If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Archiving images
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
archiving and categorizing | designpro | Digital Photography | 2 | April 21st 06 09:09 PM |
Do you use CD or DVD for archiving? | Laser Faire | Digital Photography | 15 | February 25th 05 04:44 PM |
Massive archiving | Piero | Digital Photography | 3 | February 18th 05 08:47 AM |
negative archiving | Conrad Weiler | Digital Photography | 4 | December 30th 04 10:07 PM |
Photo archiving SW | Aerticus | Digital Photography | 22 | November 2nd 04 04:40 PM |