, I can always create that output again, because I still have the raw file, and the editing done to it safe)</p>

What Wouter said.

 

Think of your RAW file as a negative. If you threw away the negative, what would you do later when you wanted a print.

 

You could throw out the worst of the RAW files and just keep the best ones, but that is a big if...IF you are certain you will not need it later.

<p>Its not a big thing to get rid of images that you don't like, that have technical imperfections, are duplicates or near duplicates and so on. Not everything you take has a use in its future , even if you're a photo genius. Outside the stuff that gets deleted from the card before loading to the computer, I throw away on average 40% of the uploaded material within days of importing. Certainly better than converting everything to jpeg , when as others have said storage actually costs peanuts and you're making a decision that can't be undone. </p>

<p>Its amazing how much better your photography looks when you get rid of the rubbish.</p>

<p>I don't fuzz over needed storage either: 3TB = 218Euro (incl backup). 1GB means 30 RAW files, so once I stuffed those disks my shutter will be done. - I guess I will pay 60Euro to keep 100k Raw files for one year, but storage should become cheaper.<br>

Neither my editing skills nor my monitors in use are up for calling any TIFF / JPG the final & perfect result.<br>

For deleting RAW files, i.e. weeding out a folder, free Irfanview might be a software of choice. You can disable the confirmation popup and it opens files rather swiftly. - Its been a while since I used it for that purpose so I am not sure if it makes the very best use of modern PCs' resources and it unfortunately doesn't support / open all RAWs. But I like to examine a file at least on a big screen before I decide to delete it.</p>

<p>I agree about the need to keep raws that might be useable in the future and that storage space is cheap. But I'm fine deleting raws I know can't be salvaged (out of focus in areas I want focus is one such example). When it comes to viewing images that *<em>appear</em>* to have exposure issues, keep them, it's amazing how well one can render a usable image from raw data. The idea of rendering a high bit, wide gamut TIFF and tossing the raw, let alone a JPEG is not a good idea! Keep your negatives for future '<em>reprinting</em>' (rendering from raw). As the raw processors improve over the years, it's amazing to revisit raw's you thought were garbage. In Lightroom's history, we've see three revisions to it's raw processing and PV2012 is significantly better than PV2010 as an example. </p>

<p>I keep my Raws on anything I think I might want to use sometime, and have found cause to go back many times to old files, but the OP didn't ask if he should keep his raw files are not. I assume he realizes that once he dumps them, that what he is left is what he would have. </p>

<p>I keep almost everything I shoot, even the mistakes, and give the photos time to cool off before I consider deleting anything. Sometimes I'll wait days, sometimes weeks, sometimes years before revisiting a session to consider deleting anything.</p>

<p>Often I'll archive raw files but don't always edit them. Some of my cameras produce very satisfactory in-camera JPEGs and I'll often use those, with the raw files kept only as backups in case I ever wish to revisit the photos and try a different treatment. The Ricoh GRD, and Fuji X-cameras in particular produce such good JPEGs that I seldom edit the RAF raw files, and only occasionally do minor tweaks to the JPEGs. The in-camera raw processing is very quick and convenient, so there isn't much incentive to do any basic editing in Lightroom for my Fuji raw files. Not so, alas, for my Nikon photos, which are almost always edited from NEF raw in Lightroom.</p>

<p>Lightroom has tremendously improved my efficiency not only in editing but in storage. Lightroom doesn't require making duplicate files, saving TIFFs or proprietary files (I'm still reworking some of my old Corel Photo Paint and Jasc Paint Shop Pro proprietary files from 10-15 years ago). If I edit a raw file, it's only a set of instructions. Even virtual copies consume very little space - they're just instructions, not actual verbatim copies of raw or other photo files. If desired I can output only the JPEG I want at the moment: whether smaller than 1000 pixels for sharing on Facebook or via email; or a maximum resolution JPEG for printing via mpix or other online printing service.</p>

<p>As a result, Lightroom contributes very little hard drive or storage bloat. Occasionally I'll finish editing a photo in DxO Filmpack, Photomatix or other editing software that interfaces with Lightroom. Unfortunately those do require saving to TIFF for the interim file (if I want maximum possible quality), which reminds me of how much storage space TIFFs consume.</p>

<p>But even on my ultra-tight budget, Once a year I can afford to buy another Western Digital Passport portable USB drive or something like their larger My Book or My Cloud compact drives. So much more efficient in almost every way than the CD/DVD backups I used to do - and too many of those discs have developed errors in 10 years or less. Nowadays I mostly burn CDs/DVDs to give photos, videos or data to other folks.</p>

<p>Have to agree with all the above.<br>

When I first started out I shot JPEG. Once I discovered RAW, and how to edit them, I was fed up that I didn't have the RAW files for my early photos. Then as time went by I got better and better with Lightroom and learned new techniques (and developed a better photographic eye). Yesterday I was re-editing images I took back in 2011/2012 that I didn't have the skill/eye to do justice too then. <br /><br />Even bad photos are worth keeping as they act as a reminder of the stupid things you did when you were learning. </p>

<p>Just for the record, I did not mean keeping <strong>all</strong> raw files; in my catalog I only keep those I want to work on, or have worked on. All those that aren't worth the effort exist only on backup drives. Getting rid of the rubbish isn't only a feel-good factor, as David said, but also helps focussing on the work at hand.</p>

<p>I also agree with much of the above. I recently had to prepare a few images for a juried show and a couple were 3-4 years old. I pulled up the original RAW file in LR and spent quite a bit of time in both LR and PS significantly improving the images. Not only does technology improve, one's esthetics also can change over time from how one would crop, to how one would work with layer masks. I now use Silver Effex Pro 2 for my monochrome images and was not using it 4 years ago. That has nothing to do with the cost of storage. So long as one's images are keyworded, it's pretty easy to find the old ones with the excellent search tools in LR. I now toss only technically bad photos, e.g. out of focus, eyes closed etc, though it's not impossible that some of this will be fixable in the near term future. Though not everyone is as compulsive as I am, I've met more than a few people who have NO backups and no way to find anything on their phone or computer. Do it right away, if you put it off, it will never happen. Good luck.</p>

<p>As Jochen suggests, you might run a quick calculation of how much you're really paying to keep those raws, vs. the time and potential errors if you start deleting things. As others have said, deleting raws is a really bad idea. It's roughly equivalent in the film days of keeping the prints and tossing out the negatives.</p>

<p>So Jim, did that work for you? </p>

<p>Export the image as a high resolution JPEG, and then delete the original RAW. A 30 second process. Easy! Like others though, I don't really see why you would want to do this. The answer to most space issues is to become more selective and not keep the bad stuff, or the endless duplicates etc.</p>

<p>Am very humbled by such a marvellous response and many thoughts and ideas to ponder. Despite most not tackling my basis issue there is much valuable information.<br /> The original problem is that,say at least 30% of images I take will never be competition material but merely snapshots. No matter what advances there are they will not be worth investing time and energy improving. The example I give of a road-sign is a classic point. How interesting can you make a road-sign ?? <br /> Now you could say why not take these images in JPEG, nevertheless time constraints and other things mean that you do not always take time to change the settings to that.<br /> <br />I will try Barry's idea - so thank you indeed for the suggestion, Barry ! I feel sure it will be just right.</p>

<p>word to the wise..there are some images that are obvious users. But some images don't strike you at first, but when you look them over at a later date, you sometimes find some of your best images. </p>

Your skill in editing even the simpliest image will always improve over time. You'll be better next year than you are now,

and better the year after that than next year. If you throw away your raws, You'll be stuck with a crappy jpg that

degrades every time you save it. Heed the advice given and keep the raws of the photos you want. If you're going to

dump your raws, you might as well, just dump your SLR and get a cheapy P&S. Storage space is way tooooooo cheap to

be cncerned about.