Do you ever get rid of your RAW images?

[JerryLove]

Excepting the obviously bad ones:

I keep all my RAWs.
I keep all my PS files (unless I find nothing of value in the edits I did. No point keeping one that's identical to the RAW).

I doubt I'll re-touch most, but I'm convinced if I do delete them there will be at least one I really wanna go back and fix when my skills improve.

 

[minicoop1985]

I do product photography mainly for myself. If I'm done with a sale, out they go. I generally keep the resulting .jpgs though to remember some of the crap I've sold in case someone has an issue. If it's for a client, copies of the raw files are thrown on an external HD.

 

[bc_steve]

I trash a large percentage of my raws that are redundant or poor. At 50megs a piece, keeping them around is a nightmare.

I NEVER throw away RAWs for images I keep.

Yep, I follow the same rationale. I only copy the RAW files I actually want to keep from my card to my computer. Then I format the memory card and goodbye to the rest. I do copy a few more than I bother to edit and show though because sometimes I appreciate them more a couple months down the road than I do at the time.

After editing though I always keep the RAW. I am always learning and sometimes I will reedit a photo from scratch a couple years down the road. And it is nearly always an improvement. I only bother to do this with my absolute favourites though.

 

[ann]

Never delete anything.

 

[sm4him]

Yes, I keep my raw files, the keepers AND the ones that are only marginal. Yes, I've gone back a few times and redone one. But there's another reason I keep them, especially the marginal ones.

I look at some of my old family heritage photos, ones that are before my time and that the negatives have been long since lost--and I think about what could have been done with some of those old, torn, washed-out photos with today's processing technology, if only I had the negative to work from.
10 years, 20 years, 50 years from now, who knows what could be done with some of the photos that are only "marginal" today? So, I keep them. Even if only one or two of them are ever used in the future, it's worth the small price of keeping them around.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

My RAW`s are my negatives, they allow me to go back and adjust my photo again and again with no loss in quality, treasure them!

John.

 

[grafxman]

I don't often delete any photos in camera unless it's obviously blurred or someone stepped in front of the camera or something otherwise ruined the shot. When I return from a days shooting to my computer I organize the photos appropriately i.e. when shooting the huge Smithsonian Museum of Natural History last summer I created a directory for the Smithsonian then subdirectories for each major exhibit area. The exhibit areas become sets of photos on my flickr pages. Everything at this point is in RAW format. When I get home I do a direct copy and paste to 2 different 2TB external drives. One drive is stored inside a fireproof lock box. Over the next several months I process the RAW files with Canon's DPP software and convert them to .jpg files. Those .jpg files are saved to a subdirectory in the same directory the RAW files are in. After the RAW files are processed and saved to the external 2TB drive I then break out the other 2TB drive from the lock box and copy the .jpg files subdirectories over to it. Then I put it back inside the lock box. After this work is completed I start uploading the files to my flickr pages. Everything is saved and nothing is ever discarded.

 

[petrochemist]

In several fields of photography (motorsports/experimental/low light/microscopy...) I produce loads of junk, the worst of which is deleted (and lots more should be).
Some of my cameras never have RAW files saved (some can't save RAW) but increasingly the shots that matter have the RAW files kept.

 

[Derrel]

I normally shoot RAW + JPEG. I will throw away really bad images, like ones where the flash has failed to fire, or really awful focus, things like that.

 

[Josh66]

The reason I keep all my files is I sell more of what I don't edit. If I had the habit of deleting what I don't like & edit and dumping the rest, I'd cut my sales by 75%.

Explain that to me. I don't get it... How are clients even seeing the unedited photos.

And if 3/4 of what you sell is the stuff you don't edit, why aren't you editing it and selling even more of it?

 

[480sparky]

Explain that to me. I don't get it... How are clients even seeing the unedited photos.

And if 3/4 of what you sell is the stuff you don't edit, why aren't you editing it and selling even more of it?

A preface: I don't do commission work. I don't click shutters for a living. All I do is sell rights to my work.

Many times I get asked if I have a photo of such-n-such. Sure I do. I took it, but never edited it.

So, if I had tossed it out because I didn't think it was a keeper, then I'd be tossing out 75% of my sellable work.

By keeping everything (and using a rigorous regimen of star-rating, keywording and indexing), I can quickly respond with what the customer is looking for.

 

[Josh66]

Explain that to me. I don't get it... How are clients even seeing the unedited photos.

And if 3/4 of what you sell is the stuff you don't edit, why aren't you editing it and selling even more of it?

A preface: I don't do commission work. I don't click shutters for a living. All I do is sell rights to my work.

Many times I get asked if I have a photo of such-n-such. Sure I do. I took it, but never edited it.

So, if I had tossed it out because I didn't think it was a keeper, then I'd be tossing out 75% of my sellable work.

By keeping everything (and using a rigorous regimen of star-rating, keywording and indexing), I can quickly respond with what the customer is looking for.

So you're more-or-less maintaining a stock photo database. I guess that makes more sense.

 

[480sparky]

So you're more-or-less maintaining a stock photo database. I guess that makes more sense.

Yep.

I may take 1000 shots at an auto show, but never edit the one of the 1947 Ford Pickup until someone meanders along looking for one.

 

[foto_boss]

Naturally keep RAWs.
1. With increasing experience in processing, through the years may want to treat anew.
2. Pictures may be required for different purposes, in different resolutions, etc. Every time I produce the desired instance in lightroom.

 

[71M]

What's the rationale? How many of you have actually gone back to that RAW image 5 years down the road to re-edit it?

I do that quite often, but I try to keep just the better/best pictures. It can take me a while sometimes to reduce ten or so similar pictures down to just one or two keepers.