[Marc Sabatella]

I'm not so sure. If I take a camera raw file and do significant retouching on it, if I don't archive it for future consideration, I've pretty much pissed all the time I spent on post out the window.

Not at all. At least, not if using software that automatically remembers your processing settings, as most modern applications do. Some save automatically to a database, some save to sidecar XMP files or embedded XMP areas for DNG, but as long as that info is saved, you should be good to go. PPL doesn't do anything like this, unless that's been added with version 4 - but I think by now most other applications do.

If I can make a comparison to film, the raw file is an undeveloped negative, the tiff/psd/etc file is the developed negative.

And a RAW file plus the corresponding XMP file with the processing instructions is like the negative plus a completely reproducible series of instructions on how to develop it, that takes up only a few bytes of space and can be repeated in seconds.

There is, of course, the possibility that changes to your software will render slightly different results in the future even following those same instructions. Depending on how big a concern that is, you might want to save a snapshot to show you how its supposed to look, so you can tweak the image further if necessary. Chances are good that your own tastes will have changed at least as much, of course. I save medium-resolution JPEG copies of all pictures I care enough for this tp be a concern even in theory.

[Wheatfield]

Not at all. At least, not if using software that automatically remembers your processing settings, as most modern applications do. Some save automatically to a database, some save to sidecar XMP files or embedded XMP areas for DNG, but as long as that info is saved, you should be good to go. PPL doesn't do anything like this, unless that's been added with version 4 - but I think by now most other applications do.



And a RAW file plus the corresponding XMP file with the processing instructions is like the negative plus a completely reproducible series of instructions on how to develop it, that takes up only a few bytes of space and can be repeated in seconds.

That's great if all you do in post processing is RAW conversion to a printable file. If that's the case, then just shoot jpeg, the quality difference will be non existent.
What you aren't taking into account is the myriad of other things that get done during post processing: cloning, spotting, applying various filters for improving elements of the image, even basic cropping (Lightroom remembers this last one).
I throw out the final PSD, I've also thrown out 90% of what I do in post.

There is, of course, the possibility that changes to your software will render slightly different results in the future even following those same instructions. Depending on how big a concern that is, you might want to save a snapshot to show you how its supposed to look, so you can tweak the image further if necessary. Chances are good that your own tastes will have changed at least as much, of course. I save medium-resolution JPEG copies of all pictures I care enough for this tp be a concern even in theory.

Something else to remember when archiving files is to ask yourself: will this file be readable in 5, 10, 20 years? A manufacturers proprietary raw file is the least likely to be supported, a tiff or bitmap is most likely to be supported, in 20 years, and is also the most robust format in terms of being salvagable in the event of media degradation.

[jezza323]

i do the following

import RAW (PEF files) into folder using Lightroom, delete the crap ones, leave the avg ones, work with the good ones. Once all work is finished in lightroom on the good ones, i export them as DNG (this preserves the lightroom edits) and the original RAW data. I then export a web ready 800-1024px JPEG. i keep the JPEG and the DNG. i then RAR up all my PEFs that are left, and move them to an external drive. my DNGs and JPGs i backup to the cloud (online backup) and to another machine in my house. JPGs go online to flickr/picasa or other

[Marc Sabatella]

That's great if all you do in post processing is RAW conversion to a printable file. If that's the case, then just shoot jpeg, the quality difference will be non existent.
What you aren't taking into account is the myriad of other things that get done during post processing: cloning, spotting, applying various filters for improving elements of the image, even basic cropping (Lightroom remembers this last one).
I throw out the final PSD, I've also thrown out 90% of what I do in post.

You're leaving out a huge middle ground - things that go way beyond simple "RAW conversion to a printable file", but can be done within the confines of RAW processing. I'm talking about the things that can be done in ACR - adjustments to exposure, curves, saturation, white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, vibrance, cropping, etc. Those are all areas where shooting RAW make a huge difference - more so, fact, than the things you list (cloning is not something where the limitations of JPEG are particularly problematic). Although to be sure, relatively few RAW processing applications support cloning.

Anyhow, all work done in ACR is saved automatically without the need to convert to another format. So if your workflow is such that most of the processing work you do is doable in ACR (or the equivalent in LR or any other "non-destructive" RAW processing software), then exporting a new version is not necessary in order to save the work you've done.

If on the other hand you regularly edit your image in traditional "bit oriented" editing programs like Photoshop, then indeed, you need to explictly save that work somehow.

Something else to remember when archiving files is to ask yourself: will this file be readable in 5, 10, 20 years? A manufacturers proprietary raw file is the least likely to be supported

True. Although I don't expect support to disappear overnight. Before installing a version of an application that no longer supports my older files, I'd probably go ahead and convert them with the old version - or perhaps convert to DNG if by then this seems a ticket to better future proofing.

[Alfisti]

This is where Lightroom saves a tonne of hassle and a tonne of space.

[Wheatfield]

If on the other hand you regularly edit your image in traditional "bit oriented" editing programs like Photoshop, then indeed, you need to explictly save that work somehow.

That would be me and every photographer that I know.

[Marc Sabatella]

That would be me and every photographer that I know.

OK, but surely reconize that one or two photographers - maybe even more - use a program called Lightroom for virtually all their processing? And others do the same with programs like Aperture, Lightzone, ACDSee Pro, etc? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Might not reflect how things are done in your corner of the world, but it *is* a big world, and there *are* people who do this.

And my assumption is, that's the world the OP lives in, because he was mentioning JPEG and TIFF as candidates for archiving. In a world where one uses Photoshop primarily, this issue doesn't really come up - PSD is the obvious choice.

[johnmflores]

Nobody's going to want to look at my photos when I've shuffled off this mortal coil. Until then, I just plan on transferring my ever-increasing digital photo collection to increasingly large storage devices, with redundant backup of course. I've been doing this with my digital photos for 10 years - I don't see any reason to change.

Lightroom's been a godsend - since switching from iPhoto - since it organizes photos on the hard drive the way I want to, not the way the software wants to. When I need to PP in Photoshop, I keep the files in the same directory, and LR does a good job of tracking them too. Five or ten years from now there'll be a new "Gotta Have It" workflow tool - hopefully my chronological folder structure will transfer easily.

When I'm gone, I'll leave it up to my yet-to-be-born grandchildren to decide what to do with my piddling-to-them terabyte drives. If any of them are interested, they'll see that in the old days we took low resolution, 2D, 14 megapixel photos using hulking dSLRs.

[Wheatfield]

And my assumption is, that's the world the OP lives in, because he was mentioning JPEG and TIFF as candidates for archiving. In a world where one uses Photoshop primarily, this issue doesn't really come up - PSD is the obvious choice.

Which Pentax, other than the *istD creates tiffs as a native format?
As soon as you start talking about anything other than a RAW or jpeg, you aren't really talking about Lightroom any more.
Anyway, I realize you have a smart answer for everything and can't stand to let go of what you see as an argument, so I'll give you the last word and bow out.
Carry on.

[Marc Sabatella]

Which Pentax, other than the *istD creates tiffs as a native format?
As soon as you start talking about anything other than a RAW or jpeg, you aren't really talking about Lightroom any more.

I'm not sure what "native format" has to do with anything. I'm assuming he/she shoots RAW and is looking to convert to something else in order to preserve his changes, and is trying to decide between JPEG and TIFF for this purpose. I'm assuming he doesn't use Photoshop or he'd be choosing PSD and not thinking twice about it. This doesn't seem particularly implausible or controversial an interpretation to me. not sure why you seem to be resisting it so strongly, but...

Anyway, I realize you have a smart answer for everything and can't stand to let go of what you see as an argument, so I'll give you the last word and bow out.
Carry on.

My last word, then: "whatever."

[Wombat]

Nobody's going to want to look at my photos when I've shuffled off this mortal coil.

Not so, John. For my sins, I'm the curator at our local museum and we have a large archive of photos dating back to the late 1800s. Most of them are just everyday snapshots of people at the beach, working on the farms, sitting outside their cottages etc. None of them are great works of art, but they document the ongoing life of a community and in that sense they're priceless. I'd love you to see the smiles on people's faces when they come in and ask whether we have a photo of their great grandmother and they walk out clutching a couple of photocopies.

So yes, someone will want to look at your pics at some time in the future. Hence the importance of the discussion here. Archive those photos!

[Marc Sabatella]

For my sins, I'm the curator at our local museum and we have a large archive of photos dating back to the late 1800s. Most of them are just everyday snapshots of people at the beach, working on the farms, sitting outside their cottages etc. None of them are great works of art, but they document the ongoing life of a community and in that sense they're priceless. I'd love you to see the smiles on people's faces when they come in and ask whether we have a photo of their great grandmother and they walk out clutching a couple of photocopies.

So yes, someone will want to look at your pics at some time in the future. Hence the importance of the discussion here. Archive those photos!

That is a wonderful bit of information! I think many of us struggle with these same issues. Who knows, really, whether anyone actually *will* look at our photos or not, but if you have them nicely organized, it certainly makes it a lot more likely they'll be able to if they so choose.

[Wheatfield]

I know I said I'd bow out, but some of what has been posted is, in my opinion, dangerously wrong, arguments made for the sake of arguing rather than for the sake of passing on useful information.
The OP asked how best to save files that he was done post processing on, either jpeg or tiff?
This implies he is doing more than the very limited processing that is available in Lightroom.
Lightroom is a great cataloging program, but it is not a great post processing program. It's just too lightweight.

Terms like "non destructive" and "bit oriented", while very colorful descriptives, are less than useful when it comes to what is a safe format to save post processed files, and are the exact opposite of useful when it comes to describing post processing software to someone who may not see through the hype.

As for PSD being the no brainer if one is a Photoshop user, I know several photographers who use Photoshop but save as TIFFs for reasons program compatibility. As one of them has been using Photoshop since version 3.0, I have to respect his opinion.

This thread got derailed as soon as Lightroom got mentioned, and a few people, including a moderator, jumped off the train and pushed it farther off the tracks in the name of scoring dumb points.
I though moderators were supposed to moderate, not push their own agendas.
The question wasn't what software, the question was what format, so while the trolls argue the finer points of programs, lets take this back on topic.
If you want to save your files in the safest form possible, then you want to stick with a robust format that is not dependent on the goodwill of one or two vendors to be readable.
This lets out pretty much all of the proprietary formats, be they PEF, PSD or even DNG, which, while technically not a proprietary format would probably not be supported in the absence of Adobe..
It also lets out jpeg, since they are quite easily corrupted.
What you want to look for are formats that can be decoded easily and are not vendor dependent.
Tiff's are safe, bitmaps are safer.
PSDs are probably safe, though if Adobe goes out of business then all bets are off.
The same goes for your RAW files.
They may be readable with future software, but at the same time, they may not be.

Not so, John. For my sins, I'm the curator at our local museum and we have a large archive of photos dating back to the late 1800s. Most of them are just everyday snapshots of people at the beach, working on the farms, sitting outside their cottages etc. None of them are great works of art, but they document the ongoing life of a community and in that sense they're priceless. I'd love you to see the smiles on people's faces when they come in and ask whether we have a photo of their great grandmother and they walk out clutching a couple of photocopies.

So yes, someone will want to look at your pics at some time in the future. Hence the importance of the discussion here. Archive those photos!

You're doing a wonderful thing, preserving our past for future generations is a noble undertaking. Seeing your post reminded me of these three shots I took at the Berkeley Flea Market last weekend. These two (I'm assuming they are mother and daughter) appear to be collectors of old photographs.

[Wombat]

Interesting you should say that, Gary. There seems to be a recent tidal wave of people researching their family histories. I suspect it's because there are now several genealogy software programs available and, of course the resources of the internet. Unfortunately there was a period in the 1960s and 70s when a lot of family photos were thrown out or lost as people became more mobile in the search for jobs or began travelling around to see the world as air travel became affordable. For some, archived photos once donated to museums and art galleries are all that's left of the history of their communities and people are now beginning to seek out these archives. We get not only locals but people from elsewhere in Australia and even overseas visitors coming in with their family trees, looking for pictures of great-uncle Bob who was killed in WWII or Aunty May's mother who had thirteen children. It's also great to have such an archive for the local school kids to learn about how their community grew from small beginnings, the main settler families, the tools they used, the shops they ran, early health services etc. It's small-town stuff, but it warms people's hearts. So, it's really important to consider the future value of your photos and maybe think about offering a copy of your DVDs to your local museum, library or art gallery. Which brings us back to what format to save them in... At the museum we store our archival database with jpegs because our software program doesn't recognize TIFFs (there ya go!) but we keep a set of duplicates in TIFF for printing, display panels, information booklets etc.

Excellent discussion, this.