Workflow question: file types

[dmckinny]

I'm still pretty new to digital photography and I am still trying to get comfortable with a basic workflow. My primary efforts are shooting my daughter's soccer team, but I dabble in other things, such as non-macro flowers and the occasional sunset or cloud formation. I'm not a pro, just a weekend warrior. I'm shooting in raw, and using PSE 6 for all the conversion and editing. What I am struggling with now is what file types to use for the archiving of my shots. Do I just leave them in raw (30D CR2), convert then to TIFF, or DNG? Obviously most go to JPEG for prints or web sharing, I'm not concerned with those, just the "negatives".


I'm looking for other's opinions and experiences with the file types, and why you have settled on one versus the other. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.





Sincerely,


David McKinny

[Mark Elberson]

Do I just leave them in raw (30D CR2), convert then to TIFF, or DNG?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I save all of my RAW files. You never know if down the road you may want to process a file differently, crop it differently, etc. That is what's so great about RAW files. TIFF, JPEG...you can create them as many time as you'd like from 1 RAW file. Theopposite is not true though. Once you have converted, you can never getback to RAW!


The only other advice I can give you is get rid of all of the junk. If you have 3 shotsof the same thing keep the best one. If eyes are closed, or if focus is off then get rid of them too. It's been my experience that this is harder for some people than others. We tend to get attached to our own pictures :)

[Daniel Browning]

I second Mark's comments.



What I am struggling with now is what file types to use for the archiving of my shots. Do I just leave them in raw (30D CR2), convert then to TIFF, or DNG?


I suggest you archive the original raw files and side-car conversion parameter files (e.g. XMP) if you have any. I do not see any benefit in converting to DNG, particularly because some converters treat DNG differently than the original.


If you have room, a full 16-bit TIFF is nice to keep as well, but I usually just keep a full size JPEG at 95% compression.

[dmckinny]

Mark and Daniel, Thanks for the feedback.





David

[slemmon]

I picked up a book on Lightroom to work with the negatives. The book is "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby. He pitched DNG when talking about importing pictures. He listed three advantages of DNG over RAW.


1) Each camera manufacturer has its own proprietary RAW file format. DNG was created by Adobe as an open format so that it can always be opened versus having an older proprietary RAS format abandoned leaving you potentially stranded when attempting to open an older format down the road.


2) DNG is generally 20% smaller in size than its RAW counterpart.


3) The Metadata is stored in a separate file (XMP sidecar file) with RAW. DNG packages the metadata for your picture with the DNG format. With RAW you'll always have to manage the RAW file itself and the XMP sidecar file that accompanies it.


Great book, BTW, if you have Lightroom and are needing a comprehensive tour.

[dmckinny]

OK,


Here is a follow on question for you, is the DNG format truly an archival quality file. In other words, if I convert to DNG have I lost anything that was only in the CR2 format? I know Adobe says so, but that is marketing.


slemmon,


I like the the three items you mention as pluses for DNG, but I would like to hear from users to see if there are any hidden issues with either the files or workflow using the files.





Thanks all,


David McKinny