Is there a middle-ground for archiving between RAW and JPEG compression?

[RAW]

Hi everyone

I am trying to consolidate the better half of a terabyte of data from an external hard drive and my laptop's internal disc storage as well... and just a few sporting events I recently photographed are taking up nearly 100gb of data, alone.

QUESTION: I was wondering if there is a nice in between file-type I could convert all of my RAW images to, before either storing to my hard drive(s) and/or burning onto physical media like DVD-Rs, so I don't use all of my storage so quickly? My RAW images are between 20-30mb each, and it adds up ridiculously quick. I know RAW is king when it comes to loss-less quality and photo editing, so I'll keep the images I really like in their native format... but what about everything else?

JPEG downsizes everything SEVERELY from 25mg to 1mb, so I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing that I can convert my photo-archives to so I can compress them without TOTALLY sacrificing quality, in case a friend or client wants copies of them in the future etc.?

THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYONE!

 

[480sparky]

Memory is cheap. Just buy a 3tb hard drive.

 

[vimwiz]

JPEG downsizes everything SEVERELY from 25mg to 1mb, so I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing that I can convert my photo-archives to so I can compress them without TOTALLY sacrificing quality[/QUOTE]


Depends, what JPEG options are you using?

A full-res jpeg image at best quality is still tens and tens of megs, you must still be compressing heavily?

 

[480sparky]

Taking the time to shoot raw, only to save everything as a JPEG, is kinda like shoot film, making 4x5 prints, then tossing out the negatives.

 

[The_Traveler]

Throw out the bad pictures that you'll never look at or need.

 

[RAW]

Memory is cheap. Just buy a 3tb hard drive.

That's really not helpful, at all.

Depends, what JPEG options are you using?

A full-res jpeg image at best quality is still tens and tens of megs, you must still be compressing heavily?

I use Irfanview for a good deal of my compression - it is pretty strong compression. Maybe rather than saving to a specific file-type, I could simply use Irfanview or many other programs to choose a file-SIZE in stead... opting for about 10mb for each file, cutting my storage usage in half (?)

Taking the time to shoot raw, only to save everything as a JPEG, is kinda like shoot film, making 4x5 prints, then tossing out the negatives.

Sparky, I'm not sure if you're just not inclined to give new members a cold welcome, or if you didn't take the time to read my entire post before offering your sarcastic short-sighted remarks? Let me explain it again, with some more detail. I have a lot of external storage, however, I don't want to use it all on keeping 100% OF MY RAW images in their raw format. However, what WOULD like to do, is keep my favorite images in their RAW format, but for other images that aren't quite deserving of RAW but are still useable and worthy to be saved, convert/compress those somehow with whatever option is best, to a lower FILE SIZE. Since I've taken a few thousands photographs just this year already at different events and outings, even the terabytes of data I do have are quickly being absorbed... SO... for the images that I need/want to keep on file for clients or for my own purposes and projects that are not in need of remaining RAW, what would a great option be to perhaps cut their size in half.

 

[Light Guru]

Taking the time to shoot raw, only to save everything as a JPEG, is kinda like shoot film, making 4x5 prints, then tossing out the negatives.

Yup.

Hard drives are CHEAP!!!

I love hearing people complain about photo file sizes. I shoot 4x5 film and a good scan of one of my negative is around 1GB.

 

[RAW]

Throw out the bad pictures that you'll never look at or need.

This could take... maybe a month or two, if I went through them all one by one.

I'm beginning to think I might be better off going elsewhere for what certainly is a simple answer? I can't imagine some of the more senior members (or any member at all) of all the other forums I'm on or moderate, ever taking something so simply (downsizing images) and injecting their own snide useless tongue-in-cheek rubbish... NONE of which gets the new member an inch closer to figuring out the very normal and very basic question they posed.

1. Buy more space! (it's cold, and my money tree hasn't been blooming properly)
2. Delete your pictures! (oh my gosh, NO JOKE, REALLY? This is amazingly insightful and helpful)
3. What are you an idiot, shooting in raw and then converting? (you didn't even read my whole post, because a few sentences is hard to get through I suppose)
4. I love hearing people complain about storage space, I shoot 4x5... droning on (oh, so now I know some of your interesting life story, and still have zero answers to MY ISSUE -- but please, tell me what else you love and how much space your negatives take up. By the way, it's 2014, I could also say "Using negatives in 2014 is like using a donkey to pull a BMW to work!" But, I'm not rude for no reason like EVERY person here so far)

Nice... thanks!!!

 

[BillM]

What about taking a bunch of those raw files and zipping them for storing.

 

[RAW]

What about taking a bunch of those raw files and zipping them for storing.

Hi Bill, thank you for the first useful and sincere post. This is a great idea.

 

[480sparky]

Memory is cheap. Just buy a 3tb hard drive.

That's really not helpful, at all.

Depends, what JPEG options are you using?

A full-res jpeg image at best quality is still tens and tens of megs, you must still be compressing heavily?

I use Irfanview for a good deal of my compression - it is pretty strong compression. Maybe rather than saving to a specific file-type, I could simply use Irfanview or many other programs to choose a file-SIZE in stead... opting for about 10mb for each file, cutting my storage usage in half (?)

Taking the time to shoot raw, only to save everything as a JPEG, is kinda like shoot film, making 4x5 prints, then tossing out the negatives.

Sparky, I'm not sure if you're just not inclined to give new members a cold welcome, or if you didn't take the time to read my entire post before offering your sarcastic short-sighted remarks? Let me explain it again, with some more detail. I have a lot of external storage, however, I don't want to use it all on keeping 100% OF MY RAW images in their raw format. However, what WOULD like to do, is keep my favorite images in their RAW format, but for other images that aren't quite deserving of RAW but are still useable and worthy to be saved, convert/compress those somehow with whatever option is best, to a lower FILE SIZE. Since I've taken a few thousands photographs just this year already at different events and outings, even the terabytes of data I do have are quickly being absorbed... SO... for the images that I need/want to keep on file for clients or for my own purposes and projects that are not in need of remaining RAW, what would a great option be to perhaps cut their size in half.

I didn't realize giving factual, honest answers is considered 'cold'. My point is: instead of trying to save memory by saving smaller files (which is a result of tossing out data), why not just buy another hard drive? Memory is cheap. A couple terrabytes would probably cost less than the time it would take you to convert all your images.

OK, what are you future plans for the images? Will you even look at them again? Or is it possible you may get into selling your current archive of work? If you have any sort of future plans for your images, keep the raw files. All of them. I've sold images I personally thought were crap and never even star rated nor edited it. And had I not had access to the original raw file, trying to edit an 8-bit JPEG would have failed miserably and cost me far more money in a lost sale than another hard drive did. Had I tossed out all the images I didn't star rate, I'd have an archive of only a couple thousand images. And much fewer sales.

Yes, I delete the OOF, blurry, over- and under-exposed shots. But if it's sharp and well-exposed, I keep it. But that's just me.

Short-sighted? Wow. I thought we were talking about how to properly archive your work. But if you want to toss most of your hard work away, that's up to you.


I guess if you're only willing to listen to what you're predisposed to hearing, I'll leave now.

 

[Light Guru]

I'm beginning to think I might be better off going elsewhere for what certainly is a simple answer?

The simple answer is what you want to do is not the best option.

By the way, it's 2014, I could also say "Using negatives in 2014 is like using a donkey to pull a BMW to work!" But, I'm not rude

Yes it is 2014 and yet no digital camera on the market can produce a image with the resolution of a large foe at negative plus the movements of a large foe at camera give you more control over your image then any DSLR.

 

[71M]

Raw's the one for correcting white balance, denoising, knocking-out colour aberrations etc. The other formats are problematic in these respects. Using TIF wouldn't be much of an economy generally. If you're happy with how things look, you could opt for 100% quality JPEG, (4:4:4, YCbCr?).

 

[table1349]

OP. If you want a simple answer perhaps it would help if you told us what answer you want to be given and someone here can parrot it back to you.

You have been given several simple answers for doing it the correct way. The fact that you don't like any of them is not the fault of the posters. Storage space IS CHEAP. If you don't want to just buy more storage and save the original files then pick a format. Jpg with no compression, dng, tif, what ever you want and use it.


Be advised, a few weeks from now when you come back asking how to take a photo or photos in that format you choose and fix some issue with it because you want to print it in a bigger size and it looks bad when you do, or you want to send it in to some contest and you can't make the file size big enough for them with out ruining the quality of the photo. You were given recommendations for the best options and choose to ignore them. Then you will actually see "cold" "not helpful" answers.

 

[Derrel]

Are you shooting in 12-bit, compressed RAW format? THAT can save a lot of disk storage space compared to say, 14-bit uncompressed RAW. Not sure what camera you have or what its options are. As far as JPEG storage size, Nikon offers a choice between a FIXED size, OR allowing the camera to writer as large a JPEG as is needed for maximum quality for the subject matter.

Adobe's DNG Converter saves a significant amount of disk space on Fuji S2,S3, S5 Pro .RAF raw format files, due to the very odd,odd way those files are made, but I don't think the same is true with "standard" Bayer-array files from Nikon and Canon and Sony d-slrs.

Around a decade ago, Kodak's professional FF d-slr's used to offer a hybrid RAW/JPEG file type, called ERI JPEG, for Extended Range Imaging, which allowed a significantly greater than normal recoivery/adjustment/editing capability compared with standard JPEG files, but I think those HAD TO be made in-camera with one of the Kodak cameras. The idea has probably been sold, along with so,so many Kodak patents in the recent fire-sale of Kodak IP, but I suppose you might be able to research ERI JPEG and see if that might be able to be applied as a conversion from other files.