Should I downsize blurry or low-quality photos to save storage space?
Asked 11/26/2014
3 views
2 answers
0
I'm considering reducing the resolution of photos that are soft, out of focus, heavily JPEG-processed, or otherwise not among my best images, but that I still want to keep. Some are RAW/DNG files; others are large JPEGs from small-sensor cameras that don't hold much fine detail anyway.
If I scale these images down to about one-quarter of the original pixel count, would I lose anything useful? Could future image-processing tools make the larger originals worth keeping, or is downsizing a reasonable way to save space?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
11
Any photo you're never going to use again is taking up "unnecessary" space, and frankly no matter what happens to image processing technologies in the future, you're probably not going to go back and reprocess some low quality photos from 10 years ago.
On the other hand, disk space is cheap (unless you're Google, Amazon, etc). Very roughly, my SLR has a shutter lifetime of ~ 100,000 shots and produces ~ 20 Mb RAW files. That comes out to ~ 2 Tb of storage space, which I can buy for around £60, or around 10% of the cost of an entry level SLR and some kit lenses. Shelling out 10% of the cost of my kit to mean that I have a pretty good chance of being able to keep every photo for ever seems like a reasonable investment to me. (For avoidance of doubt, my better photos have more backups, but that's a different question).
Originally by user11371. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11371
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Downsizing will save space, but it does throw away information permanently. Even soft or flawed images can still benefit from future processing tools such as better sharpening or deconvolution, and those methods generally have more to work with when you keep the original full-size file.
For RAW/DNG files especially, keeping the originals preserves the most editing latitude. If you reduce them now, you may regret it later if software improves or if a photo turns out to be more valuable than you expected.
That said, if an image is truly one you’ll never re-edit or use, then any storage it occupies is arguably unnecessary. The practical counterpoint from the community is that storage is relatively inexpensive, so keeping originals is often the safer choice.
So the tradeoff is simple: downsizing is fine if you’re comfortable permanently limiting future recovery and editing options; keeping the originals is better if you want maximum flexibility and can spare the storage.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Should I shoot DNG in-camera or shoot Pentax PEF and convert to DNG in Lightroom?
Should I resize my photos for archival storage, or keep the originals?
How can I identify DNG files that are duplicates of my recovered original RAW files?
Can I batch-convert existing lossless DNG files to lossy DNG outside Lightroom?
Why do most DSLRs offer JPEG as the only processed format instead of a lossless RGB format?