Do you keep your Raw files after PP??

[sootyvrs]

I'm currently keeping all my RAW files after I PP them to JPG but I'm not sure if I should delete them as I've already adjusted the photos and converted to JPG.

Just a question of disk space but will it mess Lightroom up when I delete the files.

Do you keep all your RAW files after PP conversion?

[GregSteer]

Very simply answer. Yes always keep them and do not delete them, that'd be like burning negatives from a film.

My RAWs get stuck into an Originals folder tree, which are then copied to a Working Files folder tree and any exports (jpg/tiff etc) end up in a different Exports and Prints tree.

Lightroom is only set to import and work from the Working Files folder tree and nothing touches the Originals at all.

If you don't have the original RAW then you can't process the image in a different way whilst retaining maximum detail and control.

[liza]

Yes, of course. I will invariably find a new post processing action or technique I want to try.

[Pete W]

Yes always........ Once finished with the RAW's I burn them to DVD (once I have enough to fill a DVD)

[CyberDyneSystems]

OMG YES!

[kevin_c]

I keep all my RAW files,. even if I don't end up doing anything with them.
I do delete the obvious bad shots, but anything else is kept and backed up 'just in case'.

[hannaxt]

Always!
I have three folders for any one shoot.

RAW

Processed Tiffs (out of DPP or C1 or Aperture)

Retouched

[Sp00ks]

Yes, I have a similar workflow as GregSteer. I save them on a file server and locally so I have two copies and I've been exploring a database option for cataloging all the raws.

[sapearl]

Yes - I keep them. As far as I'm concerned these are my negatives, and I may wish to go back to the "original source material" at some time in the future and try different things, like perhaps some B&W or other effects.

Once I trash them I only have the JPGs - that's fine, but I like to work with ALL the original data. As good as it may be, the finished JPG is only a portion of the original capture. But that's just MY workflow.;) Everything gets burned to DVD, and then stored on a working scratch drive, as well as a 500GB backup hard drive.

[Alec Trevelyan]

Absolutely, even the rejects. Never know when you'll want to revisit something :)

[In2Photos]

Yes, keep them. But now comes a question for you. If you are using Lightroom then why are you converting all of your images to JPEG? For customers? Printing at a lab? Convenience? Web? The only reason I convert to jpeg is web and sending to a printer service. Otherwise, they stay in Lightroom as RAW files or are further edited in PS as TIFFs.

[rparchen]

There seems to be a consensus here, I always keep my RAW files as well. Some of my favorite pictures are ones that I took well over a year ago but recently re-edited them after learning more PP techniques. I would have kicked myself if I didn't keep my RAW files.

[Nanboh]

Absolutely keep them and like rparchen said, sometimes after you learn new things/techniques, it's nice to go back to some of your favorites and try something different.

I also only convert to jpeg for web or printing.

[calicokat]

Yes I do

[Anke]

Wouldn't dream of getting shot of them!!! There are always times when you'll need one you took a year ago to enter a competition or something.

[BestVisuals]

I don't suggest you keep them. Save the PSD or TIFF versions only. Why? RAW files are proprietary and camera manufacturers stop supporting older RAW file versions from time to time (and don't tell you!). Once you bring in the RAW file to your lossless editor (such as PhotoShop), the RAW file isn't necessary. Saving the RAWs on DVD isn't a bad idea, but do not assume that you'll always be able to edit the RAW files because you won't.

[gef]

Doesn't everybody? =_) Yes. I always keep them. Back them up on 2 dvd's. I store my jpegs created from them along with the raws.

[Curtis N]

I don't suggest you keep them. Save the PSD or TIFF versions only. Why? RAW files are proprietary and camera manufacturers stop supporting older RAW file versions from time to time (and don't tell you!). Give me an example of a RAW format not supported by current software.

If indeed you subscribe to Adobe's propaganda about proprietary RAW formats and want to run around like Chicken Little, convert to DNG so you still have a RAW file.

To the OP: If you're like most of us, you'll continue to learn and improve your post-processing skills. A year from now, you'll want to be able to go back to some of last year's images and re-work the RAW files a new way. If you delete them now, you may regret it later. If harddrive space is an issue, burn them to DVD.

[philmar]

Do you keep all your RAW files after PP conversion?


KEEP your RAWs!! Digital photography is in it's infancy. Who knows what capabiities PhotoShop CS8 will have?
You may want to re'process' what are currently unprocessable RAWs some day in the future. Yet to be developed future RAW converters may be able to process you files better.
You may want to give a different 'interpretation' of your RAWs (different to the ones you just processed)
Maybe jpg will be replaced by a new sleeker format and you may need to convert all your RAWs to this new format - even if it be 10 years from now.

Unless you are a photoshop guru I am certain you may learn a few PS tricks in the future that might make you wish you could have another go at some of your RAWs.

[In2Photos]

Give me an example of a RAW format not supported by current software.

If indeed you subscribe to Adobe's propaganda about proprietary RAW formats and want to run around like Chicken Little, convert to DNG so you still have a RAW file.

To the OP: If you're like most of us, you'll continue to learn and improve your post-processing skills. A year from now, you'll want to be able to go back to some of last year's images and re-work the RAW files a new way. If you delete them now, you may regret it later. If harddrive space is an issue, burn them to DVD.
While I agree with you regarding RAW formats not being supported I must say that there are reasons to use DNG besides what you say here. I prefer DNG because I don't have to keep up with sidecar files when I edit my RAW files. This was a bigger issue before Lightroom came into my workflow but I still like theidea of only worrying about one file should I choose to move files around.

[sootyvrs]

To the OP: If you're like most of us, you'll continue to learn and improve your post-processing skills. A year from now, you'll want to be able to go back to some of last year's images and re-work the RAW files a new way. If you delete them now, you may regret it later. If harddrive space is an issue, burn them to DVD.

I never thought about this. Yes my PP skills are still very much in it's infant stage and I'm sure there is so much to learn!

I will definately keep them all now. Thanks all for your replies.

[Nick_C]

Yes always keep them, you never know when you might want to process an image for another print or process it in a different way than before.

Nick :-)

[gjl711]

Always. I consider the Raw files just as I do negatives. I never tossed out my film negatives and doing so for digital just seemed wrong. With storage as cheep as it is it just strikes me as a bad thing to do.

[sapearl]

I hear what you're saying - hopefully there were always be "readers" for the Canon RAW files. I do keep them on DVD but to save them as PSDs would suck up humongous storage.

Right now each of my RAW files is 12-16MB. When I do open them as PSD they balloon to around 30MB each. I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'll be collecting hard drives for some time (:lol: ) but I'm in no hurry to rush into this process big time ;) .

I don't suggest you keep them. Save the PSD or TIFF versions only. Why? RAW files are proprietary and camera manufacturers stop supporting older RAW file versions from time to time (and don't tell you!). ..........

[davidcrebelxt]

Only ones I throw away have been the COMPLETE rejects (out-of-focus, blured... shots with lens cap on, shots of my feet... :) )

Even in the two years I've been shooting RAW, I've gone back in Lightroom or other programs to recover some shots that I thought were good, and now was able to make print worthy, simply because of being able to recover the highlights there compared to what DPP could do.

If you shot much film in the past, you likelly have shoeboxes of negatives around... and only ONE copy of them, nonetheless.

With RAW you not only have the camera's "negative"... its an unprocessed-untouched negative... and you can make multiple perfect copies of it' that means you can have PERFECT "negatives" in multiple locations in case of fire, disaster, etc.

[Bill Roberts]

ALWAYS keep your RAW files. Sooner or later you really will want to go back to one and process it in a different way.