Discarding RAW Files

[almo]

Due to a lack of .ORF support in Adobe Camera RAW I started using a DNG workflow. Basically like this: Shoot in RAW (.ORF), Download to my Mac, Convert ORFs to DNGs, Open in Photoshop CS and run through deleting the duds, adjust the keepers and convert to whatever format I need at the time, store DNGs in a DNG folder, Store ORFs in an ORF folder.

The main problem I have is Hard Drive space. The ORFs are twice the size and more of the DNGs, therefore they take up more than twice the space. Plus, now I have all the extra space eaten up by the DNGs.

I have done a lot of reading, but no one seems to talk about this issue much. Do any of you guys have any thoughts as to wether or not I should keep or delete the ORFs?

[readingr]

My workflow is to dump all the CRW/CR2 files straight to 2 x HDD (1 offline) and then onto DVD for long term storage.

I then sort the files on the working photo HDD and edit the photos but don't tend to delete the CRW/CR2 files because I have loads of disk space. I always have 2 of everything at a minimum normally have 3 copies.

Roger

[freygr]

I burn all my images to CD-R or DVD-R, but I only use high quality media as the cheap media only lasts for a few years before coming unreadable. But I have not ran out of disk space since I installed a 200gig hard drive (it was on sale for under $100)

[SmartWombat]

I wouldn't destroy the originals.

If a new improved version of software comes along that does a better job of the .ORF -> .DNG conversion you wil be kicking yourself, I'm sure.
I suggest burn them to DVD and archive them at least.

[Medley]

I'm with SW, though for different reasons. I wouldn't put all your eggs in the DNG basket. DNG came from the minds at Adobe to provide us with a standard format for RAW imaging. What it's become is a conversion format that allows us to upgrade our camera equipment without upgrading our editing software. So how long before the software company realizes that continuing support of their conversion format is preventing people from purchasing their software upgrades?

-Joe U.

[drg]

I'm with SW, though for different reasons. I wouldn't put all your eggs in the DNG basket. DNG came from the minds at Adobe to provide us with a standard format for RAW imaging. What it's become is a conversion format that allows us to upgrade our camera equipment without upgrading our editing software. So how long before the software company realizes that continuing support of their conversion format is preventing people from purchasing their software upgrades?

-Joe U.

First -

John (almo)

Don't throw out or delete your .orf(RAW) file. These are your digital negatives! There have been several long drawn out discussions of this under the banner of Workflow and What would happen if you lost your digital files to name but two.

CD-R's and most DVD media is relatively inexpensive. Without rehashing the lifespan of this media, for an intermediate storage solution it certainly is one good option. A $100 external hard drive is another. Watch for sales if so minded.

Second -

On the DNG comment offered by Medley( Joe U. ):

Adobe has stepped up to the problem of the multitude of proprietary RAW formats and offered the DNG as common lossless method of encoding this data so it can be used for a much longer period, with or without the continuing support of the original manufacturer.

Joe I believe you miss the point of DNG in that it encourages using newer software so as to be able to improve the 'development' of these images. Just take a look at the Lightroom concept and modularization.

Software has been moving towards this for two decades(or so). Whether we call it modules, objects, or some other meta-Term the ability to have a common format for one type of data is immensely valuable whether for storage uniformity or for recovery and less legacy issues or any of the other long list of known problems.

DNG doesn't really do anything to improve my cameras. Whether or not my system supports DNG at the mechanical acquistion level is immaterial. I can transparently convert to DNG, store both it and the orignal RAW, and then use the workflow tool of my choice to post process. Upgrading a camera or not has nothing to do with DNG's success or failure.

As I regularly use different cameras all with different RAW formats and resulting 'development' or calibration settings, the better the tools or 'modules' available are therefore eagerly awaited to see what improvements can be obtained.

The camera makers are going to be the one providing each new module in one possible business model. They will add modules to the Lightroom(as an example) for the product. We'll possibly have both an included (free) and a Pro(sold separately) processing module for the RAW files if that model continues. Otherwise we'll just have .DNG or similar, but still need to know lots of data about how that sensor and camera performs.

It is only about to get a lot more complex in terms of the data coming out the camera and what we do with it! The more standardized some of the elements of this data are in terms of Format the better. What is contained in that format will still be up to the camera companies to fight out about who with each generation can get the most from that sensor or in camera imaging processing.

[Medley]

I understand your viewpoint. What I'm trying to do is point out that, from a user's standpoint another use exists for the DNG file format.

In several Photoshop forums ( as well as in this one) variations of the following question have been asked: "I have a Nikon D40, and Photoshop CS. CS doesn't recognize my RAW format, and I can't upgrade my Camera RAW plugin (version 2.4 was the last version supported by CS). Do I need to upgrade Photoshop to process my RAW images?"

The answer is no. All you have to do is convert your RAW files to DNG format, which is supported by Camera RAW v2.4. Then you can open them in CS, and press on. No need to upgrade your software.

Believe me, I understand your argument, and on a professional level, I agree with you completely. You either upgrade and adapt, or lose ground in a fiercely competative field.

But on a personal level, I can see where the DNG file format has caused a loss of marketshare in the category of casual user. With the Creative Suite 3 upgrade announced March 27th, one has to wonder how much more will be lost due to Adobe's own "non-proprietary format".

Oh, and don't think that Adobe isn't aware of this usage. Publicly, they brush it off as inconsequential. Privately however, one gets a polite but firm "no comment". In the long run, it probably won't amount to much. But it is an interesting dilemma, isn't it?

-Joe U.

[drg]

.... What I'm trying to do is point out that, from a user's standpoint another use exists for the DNG file format.

. . .
Oh, and don't think that Adobe isn't aware of this usage. Publicly, they brush it off as inconsequential. Privately however, one gets a polite but firm "no comment". In the long run, it probably won't amount to much. But it is an interesting dilemma, isn't it?

-Joe U.

But this is exactly one purpose that Adobe designed the DNG format to deal with. Compatibility!! I don't see what the dilemma is either for the user, or for Adobe. Adobe keeps you as a customer because you keep using their product. You don't have to immediately purchase a new $200-$2000 worth of software.

Would you rather have a piece of software, that you could not use in any way because you have bought a new camera? Adobe has designed a method that aids tremendously in the update and new version gaps that are going to occur. It doesn't fully address legacy issues, but goes farther than anything else in this field so far.

If a user decides not to upgrade to CS2 let alone to CS3 or later, they still can use their native RAW files, with the DNG conversion. Not a dilemma at all. Just not as convenient, but then they chose not to pay for the convenience.

The one question that this brings up for me, and is a manufacturer problem, is how many different formats do they really need? The sensors appear to be all processed differently, which with Nikon is foolish as they are using someone else's sensors to begin with, and if it's RAW, why not just ship that data off the chip in a uniform fashion? I of course am rhetorically posing that question.

Adobe is changing much of this with the whole new concept of modularity with Lightroom, and CS3 starts with different versions for different purposes to keep the cost appropriate to users needs.

If Nikon, or any other manufacturer, wants to continue to produce files that are not easily readable or convertable, they are only going to hurt themselves. DNG is one possible course, no matter whether it is 'convenient' or not initially.

[almo]

Thanks for all the input guys. I think this is a subject that needs to be discussed more. Personally I like the idea of an industry standard. Pentax now offers the DNG option and I would like to see other manufacturers pick it up aswell. After all, why should a RAW file be any different than a JPEG or a TIFF in that respect?

As for my ORFs. Well, I have been thinking about it, but I am no where near tossing them out. My ORFs are safe. I wouldn't even be using the DNG workflow if ACR could handle the ORFs, but the last available version for CS does not.

And progress marches on....