RAW files: to save or not to save?

[hannah_epley1]

<p>I work at a high-volume studio managing the post production. Our photographers are all required to shoot RAW for quality purposes, and we've been preparing ourselves for lots of storage & backup as expected.</p>

<p>Currently, this is a basic run-down of our workflow:</p>

<p>1-Get RAWs from photographer & import<br>

2-Batch edit images in Lightroom, export as JPG<br>

3-Upload JPGs to Pictage, utilizing their free color correction<br>

4-Burn DVD of JPGs for clients (the digital negs are included in their package)<br>

5-Burn DVD of renamed RAW files along with Lightroom Catalog - this is copied and the copy sent to off-site storage<br>

6-Design album (typically we use the edited JPGs for this)<br>

7-Delete RAW files from hard drives 30 days after photos released to client<br>

8-Delete all files from hard drives 30 days after album is delivered to client</p>

<p>So, after all is said and done, we have 3 copies of the original files on DVD (one unedited, and 2 copies of the edited RAWs in separate locations), 1 copy of the edited JPGs on DVD, the client has the edited JPGs on DVD, and Pictage has a copy of all the edited JPGs which we can have FTP'd to us if need be. My boss now wants to eliminate Step 5 from the process to save time - he concluded that since we rarely go back to the RAW files after the images are released to the client, we might as well not keep them. So we would be left with only: 1 copy of unedited RAW files on DVD (and filenames that don't correlate to ours, no catalog of edits), 1 copy of the edited JPGs on DVD, the client DVD, and Pictage copy. I'm hesitant to make this change because I was taught to always keep the RAWs just in case.</p>

<p>What do you think? And keeping the RAWs backed up on a hard drive or in paid online storage is not an option - we shoot 300+ weddings per year. Thanks in advance for your input!</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>I think that when you can buy a 1TB disk drive for a hundred bucks, it's irresponsible to ever delete the RAW files.</p>

[victorwei]

<p>If you can fit the RAW files onto just one DVD, it's worth the back up. They are like negatives. You never know, your clients may want to retrieve them sometime down the road.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>My first thought is to always keep the RAW files, but you say you will still have a copy of the original RAW files, (though DVD is not the greatest method for archiveing data), so I say go for it.</p>

<p>You are no worse off that the thousands of photographers that shoot JPEG.</p>

<p>However, disks are cheap these days, so I doubt your statement: "hard drive or in paid online storage is not an option - we shoot 300+ weddings per year" is a valid argument. As was mentioned, terrabytes are cheap. You can get a mirrored terrabyte for a couple of hundred bucks. You're only talking about five or six of these a year. But, hey, it is what it is. Perhaps your fee doesn't cover the cost.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Amortize the business. Calculate the true basic costs.</p>

<p>A good pro wedding shoot is say 40GB of Raw images. (that's a lot!) Multiple by 25 weddings and you have 1TB of data. 1TB cost $160 -- that is just over $6 / wedding. </p>

<p>SAVE The Raws and date code your external hard drives.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Since your boss is the one in charge, I would follow his rules. If you think you can publicaly convince him, via this thread, he is wrong, go for it but remember, it's his business and his rules. Now if this was your business, I would tell you to listen to those above but only save the edited RAW files with the Lightroom catalogue or save exported DNG's. However, I know a few studios who only keep RAW/DNG files of the keepers whereas other wedding photographers I know only keep the edited JPGs, so is there really a right or wrong answer here or just differing business practices.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I always shoot RAW = Lg JPG. If I've naild all the exposures perfectly, I don't feel so compelled to keep the RAW backup. If the files needed more editing I'd keep the RAW. Case by case.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>If you shop around on line you can find TB drives for $80. Based on Ken's plan it's actually $3 per wedding!</p>

[patrick_f]

<p>This is the most stupid question ever posted on P.Net. Sorry, but that is the truth. You are dealing with peoples "most important day in there life". Your question is basically "do I throw away the negatives 30 days after the wedding?". I am no wedding shooter, but I think doing so is very disrespectful, and once they are gone they are gone. What happens when the house burns down with there album 2 years from now and they need re-prints of there special day? No back-up=STUPID. Especially with weddings. Commercial photography is somewhat disposable, along with stock, fashion, etc. Weddings get looked at long down the road. I am sorry for shooting the messenger since I realize that this question is Boss-driven. You owe it to the clients, and if you are shooting 300+ weddings a year then you can afford the backup! If your boss argues this, then he is a cheap ba$t@&d and obviously cares more about chump change than the clients and thus I hope he....goes away.</p>

[hannah_epley1]

<blockquote>

<p>This is the most stupid question ever posted on P.Net. Sorry, but that is the truth</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yikes, I posted the question on the wedding forum to get wedding photographer input... guess when I'm questioning how to logistically deal with "the most important day" in people's lives I'm bound to piss off one photographer. :-)</p>

<p>After some brainstorming with the boss tonight we worked out a system for backing up RAWs offsite on Terrabyte hard drives. Makes me feel a whole lot better, it's what I wanted all along. Thanks to everyone who submitted constructive input to my question. Have a happy wedding season everyone! </p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>So, to play devil's advocate and to find out exactly why Patrick F thinks the way he does, I ask the following questions: What makes RAW/DNG more archival than JPG? If the images are not going to be "reworked/reprocessed" is it not correct to say that all we really need to rebuild a burned album or replace a box of images is the master set of edited JPGs?</p>

<p>Now, before anyone goes crazy on my curiosity, I do save all of my keepers and the LR catalogue plus exported DNGs. Why? Because that's what I've been told has to be done. Dogma? Outdated thinking? The film days "negative" equivalent (which I don't buy)? What about JPG only shooters like Becker?</p>

<p>MaryBall, if this needs to be a new, seperate post, I'm sorry but I could not find a "new post/thread" button anywhere.</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p><em>What makes RAW/DNG more archival than JPG?</em></p>

<p>I agree with Patrick that the original post is probably the stupidest question ever asked here.</p>

<p>First as has been said, storage space is very, very cheap these days so what possible reason is there not to archive the RAW files? Second, the raw files don't get modified, you have the full original information and a sidecar file of the processing work so no matter what happens you can always go back to the best image the camera was taken care of. Third, it's absolute stupidity to store you images in an 8-bit workspace simply because you make last minute color corrections to match the printer. Don't you? If you're only storing JPGs, you're throwing away color range as you do the final adjustment. I always work in a higher bit-space and use photoshop to output a set of images for the printer. Then after printing I can delete those files and keep my RAW or PSD originals.</p>

<p>As for people who only shoot JPG, for all those reasons and many more (even something as basic as no longer even having 8-bit images if they correct levels and white balance), they have no business even thinking of shooting a wedding. There's so many old-timers from the film days who went out to buy a digital camera and they simply have no clue what they're doing. They get okay results and think they're still photographers when they're hacks.</p>

[hannah_epley1]

<blockquote>

<p>Third, it's absolute stupidity to<br /> store you images in an 8-bit workspace simply because you make last minute<br /> color corrections to match the printer. Don't you? If you're only storing<br /> JPGs, you're throwing away color range as you do the final adjustment. I<br /> always work in a higher bit-space and use photoshop to output a set of images<br /> for the printer. Then after printing I can delete those files and keep my RAW<br /> or PSD originals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We don't handle the printing, so no, we do not make last minute color corrections to 'match the printer'. We work on regularly-calibrated monitors and know what our output will be by looking at the screen. Where Patrick was wrong was that my question was not "should we get rid of all our backups" it was "is it necessary to have two archived copies of the RAW files when you have 1 archived copies of RAW files and 3 archived copies of properly processed JPGs?" I definitely prefer to use RAW files in making prints & prepping images for albums. That's what we do for most of our output. I do agree that weddings should be shot in RAW because it allows for the best possible image quality. But if a photographer exposes and white balances things correctly, is his or her image going to look so terrible shot in JPG, or stored in JPG? I don't think so.</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>A better question then is why bother storing 3 copies of the properly processed JPGs? 1 on-site, 1 off-site makes sense. And same for RAWS, 1 on-site and 1 off-site.</p>

<p>Have you ever shot a wedding where every shot was a perfectly exposed JPG? I don't think so. So at least you have the flexibilty that if you take the perfectly composed shot only to find it improperly exposed, you can still fix it in RAW. So even if one thinks they're a perfect photographer, shooting JPG still says they're a hack.</p>

<p>As far as colour corrections to match the printer. These have to be done at some point, saying you're not the one handling the printing doesn't really solve that it only shifts the problem to someone else. And even with a properly calibrated monitor the output won't match perfectly with what you see. It's just reality. And even compensating for the printer won't make it perfect but it helps a lot.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Umm...wow John...<a href="http://www.thebecker.com/">Becker</a> a hack? I get the 8 bit vs. 16 bit thing but what are you really doing with these images that would warrent those extra bits? I shot mainly slide film back in the "old-timers from the film days" day and the latitude of digital is about the same, so if I know how to expose my "film", then I know how to expose my "sensor". Today I shoot raw+jpg and when I look at the images, there are just not enough images that need those extra bits for correction sake, so why even have the raw besides the ooops image. The one thing I don't like about the digital revolution is too many people learn just to use the crutches before they get the necessary skills.</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>I use a Qnap NAS box with 8 terabytes of storage and save all files of photos raw,jpeg etc. That much storage is under a thousad dollars now and well worth it to me<br>

Jim</p>