Yes, another RAW question, sorry - this one's about printing

[nicfargo]

Thorhammer, I agree. I just leave all my files in RAW. I export to JPEG if posting on a website or giving to someone, but for my own purposes I keeps it RAW baby! If I need to I burn to DVD...no big deal really.

 

[Rhubarb]

question:

Why do you need to archive in Tiff, you have the raw file allready !
You just re export to the size to print at each time you do a print. If its often enough make a CD. This is the beauty of lightroom.

Exactly! Lightroom or Bridge.

There is of course the argument using RAW to archive is potentially dangerous because you are using a proprietary file format, which perhaps one day nothing will be able to open.

Of course there is Adobe's DNG format which is a 'public' file format that also has the option to embed the original RAW data inside it. This method does leave you with a big fat file, but does have the benefit of being able to open it 'forever' and containing the RAW from the camera untouched.

Personally at the moment I only archive the RAW, but I'm considering the above option.

 

[Digital Matt]

Why do you need to archive in Tiff, you have the raw file allready !

To preserve my layers of retouching and editing. Until I can save all of that in a raw file, tiffs or psds will exist.

 

[SommarShade]

Sorry, I was thinking portraits !! lol

You should definately use .PSD in that case. All your layers, masks, and paths will be intact. Plus why keep all these different sizes around when you can just re-export from the PSD ? Dont bog yourself down by keeping
final print or web sized work on your drive just have the .psd dng, raw, or tiff handy.

 

[Digital Matt]

Sorry, I was thinking portraits !! lol

The content of the photo is irrelavent. You don't retouch portraits? I save all of my layers of editing. I'm always learning new techniques and methods, and I never know when I'll want to change some settings to an adjustment layer or something else to re-interpret the image. I also will keep a print jpg if it's something I print often. I don't want to waste time opening a huge tiff or psd everytime I want to print something. Storage is cheap.

 

[SommarShade]

I have to disagree on the premise, commercial and product work is by nature a layer oriented task much of the time. on the contrary much of the time weddings and portraits look worse when someone photoshops the heck out of them.

No, I dont need to use layers to adjust my portraits. I get close enough to the way I want in the setup of the shot.
(unless I need to clone something )

I might have to pull up 5 shots out of
700 keepers to clone something.

If I am playing with layers for portraits or wedding shots then I am doing something wrong, thats my view for myself, I need to be spending that time marketing and making contacts.
Youll never make any money per dollar
pulling up layers for all your shots of a wedding. unless you charge 30K per wedding !!!

Im not a big time wedding look actions user, I make my own very detailed and intricate develop settings and presets in lightroom and I use those.

If it works for you, thats awesome, but I dont need them for 98% of the weddings and portraits I shoot.


whatever works for you, theres no right or wrong, just sharing. I like to keep things pretty darn simple...

 

[Digital Matt]

All I can say is to each his own. Not every wedding photographer shoots the same style (nor is every portrait photographer a wedding photographer). If you shoot 700 keepers and do minimal processing and that works for you, awesome. I prefer to shoot 1/3 of that and take my time making each one as special as I can, because that's half of the joy in it for me. The good thing is, photoshop and lightroom easily adapt to any style of work.

 

[Kawi_T]

No not really. If you can print from a PSD then you might as well. There's no advantage of converting to a Tiff first. Can someone explain how a JPEG just randomly loses information over time...this just doesn't seem right to me. It'd be like a compressed word document of mine tossing out sentences over time...just seems unrealistic to me is all.

The JPEG image is not deteriorating over time. Its just sitting there as happy as before. The loss only occurs when you make an edit and save it. Actually, the edit isn't really even necessary (I don't think). I think the loss occurs everytime you save the image.