should i keep original RAWs or let aperture manage my pics?
Discussion
Hi all,
the setup i have at the moment is -
when i take photos, i copy all of my photos into a new folder in a 'photo' folder on my macbook. i then geotag the images and import them into aperture (managed library).
in aperture i sift through and mark the good ones with a colour label and then sift again whittling them down to the keepers. However i keep all of the images and identify them using the colour labels. Bearing in mind i also have the original RAWs in the 'photo' folder i've got two copies of all the images.
Some overkill methinks. So i'm planning on deleting all the images in the 'photo' folder and keeping just the images in aperture in a managed library. This will obviously give me loads of free space on my disk. I'll use carbon copy cloner, timeMachine and aperture file vault to back these images up so i ought to have four copies knocking about!
So coming back to my original query - is there a benefit to keeping the original RAW images in their native format on a disk somewhere over just letting aperture hold my images in its own library format?
thanks
the setup i have at the moment is -
when i take photos, i copy all of my photos into a new folder in a 'photo' folder on my macbook. i then geotag the images and import them into aperture (managed library).
in aperture i sift through and mark the good ones with a colour label and then sift again whittling them down to the keepers. However i keep all of the images and identify them using the colour labels. Bearing in mind i also have the original RAWs in the 'photo' folder i've got two copies of all the images.
Some overkill methinks. So i'm planning on deleting all the images in the 'photo' folder and keeping just the images in aperture in a managed library. This will obviously give me loads of free space on my disk. I'll use carbon copy cloner, timeMachine and aperture file vault to back these images up so i ought to have four copies knocking about!
So coming back to my original query - is there a benefit to keeping the original RAW images in their native format on a disk somewhere over just letting aperture hold my images in its own library format?
thanks
mojitomax said:
Hi all,
the setup i have at the moment is -
when i take photos, i copy all of my photos into a new folder in a 'photo' folder on my macbook. i then geotag the images and import them into aperture (managed library).
in aperture i sift through and mark the good ones with a colour label and then sift again whittling them down to the keepers. However i keep all of the images and identify them using the colour labels. Bearing in mind i also have the original RAWs in the 'photo' folder i've got two copies of all the images.
Some overkill methinks. So i'm planning on deleting all the images in the 'photo' folder and keeping just the images in aperture in a managed library. This will obviously give me loads of free space on my disk. I'll use carbon copy cloner, timeMachine and aperture file vault to back these images up so i ought to have four copies knocking about!
So coming back to my original query - is there a benefit to keeping the original RAW images in their native format on a disk somewhere over just letting aperture hold my images in its own library format?
thanks
Do does it keep the RAWs and whatever conversions of them?the setup i have at the moment is -
when i take photos, i copy all of my photos into a new folder in a 'photo' folder on my macbook. i then geotag the images and import them into aperture (managed library).
in aperture i sift through and mark the good ones with a colour label and then sift again whittling them down to the keepers. However i keep all of the images and identify them using the colour labels. Bearing in mind i also have the original RAWs in the 'photo' folder i've got two copies of all the images.
Some overkill methinks. So i'm planning on deleting all the images in the 'photo' folder and keeping just the images in aperture in a managed library. This will obviously give me loads of free space on my disk. I'll use carbon copy cloner, timeMachine and aperture file vault to back these images up so i ought to have four copies knocking about!
So coming back to my original query - is there a benefit to keeping the original RAW images in their native format on a disk somewhere over just letting aperture hold my images in its own library format?
thanks
The only benefit is if you wish to re-edit the picture you have the original RAW file.
I keep all my RAW files given how cheap hard discs are now. I suppose if you are shooting severals GB's of files a day it could be expensive but for the amatuer photographer it shouldn't be an issue.
Aperture does keep the raws
- if you find the aperture library, right click, and select 'show package contents' you'll see it's just folders within folders, containing the raws, plus thumbnails, and text files full of metadata.
So as long as you have a copy on an external drive, like time machine, then your good. A 3rd copy of the raws on your local drive isn't necessary (IMHO).
Do double check what I've said though- I don't want to be responsible for Anyones loss of data!
- if you find the aperture library, right click, and select 'show package contents' you'll see it's just folders within folders, containing the raws, plus thumbnails, and text files full of metadata.
So as long as you have a copy on an external drive, like time machine, then your good. A 3rd copy of the raws on your local drive isn't necessary (IMHO).
Do double check what I've said though- I don't want to be responsible for Anyones loss of data!
aperture keeps the raw files. It also allows non destructive editing. So I can revisit the original raw files and re-edit them.
having thought about this some more, what i'm going to do is move the original RAW files off my macbook onto an archive HDD and just keep the aperture library on the macbook. This is probably the best of both worlds scenario. more space on my macbook (i only have 95 out of 750MB left!) and i can still keep my RAWs. The only problem with this is that if my aperture library fails, then whilst i will have my original RAWs, i'll have to re-edit them all.
but with four copies of my aperture library, this will be unlikely - i hope
having thought about this some more, what i'm going to do is move the original RAW files off my macbook onto an archive HDD and just keep the aperture library on the macbook. This is probably the best of both worlds scenario. more space on my macbook (i only have 95 out of 750MB left!) and i can still keep my RAWs. The only problem with this is that if my aperture library fails, then whilst i will have my original RAWs, i'll have to re-edit them all.
but with four copies of my aperture library, this will be unlikely - i hope
Does Aperture hold the file as an original RAW file in its file system?
Could you extract it again just as it was in the camera should you decide you want to play with it in a different RAW file converter?
If the answer to either (or more likely both) of those questions is 'No' then you need to decide whether it is important to you to be able to get back to the original RAW file at some poiont. If it's not important then one might assume the Aperture version and its backups are plenty adequate.
If it might be important then if I were you I would keep a copy (and backup) of the original RAWs somewhere. Not necessarily on you day to day notebook of course, just a couple of 'safe' places that are unlikely to disappear suddenly at the same time.
ETA: I see you have answered your question whilst I was composing the same answer - more or less.
Could you extract it again just as it was in the camera should you decide you want to play with it in a different RAW file converter?
If the answer to either (or more likely both) of those questions is 'No' then you need to decide whether it is important to you to be able to get back to the original RAW file at some poiont. If it's not important then one might assume the Aperture version and its backups are plenty adequate.
If it might be important then if I were you I would keep a copy (and backup) of the original RAWs somewhere. Not necessarily on you day to day notebook of course, just a couple of 'safe' places that are unlikely to disappear suddenly at the same time.
ETA: I see you have answered your question whilst I was composing the same answer - more or less.
Your nuts to throw away the raws unless they are truly terrible.
Even camera shake may end up being a well solved problem. That will resurrect a few possibly decent shots of mine.
Better raw processing (demosaicing etc) and better light path optimisation (dpp's dlo etc) is always coming.
Even camera shake may end up being a well solved problem. That will resurrect a few possibly decent shots of mine.
Better raw processing (demosaicing etc) and better light path optimisation (dpp's dlo etc) is always coming.
Can you save files as DNG? My understanding of this format is it keeps the original raw data plus any edits you have made and does some lossless compression and Adobe say they will support it forever.
Have a look here http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.dis...
Have a look here http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.dis...
Aperture does save the raw file within its library. It can be exported as the original raw file.
For the time being I can keep the duds. I'll move all the original Raws to an external disk and delete them from my laptop leaving only the aperture library on the MacBook disk. This will free up a lot of space.
When that becomes full again I'll have to think up a plan b.
Thanks for the help chaps
For the time being I can keep the duds. I'll move all the original Raws to an external disk and delete them from my laptop leaving only the aperture library on the MacBook disk. This will free up a lot of space.
When that becomes full again I'll have to think up a plan b.
Thanks for the help chaps
mojitomax said:
I'll move all the original Raws to an external disk and delete them from my laptop leaving only the aperture library on the MacBook disk. This will free up a lot of space.
I think this is a good housekeeping measure in any case.(I know it's a bit "Apple" and nothing new, but I'm becoming far more comfortable with the laptop only having a minimal amount of work-in-progress stuff and the originals going a couple of directions on external drives or even temporarily in the Cloud. Not that I want my laptop to fail, but I don't get anxious about it. I use a MBP with a small solid state drive and link to an external portable Firewire 800 drive (got bored waiting for anything Thunderbolt) and there are hardly any speed issues even with whopping great RAW files)
It isn't exactly the same with Lightroom, as files are referenced on the file system, but I import everything onto my iMac and to an archive drive, then when I've done the sort in Lightroom I delete all the rejects from Lightroom and my iMac leaving only the keepers, but every raw file is still in my archive.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff