Archiving images

I use a Nikon D70 in RAW mode. I transfer my images to my hard drive via
a card reader built into my computer. So now the RAW files are saved.
But when I work on the files, I use adjustment layers and save as a
tiff. Should I also be saving a flattened version? That would mean
saving 3 different versions of the same image:

1, Original RAW
2, Corrected, edited with layers Tiff
3, Final flattened Tiff.
I also archive the RAW files first to a CD or DVD before any editing.

These are all saved in 16 bit mode. Should the final, flattened Tiff be
changed to 8 bit?

Is that the way it should be done? Seems like a lot of storage space and
also lots of images to be named, sorted, rated, named and cataloged.
Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

David A.

"David Azose" wrote in message
...
I use a Nikon D70 in RAW mode. I transfer my images to my hard drive via a
card reader built into my computer. So now the RAW files are saved. But
when I work on the files, I use adjustment layers and save as a tiff.
Should I also be saving a flattened version? That would mean saving 3
different versions of the same image:

1, Original RAW
2, Corrected, edited with layers Tiff
3, Final flattened Tiff.
I also archive the RAW files first to a CD or DVD before any editing.

These are all saved in 16 bit mode. Should the final, flattened Tiff be
changed to 8 bit?

Is that the way it should be done? Seems like a lot of storage space and
also lots of images to be named, sorted, rated, named and cataloged. Any
comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

David A.

There has been much speculation that RAW formats are inappropriate for
long-term archiving because it is unlikely that those proprietary formats
will be supported over the long term.

In article , David Azose
wrote:

I use a Nikon D70 in RAW mode. I transfer my images to my hard drive via
a card reader built into my computer. So now the RAW files are saved.
But when I work on the files, I use adjustment layers and save as a
tiff. Should I also be saving a flattened version? That would mean
saving 3 different versions of the same image:

1, Original RAW
2, Corrected, edited with layers Tiff
3, Final flattened Tiff.
I also archive the RAW files first to a CD or DVD before any editing.

These are all saved in 16 bit mode. Should the final, flattened Tiff be
changed to 8 bit?

Is that the way it should be done? Seems like a lot of storage space and
also lots of images to be named, sorted, rated, named and cataloged.
Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

Oh, oh... Whooo, boy... you got me started....

This is where a program like Apple Aperture
(http://www.apple.com/aperture/) or Adobe Lightroom
(http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/) shines. Not only do
they provide file management, but they also use non-destructive editng
- they save their changes via XML or Sidecar files, which are merely
text data (and thus very tiny in comparison to an entire image) which
tell the program which changes to make to the original for display or
output - they never change the original file. Plus you don't have to
store all those multiple versions, only exporting your final one when
you need it at precisely whatever size and resolution you need it,
directly from the RAW data + the sidecar changes.



Either program will allow you to store the files in your own location
and "reference" them, or have the program move or copy (your choice)
your files into its own "managed" file. Or you can use a combination
of both methods - "managed" for some and "referenced" for others - and
move them from one to the other freely (at least you can move them
freely in Aperture, not sure about Lightroom, as I only used it
temporarily while Aperture was being upgraded to handle the newer .CR2
files form the 400D, and for those files only, which I never moved from
their location that was also referenced by Aperture). I usually opt
for full management rather than referencing, siomply because it's
tideier on disk and more bullet proof to eye-dee-ten-tee errors.

Both will help you manage your files, use keywords for searching, do
sophisticated RAW adjustments, etc.

I like Aperture, for several reasons:

Moved "referenced" files can be reconnected to their sidecar data very
easily. "Managed" files are EXTREMELY hard to screw up - to delete
them, you literally have to tell the program to do so AND dismiss TWO
warning dialogs that pop up in your face to warn you.

If you do need to actually edit on the pixel level (as opposed to
overall things like exposure, levels, white balance, saturation, etc.,
etc., which either program handles fine), with Aperture you can export
it with a single key combination to your chosen editing program, do
your edits, and the file is returned as a copy right back to Aperture
to the same "stack"* as the original - all without ever editing the
original file at all - Aperture even opens the editing app for you.

You can also create named projects, folders within the projects, albums
(which can hold images even from several differing projects without
duplicating the actual image file), do searches and create albums or
web pages from the searches, and lots of other "management" thingies.
Lightroom has some similar features, but IMO not as flexible. Entire
projects, including the metadata and structure can be exported if
desired, and can be imported into another Aperture as is. Imagine
being ablle to send an editor an entirely prepared project, including
light table mockups (Aperture has them) and everything, in a single
file.

Aperture also lets you assign metadata of almost any kind uponimport,
so an entire batch of imports can be metedata'ed (did I just make up a
word?) at one time as they are importing, rather than spending time on
it later. You can also "stack" similar images while they are
importing.

Aperture can also import and store (although not edit) .pdf files
(first page only). I use this to attach a copy of any release forms or
other information that I might need to a photo so it never becomes
lost.

Aperture will also will automatically back up your data to any number
of other "vaults", even networked or on optical media, saving all your
changes, including addition or deletion of pictures, changes in sidecar
data, projects, folders, etc. Files "deleted" from the vaults in the
process can either be automatically trashed, or saved in a separate
folder for inspection prior to manually trashing them if you're worried
that you might have done something you regret,and then backed it up
that way as well. :^) You can also have more than one ".aplibrary" for
use in Aperture, which means you can have completely separate libraries
for different users or different reasons (if separating by folders or
projects isn't enough). With Lightroom, you can't do that (AFAIK).

Lightroom, on the other hand, while there are a couple of features in
the "develop" panel that are improvements over the same thing in
Aperture (in useage only - the same things can be achieved in Aperture
in other ways), and while it allows similar seeming file management, it
doesn't do so in as sophisticated a way as Aperture does, IMO. One
advantage of LR is that currently, it's a free Beta version (eventually
it will expire and/or be replaced by a final version, at which point
you'll have to buy it, though)

Aperture, unfortunately for you (at least from the headers of your
message, which indicate you are on a Windoze box), is Apple only.
Lightroom has both Mac & Win versions. Apple has a free 30 day trial
version.

LR beta is free. While beta, it IS a "public" beta, meaning it's
pretty stable and they are trying to get user reactions and feedback
prior to finalizing it. In my experience, it was as stable as any
final release program, or at least it was on the Mac.





* Stacks are... well, you just have to see and work with them to
appreciate the genius behind them. They are one of Aperture's finest
points, and one that Lightroom doesn't even have a close comparison to
- they allow you to group images (mmanually, or automatically based
upon time between shots, from 1 second to 1 minute apart can
automatically become a stack, as might be when you are doing fast,
multiple shots and then need to later pick the best one), compare them
together side by side, change their priorities, choose the best, and
then click the little tab and they all disappear under the one you
picked as the best which then is the only one that shows up in the
display - until you click the little tab again and they all reappear
for more play. You can manipluate a whole stack of images (no limit as
to the number within a stack) as if it were a single image, moving it
around the whole stack at a time from one project or album to another,
and when you use it in things like a web gallery, only your "pick" or
the top image will be shown unless you tell it specifically to ignore
the stack groupings.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article V9Lfh.6205$Li6.1428@trndny03, jeremy
wrote:

"David Azose" wrote in message
...
I use a Nikon D70 in RAW mode. I transfer my images to my hard drive via a
card reader built into my computer. So now the RAW files are saved. But
when I work on the files, I use adjustment layers and save as a tiff.
Should I also be saving a flattened version? That would mean saving 3
different versions of the same image:

1, Original RAW
2, Corrected, edited with layers Tiff
3, Final flattened Tiff.
I also archive the RAW files first to a CD or DVD before any editing.

These are all saved in 16 bit mode. Should the final, flattened Tiff be
changed to 8 bit?

Is that the way it should be done? Seems like a lot of storage space and
also lots of images to be named, sorted, rated, named and cataloged. Any
comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

David A.

There has been much speculation that RAW formats are inappropriate for
long-term archiving because it is unlikely that those proprietary formats
will be supported over the long term.


What? You think that software writers are going to take the code OUT
of their programs when it hurts nothing to leave it in? Or that the
current programs that handle those files just fine will suddenly stop
working on the current images at some point in the future if they do
change the format and the software publishers do remove the code? Or
that by the time that someone decides to have one single RAW file
standard that everyone (except MicroSloth, of course) will adhere to,
that someone esle won't have a converter to change the old RAW
format(s) to the new one?

I think that's just nuts.

RAW, in other words the actual data that comes out of the camera, will
probably ALWAYS be the best way to store the data - it can always be
changed from there, but once changed, you never have the same base data
to work with again.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

David Azose wrote:
I use a Nikon D70 in RAW mode. I transfer my images to my hard drive via
a card reader built into my computer. So now the RAW files are saved.
But when I work on the files, I use adjustment layers and save as a
tiff. Should I also be saving a flattened version? That would mean
saving 3 different versions of the same image:

1, Original RAW
2, Corrected, edited with layers Tiff
3, Final flattened Tiff.
I also archive the RAW files first to a CD or DVD before any editing.

These are all saved in 16 bit mode. Should the final, flattened Tiff be
changed to 8 bit?

Is that the way it should be done? Seems like a lot of storage space and
also lots of images to be named, sorted, rated, named and cataloged.
Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

Here's what I keep:

1) Raw file as DNG (makes it a bit smaller & more compatible)
2) JPEG saved at 9/10 quality (just fine if you don't edit again)
3) original jpegs (for reference and cause it's got all the original
metadata that might get lost in a DNG conversion)

The edits... who knows, I can probably redo them better in the future
from raw, PSDs are just too big.

Ken Lucke wrote:

There has been much speculation that RAW formats are inappropriate for
long-term archiving because it is unlikely that those proprietary formats
will be supported over the long term.

What? You think that software writers are going to take the code OUT
of their programs when it hurts nothing to leave it in? Or that the
current programs that handle those files just fine will suddenly stop
working on the current images at some point in the future if they do
change the format and the software publishers do remove the code? Or
that by the time that someone decides to have one single RAW file
standard that everyone (except MicroSloth, of course) will adhere to,
that someone esle won't have a converter to change the old RAW
format(s) to the new one?

I wrote my first book in Multimate on a *186 machine. For a while
wordperfect and word could read those files. Not any more.
Good thing I made *.prn ascii output!

I think that's just nuts.

RAW, in other words the actual data that comes out of the camera, will
probably ALWAYS be the best way to store the data - it can always be
changed from there, but once changed, you never have the same base data
to work with again.

Not a guarantee.

Roger

David Azose wrote:
I use a Nikon D70 in RAW mode. I transfer my images to my hard drive via
a card reader built into my computer. So now the RAW files are saved.
But when I work on the files, I use adjustment layers and save as a
tiff. Should I also be saving a flattened version? That would mean
saving 3 different versions of the same image:

1, Original RAW
2, Corrected, edited with layers Tiff
3, Final flattened Tiff.
I also archive the RAW files first to a CD or DVD before any editing.

These are all saved in 16 bit mode. Should the final, flattened Tiff be
changed to 8 bit?

Is that the way it should be done? Seems like a lot of storage space and
also lots of images to be named, sorted, rated, named and cataloged.
Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

That's a lot! I use Lightroom now primarily, and Ken's description of
Aperture covers why those two programs are in use by some of us.

If you are not ready for either of these right now, you could certainly
cut out saving an extra flattened TIFF. I never archive before editing,
but then I throw out a lot, and I don't want to look at stuff in
archives that I don't like. I also save in PSD format.

--
John McWilliams

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , David Azose
wrote:

I use a Nikon D70 in RAW mode. I transfer my images to my hard drive via
a card reader built into my computer. So now the RAW files are saved.
But when I work on the files, I use adjustment layers and save as a
tiff. Should I also be saving a flattened version? That would mean
saving 3 different versions of the same image:

1, Original RAW
2, Corrected, edited with layers Tiff
3, Final flattened Tiff.
I also archive the RAW files first to a CD or DVD before any editing.

These are all saved in 16 bit mode. Should the final, flattened Tiff be
changed to 8 bit?

Is that the way it should be done? Seems like a lot of storage space and
also lots of images to be named, sorted, rated, named and cataloged.
Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

Oh, oh... Whooo, boy... you got me started....

This is where a program like Apple Aperture
(http://www.apple.com/aperture/) or Adobe Lightroom
(http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/) shines. Not only do
they provide file management, but they also use non-destructive editng
- they save their changes via XML or Sidecar files, which are merely
text data (and thus very tiny in comparison to an entire image) which
tell the program which changes to make to the original for display or
output - they never change the original file. Plus you don't have to
store all those multiple versions, only exporting your final one when
you need it at precisely whatever size and resolution you need it,
directly from the RAW data + the sidecar changes.



Either program will allow you to store the files in your own location
and "reference" them, or have the program move or copy (your choice)
your files into its own "managed" file. Or you can use a combination
of both methods - "managed" for some and "referenced" for others - and
move them from one to the other freely (at least you can move them
freely in Aperture, not sure about Lightroom, as I only used it
temporarily while Aperture was being upgraded to handle the newer .CR2
files form the 400D, and for those files only, which I never moved from
their location that was also referenced by Aperture). I usually opt
for full management rather than referencing, siomply because it's
tideier on disk and more bullet proof to eye-dee-ten-tee errors.

Both will help you manage your files, use keywords for searching, do
sophisticated RAW adjustments, etc.

I like Aperture, for several reasons:

Moved "referenced" files can be reconnected to their sidecar data very
easily. "Managed" files are EXTREMELY hard to screw up - to delete
them, you literally have to tell the program to do so AND dismiss TWO
warning dialogs that pop up in your face to warn you.

If you do need to actually edit on the pixel level (as opposed to
overall things like exposure, levels, white balance, saturation, etc.,
etc., which either program handles fine), with Aperture you can export
it with a single key combination to your chosen editing program, do
your edits, and the file is returned as a copy right back to Aperture
to the same "stack"* as the original - all without ever editing the
original file at all - Aperture even opens the editing app for you.

You can also create named projects, folders within the projects, albums
(which can hold images even from several differing projects without
duplicating the actual image file), do searches and create albums or
web pages from the searches, and lots of other "management" thingies.
Lightroom has some similar features, but IMO not as flexible. Entire
projects, including the metadata and structure can be exported if
desired, and can be imported into another Aperture as is. Imagine
being ablle to send an editor an entirely prepared project, including
light table mockups (Aperture has them) and everything, in a single
file.

Aperture also lets you assign metadata of almost any kind uponimport,
so an entire batch of imports can be metedata'ed (did I just make up a
word?) at one time as they are importing, rather than spending time on
it later. You can also "stack" similar images while they are
importing.

Aperture can also import and store (although not edit) .pdf files
(first page only). I use this to attach a copy of any release forms or
other information that I might need to a photo so it never becomes
lost.

Aperture will also will automatically back up your data to any number
of other "vaults", even networked or on optical media, saving all your
changes, including addition or deletion of pictures, changes in sidecar
data, projects, folders, etc. Files "deleted" from the vaults in the
process can either be automatically trashed, or saved in a separate
folder for inspection prior to manually trashing them if you're worried
that you might have done something you regret,and then backed it up
that way as well. :^) You can also have more than one ".aplibrary" for
use in Aperture, which means you can have completely separate libraries
for different users or different reasons (if separating by folders or
projects isn't enough). With Lightroom, you can't do that (AFAIK).

Lightroom, on the other hand, while there are a couple of features in
the "develop" panel that are improvements over the same thing in
Aperture (in useage only - the same things can be achieved in Aperture
in other ways), and while it allows similar seeming file management, it
doesn't do so in as sophisticated a way as Aperture does, IMO. One
advantage of LR is that currently, it's a free Beta version (eventually
it will expire and/or be replaced by a final version, at which point
you'll have to buy it, though)

Aperture, unfortunately for you (at least from the headers of your
message, which indicate you are on a Windoze box), is Apple only.
Lightroom has both Mac & Win versions. Apple has a free 30 day trial
version.

LR beta is free. While beta, it IS a "public" beta, meaning it's
pretty stable and they are trying to get user reactions and feedback
prior to finalizing it. In my experience, it was as stable as any
final release program, or at least it was on the Mac.





* Stacks are... well, you just have to see and work with them to
appreciate the genius behind them. They are one of Aperture's finest
points, and one that Lightroom doesn't even have a close comparison to
- they allow you to group images (mmanually, or automatically based
upon time between shots, from 1 second to 1 minute apart can
automatically become a stack, as might be when you are doing fast,
multiple shots and then need to later pick the best one), compare them
together side by side, change their priorities, choose the best, and
then click the little tab and they all disappear under the one you
picked as the best which then is the only one that shows up in the
display - until you click the little tab again and they all reappear
for more play. You can manipluate a whole stack of images (no limit as
to the number within a stack) as if it were a single image, moving it
around the whole stack at a time from one project or album to another,
and when you use it in things like a web gallery, only your "pick" or
the top image will be shown unless you tell it specifically to ignore
the stack groupings.

WOW!

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. You are correct, I use a windows
computer so Aperture, which sounds wonderful, is out of the question for
me. But I will download Lightroom and give it a try. My needs are
perhaps not as critical as some in this newsgroup. I'm not a
professional photographer but I consider myself an advanced amateur.

Thanks again for the information.

David A.

Ken Lucke wrote:
What? You think that software writers are going to take the code OUT
of their programs when it hurts nothing to leave it in? Or that the
current programs that handle those files just fine will suddenly stop
working on the current images at some point in the future if they do
change the format and the software publishers do remove the code? Or
that by the time that someone decides to have one single RAW file
standard that everyone (except MicroSloth, of course) will adhere to,
that someone esle won't have a converter to change the old RAW
format(s) to the new one?

I think that's just nuts.

What's more likely is that in 30 years time you won't be using the same
programs, and the new ones won't ever have had support for the current
RAW formats. Your old programs will no longer work on your new
operating system, if indeed you can even read the install disks.
Your DVD archives will have degraded, or you won't be able to find a
machine with a DVD reader any more.
Sure, someone will write a converter. But you'd better make sure you
use it during the time window that it is useable.
The only way to maintain an archive of digital material is to keep it
live and moving forward as file and media formats change over time.

"POHB" schreef in bericht
oups.com...
Ken Lucke wrote:
What? You think that software writers are going to take the code OUT
of their programs when it hurts nothing to leave it in? Or that the
current programs that handle those files just fine will suddenly stop
working on the current images at some point in the future if they do
change the format and the software publishers do remove the code? Or
that by the time that someone decides to have one single RAW file
standard that everyone (except MicroSloth, of course) will adhere to,
that someone esle won't have a converter to change the old RAW
format(s) to the new one?

I think that's just nuts.

What's more likely is that in 30 years time you won't be using the same
programs, and the new ones won't ever have had support for the current
RAW formats. Your old programs will no longer work on your new
operating system, if indeed you can even read the install disks.
Your DVD archives will have degraded, or you won't be able to find a
machine with a DVD reader any more.
Sure, someone will write a converter. But you'd better make sure you
use it during the time window that it is useable.
The only way to maintain an archive of digital material is to keep it
live and moving forward as file and media formats change over time.

In 30 years from now you will convert 20.000 pictures in about 5 secs.
(maybe faster)
br
Aad