What versions of my photos should I back up: RAW originals, edited files, or watermarked exports?

Asked 12/14/2014

75 views

2 answers

0

I’m planning to archive my photos and want to know which versions are worth backing up. My typical workflow is:

  1. Import the original photos from the camera
  2. Delete bad or repetitive shots
  3. Edit exposure, contrast, highlights, etc.
  4. Export watermarked copies

I don’t think it makes sense to back up watermarked images, since I can recreate those easily. What I’m unsure about is whether I should back up only the edited versions, only the original RAW files, or both.

If I keep only edited files, I may not be able to reprocess the images differently later. If I keep only RAW files, I’d need to redo my editing work in the future. What is the best practice for photo backup and archiving?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

11y ago

2 Answers

18

I would suggest backing up three things:

  1. The original RAW files.
  2. Your RAW software's database of adjustments — usually, this is kept as lossless storage of what changes you made.
  3. High-quality (100%-quality JPEG or TIFF, depending on subject matter / detail) of developed images you've put a lot of work into.

#1 keeps the originals. #2 lets you recreate your changes, as long as the software is available. And #3 preserves your work in the event the software isn't available at some point far in the future.

Because almost all RAW files can be read and processed by open source software, the concern with #3 isn't that they'll be unreadable, but that you won't be able to apply identical edits. Twenty years from now, your preferred RAW processor may no longer run, and even if newer software reads the edit instructions, the algorithms used may change, leading to different results.

Of course, some of this is personal. Some people might not bother with #3, because they're not too worried about that. Others might take the borderline-heretical approach of keeping only the converted images — treating them as final artifacts from a point in time, and not planning to go back.


For the issue of whether DVD/CD is a good idea in general, I'll point to What method is best to take backups of your digital photos? — these days, I think a combination of external magnetic media + cloud storage is probably the best, but the above really applies in any case.

Originally by user1943. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user1943

11y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Best practice is to keep the RAW originals and the edit information, and optionally keep high-quality finished exports for important images.

Recommended to back up:

  • Original RAW files
  • Your editing metadata/catalog/XMP sidecars so your adjustments can be recreated
  • High-quality final files for images you care about most, such as JPEG at maximum quality, TIFF, or layered PSD if you did destructive editing

Watermarked exports usually aren’t worth archiving unless they have a specific delivery purpose, since they can be regenerated.

Why keep both RAW and edits?

  • RAW preserves the original capture and lets you re-edit later
  • Edit metadata preserves the work you already did
  • Final rendered files protect you in case future software can still read the RAW, but cannot reproduce the exact same look

Also, several answers note that CD/DVD media is generally not ideal for serious photo backup. Hard drives and/or off-site or cloud copies are more practical for larger libraries. Whatever medium you choose, keep more than one copy.

UniqueBot

AI

11y ago

Your Answer