Do you ever get rid of your RAW images?

[71M]

Never delete anything.

Doesn't work for me; I need to periodically declutter, to be productive. I find having ten good pictures amongst fifty or sixty mediocre or poor ones a distraction. Once that's into the hundreds or thousands, it saps my energy levels, and I lose direction with it.

 

[manaheim]

BTW, I also archive 90% of my raws to DVD. I keep only the "super amazing" ones on spinning disk.

 

[foto_boss]

BTW, I also archive 90% of my raws to DVD. I keep only the "super amazing" ones on spinning disk.

What's the point wasting time on dvd?

 

[manaheim]

BTW, I also archive 90% of my raws to DVD. I keep only the "super amazing" ones on spinning disk.

What's the point wasting time on dvd?

Ummm.... Versus what?

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes, absolutely. RAWs are for editing only and are pointless for any photos you know you're never going to edit again. Which is the vast majority of photos, unless you're an odd person. (Note: you may not ADMIT that you're never going to edit them, but I'm talking about what you actually truthfully might vs. won't)

I keep RAWs for shots that my (occasional) clients liked the most or that I like the most, basically stuff in a portfolio or that I think there's a good chance somebody might ask a special request version of in the future. Everything else, jpeg. Or deleting in every form forever for many not-very-inspired and not-client photos. Even if focused and exposed correctly.

Definitely if the photo was for somebody else, you need to keep a larger proportion, because you don't know other people as well as yourself and you can't predict which ones might need to be edited as well, so allow a larger fudge factor.

 

[foto_boss]

BTW, I also archive 90% of my raws to DVD. I keep only the "super amazing" ones on spinning disk.

What's the point wasting time on dvd?

Ummm.... Versus what?

HDD

 

[Overread]

BTW, I also archive 90% of my raws to DVD. I keep only the "super amazing" ones on spinning disk.

What's the point wasting time on dvd?

Ummm.... Versus what?

I did the whole DVD thing once - I think if I had it automated with a machine to swap disks and check they are burned right it might be ok - but darn it took ages and didn't get anywhere fast. These days I think an external hard-disk is just easier to work with for a manual system.

 

[Stevepwns]

I only get rid of the obviously bad shots. then after I am sure I cant do anything with whats left after editing the good ones. I export as a catalog. I keep the edited shots in lightroom so I can go back and rework or just gaze for inspiration.

 

[Gavjenks]

What's the point wasting time on dvd?

Ummm.... Versus what?

HDD

Same difference, really. I assume you mean external HDDs. They cost about the same, last about as long... Read and write isn't that important anyway. So whatever. Preference.

 

[table1349]

Yes, absolutely. RAWs are for editing only and are pointless for any photos you know you're never going to edit again. Which is the vast majority of photos, unless you're an odd person. (Note: you may not ADMIT that you're never going to edit them, but I'm talking about what you actually truthfully might vs. won't)

I keep RAWs for shots that my (occasional) clients liked the most or that I like the most, basically stuff in a portfolio or that I think there's a good chance somebody might ask a special request version of in the future. Everything else, jpeg. Or deleting in every form forever for many not-very-inspired and not-client photos. Even if focused and exposed correctly.

Definitely if the photo was for somebody else, you need to keep a larger proportion, because you don't know other people as well as yourself and you can't predict which ones might need to be edited as well, so allow a larger fudge factor.

I sure wish I had one of these

so I could be positive in the future that I wouldn't need that original digital negative.

 

[71M]

Yes, absolutely. RAWs are for editing only and are pointless for any photos you know you're never going to edit again. Which is the vast majority of photos, unless you're an odd person. (Note: you may not ADMIT that you're never going to edit them, but I'm talking about what you actually truthfully might vs. won't)

I keep RAWs for shots that my (occasional) clients liked the most or that I like the most, basically stuff in a portfolio or that I think there's a good chance somebody might ask a special request version of in the future. Everything else, jpeg. Or deleting in every form forever for many not-very-inspired and not-client photos. Even if focused and exposed correctly.

Definitely if the photo was for somebody else, you need to keep a larger proportion, because you don't know other people as well as yourself and you can't predict which ones might need to be edited as well, so allow a larger fudge factor.

I agree with all of that. Being an hobbyist, rather than a working photographer, I usually delete 'edits' - JPG,TIF workflows - from my PC, once they're up on the web, or printed. I keep only the raw files. I have some JPGs, from P&S cameras or Nokia phones, b/c those are the only files available.

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes, absolutely. RAWs are for editing only and are pointless for any photos you know you're never going to edit again. Which is the vast majority of photos, unless you're an odd person. (Note: you may not ADMIT that you're never going to edit them, but I'm talking about what you actually truthfully might vs. won't)

I keep RAWs for shots that my (occasional) clients liked the most or that I like the most, basically stuff in a portfolio or that I think there's a good chance somebody might ask a special request version of in the future. Everything else, jpeg. Or deleting in every form forever for many not-very-inspired and not-client photos. Even if focused and exposed correctly.

Definitely if the photo was for somebody else, you need to keep a larger proportion, because you don't know other people as well as yourself and you can't predict which ones might need to be edited as well, so allow a larger fudge factor.

I sure wish I had one of these

so I could be positive in the future that I wouldn't need that original digital negative.

I don't mean at the level of "Oh this great picture of a forest I'm totally gonna edit, but this great picture of a church I'm not gonna edit."
I mean more like "This is a second or third tier image, it will NEVER be great from editing, so I'm never going to care enough to re-edit it."

Sort by levels of quality, and you'll very rarely regret it in my experience. Not by content (who knows about that / yes you would need a crystal ball)

 

[foto_boss]

Not long left to wait: Sony and Panasonic announce the Archival Disc, a new optical disc standard for long-term storage

 

[71M]

Yes, absolutely. RAWs are for editing only and are pointless for any photos you know you're never going to edit again. Which is the vast majority of photos, unless you're an odd person. (Note: you may not ADMIT that you're never going to edit them, but I'm talking about what you actually truthfully might vs. won't)

I keep RAWs for shots that my (occasional) clients liked the most or that I like the most, basically stuff in a portfolio or that I think there's a good chance somebody might ask a special request version of in the future. Everything else, jpeg. Or deleting in every form forever for many not-very-inspired and not-client photos. Even if focused and exposed correctly.

Definitely if the photo was for somebody else, you need to keep a larger proportion, because you don't know other people as well as yourself and you can't predict which ones might need to be edited as well, so allow a larger fudge factor.

I sure wish I had one of these

so I could be positive in the future that I wouldn't need that original digital negative.

I don't mean at the level of "Oh this great picture of a forest I'm totally gonna edit, but this great picture of a church I'm not gonna edit."
I mean more like "This is a second or third tier image, it will NEVER be great from editing, so I'm never going to care enough to re-edit it."

Sort by levels of quality, and you'll very rarely regret it in my experience. Not by content (who knows about that / yes you would need a crystal ball)

Throwing something away, and then needing it two weeks later, is just Sod's Law, that's life, you can't live like that unless you hoard everything - which it daft. The pictures I miss, (junked negatives/slides, some accidental losses, digital files on Jaz Drives, that were stolen out my car one time), were of people, foreign travel, pure chance street photos, and urbex in places which have now been demolished and are gone. I wouldn't keep photos of e.g farm animals, trees, notable buildings, sunsets etc, b/c I thought I just might need those one day.

 

[manaheim]

What's the point wasting time on dvd?

Ummm.... Versus what?

HDD

It would take an awful lot of disks to back up my files and hard drives can fail even when sitting around. And while dvds can also fail, a single 4 gig DVD failing loses a lot fewer images than, say, a 1 Tb hdd.