Do you delete your raw/DNG? If not, why not?

[ianforber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies if this has been discussed before - I tried a search but couldn’t find anything. 

I am trying to refine my haphazard workflow now that I have a nice new Q2. I’ve decided to ditch Lightroom because I never got on with it, having previously used Aperture for years. I’ve been using Luminar 4 for a few months but am trialling Capture One at the moment and it looks likely that I’ll move over to C1 when my trial is over. The question I’m wrestling with is whether to bother keeping my raw/DNG files or to refine a workflow focused on the “final” jpeg/tiff.

The context is that I’m a purely hobbyist photographer and a pretty poor one at that. I’ve been taking photographs on and off since the late 1970s but more regularly since 2003-ish. My digital archive currently consists of around 2000 files - I delete most of what I take because it isn’t very good and about half of my archive only survives because it has sentimental value rather than artistic merit.  Same with film - I take much less film-based images these days but most gets dumped immediately and I probably have a third-full A4 binder with 35mm and medium format slide and negs: if I lost that tomorrow it wouldn’t bother me because they aren’t very good. That might sound depressing but isn’t meant to - I’m always trying to up my game!

Over half of my photographs are black and white, so I process the few DNG that make it past initial deletion. Sometimes, I have left it at that, sometimes I have created a final jpeg/tiff version that bakes in the changes. I’m just wondering whether to always do that, produce a tiff version and delete everything else, including the original DNG and rely on whatever software I use (eg C1) any small jpegs I might need in the future.

Does this make sense? I can’t remember ever going back to a raw file and reprocessing it so I am wondering why I’m keeping any of them. 

Thank you in advance for any thoughts to help me out of my confusion!

[evikne]

When I look at my old pictures, I am often tempted to do some changes to some of them. Maybe because my photographic taste has changed/evolved, or I just discover something that annoys me or a detail I have overlooked. When I have the original DNG files, I can always make any changes I want, without any quality loss. Or I can start from scratch if I want to. 

Others may be able to edit an image, export to JPEG or TIFF, throw away the original file and be happy. But that's not for me. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jankap]

I keep the DNGs of the PP-ed pictures only.

In 1988 I had to save space whatever it costed.  My SE-30 had a hard disc with 70Mb memory.

[stephan54]

I used to keep the RAW files and delete the Jpeg's, now I keep the Jpeg's and delete  the RAW files.

Found I seldom edit an older picture. Took a lot of self pursuation to do so, but the other reason was the harddisk of my laptop filling up and having no space for new pictures.

[andyturk]

I only shoot raw nowadays, and basically keep all of them. My Lightroom archive spans 20 years and has about 34k images in 380GB. I need to shoot more! The vast majority of what's in there is complete crap, but there's a hundred or so that are nice (and easily found).

To me, buying a new hard drive (or SSD) every couple of years is less stressful and easier than deciding what to delete and what to keep. And several times, I've found images that didn't look like much when I took them, but now seem to be worthy.

EDIT: I saw a documentary about Steve McCurry where he said he had about 800,000 slides of Kodachrome in his archive. I wonder how many he's actually scanned?

Edited August 19, 2020 by andyturk

[andybarton]

Would you throw away your film negatives?

I often go back and work on old shots, especially during fallow periods. 

Storage is cheap.
 

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe one reason you’re disappointed with your results is that you haven’t taken the time to learn how to work with RAW/DNG files and to take advantage of their almost infinite PP potential. My goal is always to take a print-worthy pic, then use the tools at hand to optimize those print results.  
 

And sometimes, even years later,  the processing tools improve, and/or my tastes change, and I want the RAW file to be able to take advantage of those changes and to produce the best results.  (Ansel Adams reinterpreted and reprinted his famous Moonrise negative many times over 34 years.)

I never bother to shoot JPEG, just as I never allowed someone else to interpret, process and print my b&w film negs. If you pay a lot for the best gear, why not maintain the best source material and take full control over your results?  Any modern software can get you there, provided you take enough time to learn and get comfortable with the tools and interface. (I use LR Classic and ImagePrint, but there are other good choices). Just pick one and stick with it.  But don’t throw away your raw (or RAW) material!  Better to throw away your JPEGs, or don’t bother with them in the first place.
 

Jeff

Edited August 19, 2020 by Jeff S

[marchyman]

17 minutes ago, andybarton said:

Would you throw away your film negatives?

I'm with andybarton on this.   I currently process in Capture One and use a process recipe to generate jpeg images that I'm going to share.  Once those jpeg image have been uploaded to a web server, photo site, etc., they are deleted.   I can always create the jpeg again if needed.  About the only images I throw away are those of the inside of the lens cap, my out-of-focus feet, etc.

[stunsworth]

With the exception of those with gross technical problems (way out of focus, very blurred etc.) I never bin any RAW files. Storage is cheap and I’ve come across scans from 20 years ago that I thought nothing of at the time but seem interesting now.
 

Any processed images get saved to a folder I rather grandly call “Photo masters”, while copies of those resized and destined for internet use are saved to a different folder. 

[Doug A]

I still rescan negatives that my father and I shot over the last 90+ years, and that I continue to shoot,  because my scanning equipment and technique continue to improve. I can't imagine not being able to "develop" (Affinity Photo jargon) and edit the very few digital pictures that I take these days, starting with the RAW files that come out of the camera.

[M11 for me]

Very important question I think and it has a lot to do with one's workflow. You said that you come from Aperture and did not like Lightroom. Like Aperture Lightroom as well is a management system. That is why I never had much of a problem after the forced move from Aperture to Lightroom. First indeed you have to learn how the intended Adobe Workflow works in Lightroom: You should never ever touch your files or create/delete files in the finder. Everything should be done in Lightroom. This given you have your whole filesystem (including your optional publishing on your private website as Smugmug or others) within lightroom. I have in that filesystem only DNG as I never shoit in JPG. The images that I publish in Smugmug I do out of LR as well. Always the DNGs. Up to now there is no need whatsoever to thing of filetype (DNG or JPG or Tiff or others). I never go out of Lightroom.

There are niw some activities that force me to export a picture from Lightroom. This is only when I want to attach a JPG to a mail or when I want to print an image (or have printed). Lightroom provides you with an aexcellent export tool for those instances. But these are the exceptions. My Lightroom is my tool for the whole administration. I repeat it: I never ever go into the Finder to alter anything; just use Lightroom. It is made for that. 

This then answers your question: I shoir DNG and that is what I have. Nothing else. JPGs are created only fir special situations (often TIFxFiles i stead of JPGs depending on what the print laboratry want me to bring). After that is done I delete the JPGs as I have the DNGs in my Lightroom repository.

[ianforber]

Thank you to everyone who replied. Much here to think about!

To clarify, this is not about storage capacity - I keep my files on an external hard disk (backed up twice on other disks) and have no problem buying bigger disks as needed. This is more about whether I would be better to streamline my workflow to de-clutter by removing files that I am vanishingly unlikely ever to look at a again. And yes, I do throw away my negatives. All the time as they aren’t worth keeping.

It’s also not a question of me shooting jpeg - I rarely do so as I find the extra latitude offered by a raw file is useful when producing a black and white variant (especially if I am shooting infra red, which pretty much demands use of raw). In fact, I hardly ever generate jpeg. I’m not on social media so only ever do so if I am putting a copy in Apple Photos to show someone (eg my wife) using my iPhone or iPad, or to post here, after which it gets deleted.

Jeff S makes an astute point - it may be that I’m just not good enough at post processing. PP is not something I enjoy (I get my dopamine rush by pressing the shutter button!) - I’d much rather use an ND grad filter when taking the picture than apply a gradient mask or blend multiple shots after the event, for example. 

I think I will get more familiar with C1 and the Q2 before deciding what to do and try not to think about the chaotic clutter of my current catalogue too much.

Thanks again

[Guest BlackBarn]

Photography is not a revenue source for me so It depends on why I took the photo. Those photos which spark memories I keep. Those which appeal I will keep for as how long as they do, the rest I delete.  I have plenty/too much storage it’s just I haven’t  found  a compelling reason  to keep a library of photos. 

[Jeff S]

Just to clarify my comment, anybody can learn the techniques associated with PP, just as they can learn the mechanics of the camera. The key is having a clear idea of when, where and to what degree to apply those techniques to achieve your desired result. The most important tools remain between the ears.
 

It’s not clear to me if you’re unhappy with your results because you don’t have a clear vision of the picture you want to capture, or that you’ve not been able to translate that picture to optimal print or screen rendering.  There are good resources to address either or both, including workshops that offer real time feedback.

Jeff

[ianforber]

10 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Just to clarify my comment, anybody can learn the techniques associated with PP, just as they can learn the mechanics of the camera. The key is having a clear idea of when, where and to what degree to apply those techniques to achieve your desired result. The most important tools remain between the ears.
 

It’s not clear to me if you’re unhappy with your results because you don’t have a clear vision of the picture you want to capture, or that you’ve not been able to translate that picture to optimal print or screen rendering.  There are good resources to address either or both, including workshops that offer real time feedback.

Jeff

I’d guess I have a clear vision of what I am trying to do about 60% of the time when I press the shutter button, but often that doesn’t work out. I need to think longer about whether that is because of my (poor) PP technique or because of a more fundamental problem of just pressing the button at the wrong time or without checking/thinking enough. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hopeless at PP: I’ve used several types of software for many years and I do have some pictures I’m pleased with, some of which have needed more than just a touch of exposure adjustment, levels etc. But I accept I’m not consistent or happy with what I’m doing.

The other 40% of the time, I probably have a much vaguer feel of what I’m doing and why before taking the picture. Less deliberate, more reactive. Interestingly, I couldn’t tell you whether I get more “keepers” from the 60% or the 40%, either proportionately or in absolute terms. 

More homework required...

[Guest BlackBarn]

You might find this talk interesting it’s Phil Penman talking about workflow etc ....he is using capture one and I think shoots with the M10M and SL.....

You have to scroll past the ‘wait’ to the start of the talk.

 

[250swb]

10 hours ago, ianforber said:

Thank you to everyone who replied. Much here to think about!

To clarify, this is not about storage capacity - I keep my files on an external hard disk (backed up twice on other disks) and have no problem buying bigger disks as needed. This is more about whether I would be better to streamline my workflow to de-clutter by removing files that I am vanishingly unlikely ever to look at a again. And yes, I do throw away my negatives. All the time as they aren’t worth keeping.

It’s also not a question of me shooting jpeg - I rarely do so as I find the extra latitude offered by a raw file is useful when producing a black and white variant (especially if I am shooting infra red, which pretty much demands use of raw). In fact, I hardly ever generate jpeg. I’m not on social media so only ever do so if I am putting a copy in Apple Photos to show someone (eg my wife) using my iPhone or iPad, or to post here, after which it gets deleted.

Jeff S makes an astute point - it may be that I’m just not good enough at post processing. PP is not something I enjoy (I get my dopamine rush by pressing the shutter button!) - I’d much rather use an ND grad filter when taking the picture than apply a gradient mask or blend multiple shots after the event, for example. 

I think I will get more familiar with C1 and the Q2 before deciding what to do and try not to think about the chaotic clutter of my current catalogue too much.

Thanks again

From the days of film I still consider one good picture from a roll of 36 a good success rate, three and it's very lucky. More than that and you aren't self editing hard enough. A similar hit rate is applicable to digital if you leave out chimping the image.

If you make each image as if it's important they may not all get to the final edit, but they still should hold the same feeling of importance they did when you pressed the shutter. That is a reason to keep them, they are the context behind the good one, that is how you learn and progress. So instead of 'taking' a photograph try 'making' a photograph when you press the shutter, step back from the smash and grab where nothing means anything such that you want to delete most of your work. And the word 'work' is a concept any good amateur knows isn't a dirty word, your work is a body of work success and failure alike, a work ethic is a good thing even in a hobby. So take yourself seriously, stop hiding your failures and let them pile up, they are reminders to do better.

[pippy]

Many very good points made by several members here.

Personally I always keep the DNG for the same reason mentioned a couple of times. First-off they are the digital 'negative' and will be the source for the best quality image at any future point. Secondly; future advances in software may allow even better results to be achieved. I use Photoshop for all my digital processing and PP and have done so since my pre-digital days over twenty years ago when the program came in something like 20 floppy disks(!). The advances in terms of tools and retouching capabilities have been astronomical. Thirdly; some images I didn't think much of at the time have been seen, at a much later date, to be of far more interest than originally thought. Had the files been deleted they would have been lost forever.

Philip.

[ianforber]

Thank you all for your considered (and considerate) responses. I’ll give the video a watch.

250swb - good points. I too was brought up on 35mm, using Kodachrome when I could afford to and ekeing out each frame as a high value commodity. I still work like that. I realise I may have given the impression that I ‘spray n pray’, but in fact I take few pictures. I’m taking more at the moment as I’m getting used to the Q2, but I’d normally take fewer than 30 each day (only yesterday, I took the Q2 out but came back without having pressed the shutter once. I also prefer not to chimp (I have the back panel display switched off), but will do so if I need to check framing or exposure, usually when mounted on a tripod for landscape pics. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether that’s part of the problem - I’m just not shooting enough (or regularly enough) to get my photographic eye in. In more normal times I work in an office location that prohibits cameras so photography is a purely weekend activity, and life often gets in the way so it doesn’t happen every weekend either. That, combined with me not taking many pictures, means it can be many weeks in between me firing up my laptop to organise and work on my pictures, which in turn contributes to me having a I’ll-defined workflow and an unfamiliarity with PP software. 

Even more homework needed...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

 

11 hours ago, ianforber said:

Thank you all for your considered (and considerate) responses. I’ll give the video a watch.

250swb - good points. I too was brought up on 35mm, using Kodachrome when I could afford to and ekeing out each frame as a high value commodity. I still work like that. I realise I may have given the impression that I ‘spray n pray’, but in fact I take few pictures. I’m taking more at the moment as I’m getting used to the Q2, but I’d normally take fewer than 30 each day (only yesterday, I took the Q2 out but came back without having pressed the shutter once. I also prefer not to chimp (I have the back panel display switched off), but will do so if I need to check framing or exposure, usually when mounted on a tripod for landscape pics. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether that’s part of the problem - I’m just not shooting enough (or regularly enough) to get my photographic eye in. In more normal times I work in an office location that prohibits cameras so photography is a purely weekend activity, and life often gets in the way so it doesn’t happen every weekend either. That, combined with me not taking many pictures, means it can be many weeks in between me firing up my laptop to organise and work on my pictures, which in turn contributes to me having a I’ll-defined workflow and an unfamiliarity with PP software. 

Even more homework needed...

I suppose the bottom line might be if you consider your life as throw away then throw it away, but at least do it consistently and don't just pick on photography, but maybe you do throw everything away? The artist Michael Landy destroyed absolutely everything he owned, and I mean everything, as a piece of performance art. But at the end he had a piece of performance art. When you throw something away what statement does that make, what do you have left, what have you lost?