For weddings I only archive the selection of files I sent to the couple, both in RAW and in highres JPG. JPG is mostly for my own purpose when I'd want to update my portfolio e.g.
Harddiskdrives are so cheap nowadays, it's just a few bucks to save an entire wedding. Oh, I don't save on DVDs, they brake down and are more expensive than a harddisk. You get almost 1TB for 100 euro's.. thats 200 weddings I guess
For other work besides weddings I backup the PSD files as well, because the way I edit the images differs from photo to photo (wedding pics are all shopped the same way). Also I save the files that have not been used by client/publication, just in case I might need the image another time for another client.
Edward Castro wrote:
Just wanted to know, for long term archiving, what format do you use? RAW, DNG, TIFF, JPEG?
Jpegs....heck i shoot jpegs...but there is no reason whatsoever to use tiff. Dng maybe in a couple years will be more widely accepted, but as of today, the only format universally accepted is jpeg. There are no practical advantages to using tiff. ( I used to own a photolab...i've tried them all). Problem with raws...is the conversions may or may not be available to you 5-10-15 yrs down the road. Especially if you swap brands....I just save the edited files as jpegs.
bb
Brad Barr wrote:
Jpegs....heck i shoot jpegs...but there is no reason whatsoever to use tiff. Dng maybe in a couple years will be more widely accepted, but as of today, the only format universally accepted is jpeg. There are no practical advantages to using tiff. ( I used to own a photolab...i've tried them all). Problem with raws...is the conversions may or may not be available to you 5-10-15 yrs down the road. Especially if you swap brands....I just save the edited files as jpegs.
bb
Although I only archive JPGs but shoot RAW, one can always save the apps used too to convert the RAW to JPG/TIFF/DNG/etc.
I originally kept the RAW files. After a few years I decided it was waste. I cannot imagine I will ever do enough work on a final image that I will have to revert back to the RAW or TIFF. If I need to do a few tweaks the JPG will survive just fine.
cordellwillis wrote:
Although I only archive JPGs but shoot RAW, one can always save the apps used too to convert the RAW to JPG/TIFF/DNG/etc.
I originally kept the RAW files. After a few years I decided it was waste. I cannot imagine I will ever do enough work on a final image that I will have to revert back to the RAW or TIFF. If I need to do a few tweaks the JPG will survive just fine.
Peace,
Cordell
See that's what I'm thinking. I think that after I'm done with the wedding and give them the DVD with images, I'll keep those JPEG's. And keep the JPEG's of the wedding album pages as well. I just dont see (like you) going back and editing after. I'll keep the images just in case they loose the DVD/album, but that's it.
Time is money, but space is cheap, so it's kind of a catch 22. It will take more time to back up more, or it will take time to figure out what not to back up. And if you only back up the RAW files and need to restore and rework them, now you're talking more time. Just back it all up and be done with it.
I see NO option for long term storage (not backups as most people mix them up).
RAW is basically useless as a long term solution - the manufacturers are actively trying to lock down parts of the RAW files and they refuse to get to an open standard. To be fair there is little push on them from us... which I fail to understand.
DNG is okay I guess but not really an open standard and still parts of the RAW files are locked anyway since it's basically imbedded.
I guess we could do lossless JPG given it's likely to be the lowest common denominator and be supported for long into the future.
Lossless TIFF is probably the best but who knows.... I did hear of a place that will transfer the files to film - year that stone age stuff..... not cheap and not practical IMO but it might float some peoples boat.
I archive using PSD. I expect I will be using PhotoShop for a long time to come. However after reading previous posts I am thinking JPG just might be good enough.
robstein> RAW is basically useless as a long term solution
I'd have to disagree, because other software companies are writing software to open and convert all the major formats. Most of them aren't dropping off old formats from their converters. If a better format comes along, we could convert our old format to a newer format (similar to converting from an older media type ... like Zip drives ... to a newer media type like DVD's, blu-ray or e-sata multi-terabyte drives.
Best,
Andy
Just wait until we're using 16-bit displays....8-bit JPGs vs a RAW that's still convertible to 16 or 18 bit (any format) I would rather just continue with RAW for now.
