New to DSLR and Aperture - need help with photo management

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by guy curlewis, Jan 31, 2011.

  1. guy curlewis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #1
    Hi there

    I have recently got Aperture 3 and am shooting in RAW.

    On importing should i be converting to Jpeg after processing? at 25mb per raw file i am fast using up space.

    If so how to i convert to jpeg and should i delete the raw file?

    Any thoughts would be appreciated

    Thanks

    Canon 7d, 50mm 1.8, 550ex, aperture 3, imac 21.5 3.2 12gb ram
     
  2. trjwv macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Location:
    kentucky...Go Cats
    #2
    I NEVER delete the raw file. I first import the raw file, make a copy of the raw file and use the copy to work with. If I need I then save a copy of the edited file as a jpeg. Then I may have a copy for the printed file, yes this equals 4 copies. Seems redundant but this is my workflow. I never want to work on my original raw file. And I only shoot raw.
     
  3. TheDrift- macrumors 6502a

    TheDrift-

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    #3
    Depends on what your doing, if you ever want to go back and edit your files you may regret deleting the raw files.

    Storage is relatively cheap these days......

    Or of course just be more selective about what you keep?
     
  4. Doylem macrumors 68040

    Doylem

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wherever I hang my hat...
    #4
    With Aperture being non-destructive, for editing, it makes sense to keep master Raw files. If it's worthwhile shooting Raw in-camera, it's worth keeping them on your computer. Best stump up for an external drive. My way of keeping the numbers down is to delete shots that don't work... and keep deleting as the months & years go by. In this way you get a better, tighter collection of images...
     
  5. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #5
    Your RAW file is the digital analog of the negative, and as such, you should never delete it unless absolutely necessary. The way software like Aperture and Lightroom work is that they save a small text file that describes how to render the RAW file and then render it anew each time you edit it. That's why making multiple versions of one file costs you ~4 kB (kilobyte!) of storage rather than many MB (megabytes). You only create jpg or tiff files (or whatever image format you prefer) if you want to export files.

    With Aperture, the workflow is roughly as follows:
    (1) For each event or so, you create a project.
    (2) You import your images into this project. Aperture will try to render RAW files neutrally (e. g. it determines the white balance). These rough renderings are the starting point for your work.
    (3) Skim the images and delete the ones you deem not worthy keeping. You do that by marking them as `to be deleted' by pressing 9. They will disappear from your view, but they are not deleted in any way. In fact, there two more steps involved to permanently delete photos (for your own safety). If you like a photo, you can give it 1 to 5 stars by pressing 1 through 5. You can undo any rating by pressing 0. Try not to edit any of the photos at this stage!
    (4) Once you're done, you can start editing your photos (`the picks').
    (5) If you want to review the photos you've marked for deletion, limit your views to those photos (click in the triangle next to the search box and select the appropriate option). Select the photos you want to delete and press Command + Delete (just like in the Finder) or move them to the Trash.
    (6) If you want to permanently delete photos, empty Aperture's trash.

    If you want to manually re-import jpgs, all you will do is unnecessarily mess things up.
     
  6. cleanup macrumors 68030

    cleanup

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto
    #6
    Is there going to be a big speed decrease if I start storing all my photos on an external through USB 2.0?
     
  7. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #7
    Yes.
    It's a matter of throughput: USB 2.0 drives top out at around 20 MB/s. The RAW files of a last-gen camera weigh in at roughly 10 MB whereas newer dslrs generate 20 MB files (those are just rules of thumb). If you have a recent camera, this means, an external USB harddrive is capable to transfer about 1 image per second. An internal drive is easily twice as fast in case of a notebook or faster (modern SATA harddrives manage up to ~100 MB/s).

    If you want to store some photos on an external harddrive, I'd do that only with older photos.
     
  8. Eaton Photos macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Location:
    KY
    #8
    If your on a Mac, why use USB? Why not use Firewire?

    As my primary storage option, I utilize a 1TB Raid 1 External Enclosure, running to either my Mac Pro or iMac, via FW800 for the specific purpose of categorizing & organizing my images. The thorough-put is quite sufficient for the Raw & Video files, from my 5DMKII.

    From my experience & perspective, if you ask me if would I use USB; my answer is, not if I can avoid it. USB 2 is too slow, compared to either FW4 or FW8. When USB 3 becomes mainstream, then I may change my perspective & connectivity options. However, til then Firewire is much faster for moving data & video files.

    Once I am finished with files & ready to archive them, I move them to my secondary storage/ back-up option, which is a 4TB NAS running in Raid 10/ 1+0, via Gigabit. While RAID is not a long-term storage option, it works for me right now.

    OP, Never Ever Ever, throw away your Raw Files. Throwing away the Raw, is like committing a sacrilege, of a sacred object. :cool:
     

Share This Page