Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 22 Mar 2015 (Sunday) 17:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Destructive crop on raw CR2 file

 
huancayo
Junior Member
23 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Mar 22, 2015 17:58 |  #1

Is it possible using any post production tool (Lightroom, DPP, etc.) to deliberately perform a destructive crop on a Canon CR2 raw file? Destructive in that I actually WANT to permanently discard cropped pixels from a CR2 file to save disk space.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
eyalha
Member
222 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Mar 22, 2015 18:35 |  #2

I believe that one of lightroom's selling points is that its non-destructive so I dont think so
As far as other software I really dont know


5D2, 24-70L F2.8, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 50 F1.4, 70-200L F4 IS, 100-400 F4.5-5.6 II, 430EX II X 2, A few Pocketwizards

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,340 posts
Gallery: 205 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4138
Joined Dec 2008
Post edited over 4 years ago by LV Moose. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 22, 2015 18:46 |  #3

I don't believe you can crop a CR2 file and throw the cropped area away permanently, and keep the original file as a smaller CR2. At least I haven't seen that option in DPP or Lightroom. But then again, I haven't looked for it. ;)

I guess you can always shoot sRAW or mRAW, but there are drawbacks, recently discussed in another thread.

I'd recommend saving your files on an external drive (at least one back-up) anyway; storage is pretty cheap. Maybe $100 for 2TB if you look around?


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 23, 2015 04:32 |  #4

LV Moose wrote in post #17487180 (external link)
I'd recommend saving your files on an external drive (at least one back-up) anyway; storage is pretty cheap. Maybe $100 for 2TB if you look around?

This.

A 2TB drive can hold around 80,000 images. Do you really want to spend half a year (at 1 min per image, 8 hours a day) cropping those 80,000 images just so that you can fit another 10,000 on the drive?


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,458 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Mar 23, 2015 04:40 |  #5

The answer is essentially no. The sacred First Principle of Raw conversion is "Thou shalt not change the Raw file," and it is almost universally honored - but there are two "sort of" exceptions. But first it should be noted that the only people that can write a new modified CR2 file are Canon employees, so you can't expect any third party to do what you ask. And the first of the two exceptions is from Canon's DPP, but it is the opposite of what you want. When DPP applies its DLO lens corrections it rewrites the CR2 making it roughly twice as large. Apparently the original camera-written CR2 is retained and a second revised Raw file is Siamese twinned to it (so the principle of not altering the original data is observed). The second exception is from Adobe; if you replace the original CR2 with a DNG file, you can choose between lossless and lossy versions. The lossy DNG is still a full resolution Raw file, but in storage is considerably smaller and, being lossy, the decompressed version is, strictly speaking, changed - no longer the same pristine data. However, the few experiments I have done with it have seemed to indicate that the amount of loss is no more than in a maximum quality jpg (LR 100, PS 12, DPP 10, etc.), so it might be an option for somebody feeling storage space pinched, but it does narrow your converter choices.

It has always bewildered me why, although DPP is otherwise pretty much a mirror of the Digic firmware, Canon never put the option to turn CR2s into sRaw or mRaw into it.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kjonnnn
Goldmember
1,204 posts
Likes: 86
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Mar 23, 2015 16:20 |  #6

Just bought a backup drive to my backup drive, 4TB .... $139. Do we really need to worry about a raw file size anymore?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
huancayo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
23 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Mar 23, 2015 23:45 |  #7

I appreciate all of the replies, but I don't think endless cheap disk space is the silver bullet for the proliferation large RAW files. I have a dual backup strategy with both on-site and offsite storage for redundancy. I can buy cheap bazillion TB drives all year, but transferring files for offsite backup over remote connections is still severely limited by consumer grade bandwidths. My online backup transfer is bottle-necked for days after I shoot 10-20GB of RAW files at a sporting event. Most of the action shots I shoot area heavily cropped in post production and I'm basically dedicating massive amounts of disk space AND online backup bandwidth for RAW images for which 70+% of the pixels are cropped garbage. Just as I weed through a shoot and throw out the useless shots, I would also like to throw away the useless pixels in the RAW files I keep.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 24, 2015 00:49 |  #8

huancayo wrote in post #17489311 (external link)
My online backup transfer is bottle-necked for days after I shoot 10-20GB of RAW files at a sporting event. Most of the action shots I shoot area heavily cropped in post production and I'm basically dedicating massive amounts of disk space AND online backup bandwidth for RAW images for which 70+% of the pixels are cropped garbage. Just as I weed through a shoot and throw out the useless shots, I would also like to throw away the useless pixels in the RAW files I keep.

Hmmm, I think I'd classify any image that needed such heavy cropping as a 'useless shot'. Then I wouldn't end up with 500 keepers from a single shoot. I also think I'd abandon the idea of using online backup.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Redcrown
Senior Member
335 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Dec 2008
     
Mar 24, 2015 01:08 |  #9

A couple options to consider:

Check out the "lossy" DNG conversion. Significant savings in raw disk space at the price of very little loss of image quality.

Batch process (Image Processor) your cropped raws into whatever format you are comfortable with for on-line backup. TIF will give the smallest lossless files (zip for 16bit, LZW for 8 bit). Even jpeg might be ok for you. Let those serve as a temporary backup until you have time and opportunity to backup the originals for off-site storage.

I've got a friend that does massive event shooting on location. He just keeps a bunch of large capacity memory cards, Copies the raw files to his travel HDD, then simply mails the memory cards to a service that loads them to a "cloud" account. Then they mail the cards back. He does that because he can't upload 20 to 50 gigs a day from a hotel wi-fi. He has the primary, the cloud has the backup a few days later.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,458 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Mar 24, 2015 05:10 |  #10

Just as I weed through a shoot and throw out the useless shots, I would also like to throw away the useless pixels in the RAW files I keep.

Impossible.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,114 posts
Likes: 144
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Mar 24, 2015 07:26 |  #11

tzalman wrote in post #17487760 (external link)
if you replace the original CR2 with a DNG file, you can choose between lossless and lossy versions.

Interesting. did not know that. I thought all DNG were lossless.

However, I looked at the adobe dng converter and could not find a setting for that. The only thing close was the ability to embed the original non-dng file in the dng file. Is this the option?


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DGStinner
Goldmember
Avatar
1,027 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 191
Joined Jan 2014
Location: Middlesex, New Jersey
     
Mar 24, 2015 07:31 |  #12

I'm not aware of any post processing program that would let you purposely delete/destroy pixels in a raw file.
Have you thought about purchasing a longer lens or teleconverter so you wouldn't need to crop so heavily?
Have you thought about shooting in JPEG so you can throw away unwanted pixels after cropping?


Dave Stinner
Gripped 7DII | 6DII
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM | EF 24-105mm f/4L | EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM | EF 50mm f/1.8 STM | EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM | Rokinon 8mm | Sigma 150-600
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
travisvwright
Goldmember
Avatar
2,040 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 210
Joined Feb 2013
Location: NC
Post edited over 4 years ago by travisvwright. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 24, 2015 07:36 |  #13

kjonnnn wrote in post #17488673 (external link)
Just bought a backup drive to my backup drive, 4TB .... $139. Do we really need to worry about a raw file size anymore?

Every few years people start to think this way. We know the famous "No one will ever need more than 64kb" quote often attributed to Bill Gates. Storage becomes more efficient as data becomes more plentiful. They will always limit each other and grow together. 4TB is cheap now and Canon is double the file size it's cameras put out, 4k video is starting to become more common etc.


I come here for your expert opinion. Please do not hesitate to critique or edit.
70D, T3i, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 10-18 4.5 STM

Franklin NC Photographer Travis Wright (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,458 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
Post edited over 4 years ago by tzalman.
     
Mar 24, 2015 07:49 as a reply to  @ Picture North Carolina's post |  #14

Interesting. did not know that. I thought all DNG were lossless. However, I looked at the adobe dng converter and could not find a setting for that. The only thing close was the ability to embed the original non-dng file in the dng file. Is this the option?

I don't know about the DNG Converter, but when you convert in LR you have the option.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,610 posts
Likes: 337
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
Post edited over 4 years ago by agedbriar.
     
Mar 24, 2015 08:19 |  #15

DGStinner wrote in post #17489585 (external link)
Have you thought about shooting in JPEG so you can throw away unwanted pixels after cropping?

My thoughts as well.

A raw shooter myself, I can't imagine how the benefits of shooting raw can be exploited in your conditions anyway.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,794 views & 5 likes for this thread
Destructive crop on raw CR2 file
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is astrobalcony
757 guests, 238 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.