Ok I am gearing up for the switch to I would saw at the least 95% RAW shooting, but I have some questions first, and I wanna get the answers from the people that use RAW themselves. Even better from those that made the begruging switch themselves.

Ok here are my concerns.

I have a file system set up that I really like, but I really don't think I wanna go mixing up RAW TIF & JPG's all over the place. Currently I have no separation because I have so few TIF or RAW files. The way i am set up at the file level looks like this:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/almoagain/untitled.jpg

As you can see I have my pictures floder sub cated by camera and then by subject types. Here is the thing that I am thinking. Am I going to need 3 D30 folders one for each file type? I don't mind that really. I just can't think of anything else.

Then there is the conversion factor. I have PS& and no money, so PS RAW conversion software is out of the question. I am using the zoom browser and it seems to be doing ok I guess, but there isn't a way to fine tune before you convert so i have just been leaving everything in default and converting to 16bit TIFF's. This is a problem because 16 bit 3MP images are 18MB's and that is a lot to deal with. I only have 80 gigs to use up right now. What would be the difference in switching to using 8bit? I read that you should do all of your editing in 16 bit then convert to 8bit and leave it alone. Is this right?

I am looking at switching up to a 6 or 8 DSLR pretty soon and those files are just going to be HUGE!

Please give me some advice on this. I am getting more into macro and I am really starting to see the short comings of the JPEGs more then ever.

Thanks!

How are you going to convert your images from RAW.

e.g., I convert my images from RAW using Capture 1 software. It allows me to conver the image to three seperate files as tiff, jpg and web size.

I have files in structre similar to yours but keep all my images in a directory RAW images, then have converted directories under that, one for tiff, one for photoshop, one for web files etc and keep the structure that way. I then never accidently overwrite something with another file. And yes keep the RAW images safe that way as well.

You really have to decide yourself what works best for you, you have a good understanding of file structures.

How are you going to convert your images from RAW.


I am just using the EX browser that came with the camera. It has a pretty simple conversion program built in and I think I am just going to use it for a little while untill I get used to converting my images.

Almo, if you aren't doing ANY post-processing of the RAW files before conversion, then I'm wondering what the advantage is for you to shoot RAW. Is it for the future, for some day when you do get software and can go back to your digital negs?

As for the file structure, what if you just added a RAW subfolder to each category folder? So under Food you'd have a Food RAW folder. Your jpegs would drop into the regular Food folder.

That's what I do:
London
--London JPEG
--London RAW
--Retouch

(I have a retouch folder inside all my category folders, filled with "x" files -- I add an "x" to the end of the file name so that I know I've done some significant altering of the original.)

Almo,

Until you use a real RAW conversion program like either Capture One, Rawshooter, Breezebrowser, Nikon RAW conversion Software, Adobe RAW converter etc, you won't really know what it means to shoot your images in RAW.

To Me, RAW is like a negative. If you didn't get the shot correct, within RAW converting software, you have the opportunity to adjust those areas that you got incorrectly, and more often than not, recovering the image to what or near what you saw when you took it. Certainly has helped me out on more than one occassion, especially with Studio Lighting photos I have taken that I actually want to keep and print.

Capture One LE is $99 (you can download a 15 day version of it)
RawShooter Essentials is free, they are using the users to test develop it until they release a more upbeat version (Professional version I think they are naming it).
The others cost money, except Adobe 7 upwards comes with it as standard.

Sixteen bit files are great for editing, because with 8-bit it's really easy to get a histogram that looks like a picket fence with any amount of Levels adjustment. 16-bit has to get stretched much farther to wind up with a bad looking histogram. A histogram that looks like a picket fence (spaces between the vertical lines) means that there's missing data and you could start seeing banding in your final images. I do all of the editing in 16-bit and then finally convert to 8-bit and save as a jpeg with the least amount of compression.

I do save the original RAW file in most cases if I ever want to try something else with it, but these are the files that take up room on the hard drive. Note that even though you're in 16-bit mode, your camera may only capture 12-bit - but that's a huge difference over 8-bit (it's exponential).

Without a real conversion program (I'm using CS) you're not getting many of the benefits though, especially white balance adjustment. If you're not editing them and just converting them then you really won't see any difference between the two.

Everyone arranges their files differently, and do whatever works best for you. I tend to not have so many folders - RAW originals and conversions stay in the same folder for me - but it's not going to affect how much space you use on a hard drive. The number of files, especially RAW files, will determine how much space you use.

Also, have you given thought to writing to CD or DVD? Figure out an archiving system that will work for you (I think I've seen shareware database programs that will read and database your CD contents so you can find them again), and that way you will keep your hard drive space more clear more often.

Hey Almo,

I with the others on this one. If you're not making adjustments in with the RAW file, they you would be better off sticking with jpegs. I made the switch from jpegs to RAW a few months ago, after I got a new computer, and PSCS2, which I love for converting my RAW files. I tried the software that came with my Canon, and didn't like it. It was on my old PC, and took forever to make any adjustments at all, so I stuck with the jpegs, untill I was able to upgrade. Now I love the flexibility that the RAW files give me, but that is because I have the software to make the adjustments that I need when I screw up the exposure, white balance, or whatever else the case may be.

The RAW files are big, and take up a lot of space, and then add 16bit jpegs or tiffs on top of that, and it doesn't take long to fill up some disc space.

That being said, if you can make the Canon software work for you, then go for it. But if all your doing is converting the RAW file to jpegs without any adjustments, then I think you are wasting your time, and disc space.

With the right tools and work flow, RAW is great! Without it, it's a pain in the butt.

Just my thoughts. :)

I shoot RAW on my D70, JPG on my Fuji F10, plus I'm still scanning 25 years of film. That makes a lot of different types of image. Here's my system:

1. JPG is the end result which I keep online in a folder structure under ACDSee.
2. Each top-level folder fits into a Theme (Events, People, Travels, Family, Home, Community, Books, etc.)
3. Each top-level folder is maximum 4.3GB because I make an offline copy of each on a DVD+RW. So I have top-level folders for Events-2003, Events 2004, Events-2005, Paris, France-North, etc. Within each top level Folder there are lots of subfolders for individual events, places, etc.
4. I keep the RAW files online only long enough to edit them and convert them into JPG, and not in the area managed by ACDSee. After treatment the RAW files are backed up immediately to CD-R or DVD-R and also to DVD+RW.

All images (including the digital ones) are renamed to give them a "film number+frame number" and I use an MS-Access database to keep track of which "film" is on which backup medium.

Charles

The magic phrase everybody is describing here is "Digital Workflow".
Get the RAW images into the computer, back them up, catalog/organize, adjust/tweak/edit/improve, and finally convert and save.

One more RAW editing solution to look into is the program IrfanView available for FREE on the almighty www.tucows.com server of your choice. I haven't used it much other than to just see what it does, but it will read the CANON RAW format and then you can do the various adjustment including color adjustment, gamma, and the like. Not sure about its white balance or color bias controls. It will let you output in a wide variety of formats when done and it does handle 16 bit files. For free some people swear by it.

PSE/3 handles RAW files (but ~$100) without the crazy disk overhead and cost of CS2.

The big key for RAW though I find is a good browser to look at the RAW images in thumbnail form.Then I can make notes on the file or an associated database, as FRANGLAIS mentioned, to find an image in the future. I've gotten to the point for my personal images that I've got separate external USB drives for the film archives and for the Digital Archives. At work we have servers with drive towers and multi CD burners, yeah not DVD. Too much chance of losing the whole job. 500-700 Mb is a loss but it is only a portion of a days work. Not several days. Then the CDs go into archival poly sleeves and are hung in fireproof Vertical Files. Haven't had to hire a file clerk yet . . .

The first thing with RAW is to look and see what you're going to keep (if not everything) and duplicate it (back it UP) on removable media. CD-R (NOT CD-RW!) or DVD-R as examples and label the copies and put them in safe Archival storage. These are your NEGATIVES.

Then you can edit to your hearts content.

Good luck and look forward to seeing all kinds of "new and improved" photos from critters to some of your very intriguing portraits.





:)

The first thing with RAW is to look and see what you're going to keep (if not everything) and duplicate it (back it UP) on removable media. CD-R (NOT CD-RW!) or DVD-R as examples and label the copies and put them in safe Archival storage. These are your NEGATIVES.

This is the 2nd post I have seen recently that has said to stay away from CD-RW, or DVD-RW's when saving your images. Is the reasoning behind this to take away the ability to overwrite the original file and destroying your digital negative? That makes sense to me, but I'm just wondering if there is something else behind this.

This is the 2nd post I have seen recently that has said to stay away from CD-RW, or DVD-RW's when saving your images. Is the reasoning behind this to take away the ability to overwrite the original file and destroying your digital negative? That makes sense to me, but I'm just wondering if there is something else behind this.


found this about "disk rot":

http://www.detnews.com/2004/techcolumns/0409/01/technology-259970.htm

This is the 2nd post I have seen recently that has said to stay away from CD-RW, or DVD-RW's when saving your images. Is the reasoning behind this to take away the ability to overwrite the original file and destroying your digital negative? That makes sense to me, but I'm just wondering if there is something else behind this.
Michael...as I understand it...it's the materials used to make the rw's is different from the "r"s....making them less reliable...and of course, as you said...you can accidentally overwrite something...maybe someone with more knowledge can explain this better.
Ken

This is the 2nd post I have seen recently that has said to stay away from CD-RW, or DVD-RW's when saving your images. Is the reasoning behind this to take away the ability to overwrite the original file and destroying your digital negative? That makes sense to me, but I'm just wondering if there is something else behind this.

It all about durability and longevity. The article Kelly posted is a good illustration of the "legacy" problems we all are going to be facing from now on. The following link is to an online version of a current article about other facets of this problem and mentions some of the technical issues involved:

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=1492&page_number=1&preview=

What they don't stress enough in my opinion is how bad some of the cheap off brand disks are and how 'expensive' they can become. It is this reason that many people starting using the RW versions, in order to work at all they had to be better. No longer true.

Multiple copies (even use different Media brands) are probably the best current solution. Think about what would happen if that 160 Gb hard drive crashed? The drive manufacturers will be selling 300+ Gb, or larger, you heard it here first, drives this time next year. I do not want to have to even think about recovery on these behemoths.

Manufacturers are already selling drives 300+ or more, this isn't a first heard here either.

Yes drives get bigger, but so do the storage capabilities of others things like DVD's now with Dual layer. There are much bigger storage devices on the horizon as well, with the leaps and bounds happening in nanosecond area and storage.

I find it interesting that computer places are still selling computers with massive storage drives of 40G, seems to me the one of the biggest rip offs of this century.

Remember, nothing lasts forever, absolutely nothing, so prepare for that. How to do this, who knows at this time. Seems that Data Tapes are still very popular for storage and have been around for a long long time now.

Manufacturers are already selling drives 300+ or more,

Yes drives get bigger, but so do the storage capabilities of others things like DVD's now with Dual layer. There are much bigger storage devices on the horizon as well, with the leaps and bounds happening in nanosecond area and storage.

I find it interesting that computer places are still selling computers with massive storage drives of 40G, seems to me the one of the biggest rip offs of this century.

Remember, nothing lasts forever, absolutely nothing, so prepare for that. How to do this, who knows at this time. Seems that Data Tapes are still very popular for storage and have been around for a long long time now.

Pete,

You're right. Maybe I should have phrased it differently, 300Gb+ is probably going to just about be entry level for newly manufactured drives. The vendors are quietly (or not) selling out everything below this level. There are several 500+Gb units on the horizon that will probably be the "entry" level devices on many classes of machine shortly.

The Dual layer DVD's are about to be completely superseded with some newer more "secure" formats for the video industry. So here we go again!

The link to the article I posted earlier mentions the issue of quickly changing formats as does the link Kelly posted. We all may just have to keep re-storing our files and allocate more time to it every year. I'm only in the low double digit terabyte range right now. Then again I've got a lot of film on disk and tape. I use to shoot upwards of 40 rolls of MF a day at times. The scans from that are massive. One of the reasons I went to smaller (rather than larger) storage units was ease of retrieval. Tape is awful if what you need is very far down stream. Tape is still one of the cheaper long term storage solutions.But you begin to have quantity and legacy issues there as well.

But we have digressed horribly from the original RAW discussion. Still have to store these files somehow, someway, on some media. For now, I can comeback to the RAW and produce a new JPEG as needed.

Then again we can convert everything to DNG.

Later,

Then again we can convert everything to DNG.



I know nothing about DNG. I'll need to read up on it.

Though I shoot in RAW, nothing RAW ever ends up on my computer. i burn the RAW to a CD externally and the RAW CD goes in storage as an archive. What ends up on my computer are JPG or PSD files from RAW.

I know nothing about DNG. I'll need to read up on it.

DNG is a common RAW format proposed by Adobe. It's an evolution of the TIFF format. So far camera manufacturers have ignored this proposition (except Leica). When you arrive first on the market you have a good chance of imposing a standard, but not when you arrive last..

Charles