Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Where to Store PSD and TIFF Files Created from DNG? - DAM  (Read 4513 times)
mattmikulla
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« on: December 01, 2013, 06:13:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello all. I am working on my DAM workflow and wanted to poll you folks and maybe get some advice.

I use Lightroom for importing, editing, organization and printing. I shoot primarily RAW and convert to DNG. Occasionally I will open up a DNG as a TIFF or PSD in Photoshop for additional editing or tools like NIK silver effex or color effex.

Where should I store my PSD and TIFF files I create from the original DNG within Lightroom?

1. In another folder such as one labeled "Derivative" as recommended in The DAM Book?
2. Right next to the original DNG file for easy comparison and location?

Ideas, recommendations and advice appreciated.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2013, 09:09:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Matt.

My personal preference would be to have the the TIFF or PSD derivative right there with the original (DNG in your case).
In Lightroom if a requirement for a "separate folder" for these derivatives arises then simply create an appropriate Smart Collection that will house those derivatives.
In suggesting this arrangement I have made certain assumptions about your workflow that may not be valid.
Certain individuals only make derivatives for use external to Lightroom and do not then have Lightroom manage those derivatives.

Tony Jay
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2013, 12:01:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Key question is what you define as derivative. I too work in raw and now and then i need to take the image to photoshop to develop any further. In that case the tif or psd is an original or master, and stays in the folder where the raw file resides. If i derive an image to send to someone, to use for web publication etc, i put these in derivative folder and subfolders.
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2013, 02:24:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Key question is what you define as derivative. I too work in raw and now and then i need to take the image to photoshop to develop any further. In that case the tif or psd is an original or master, and stays in the folder where the raw file resides. If i derive an image to send to someone, to use for web publication etc, i put these in derivative folder and subfolders.
Exactly right!

Tony Jay
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2013, 02:34:37 AM »
ReplyReply

With Lightroom, it may make more sense, at least if you don't see the DNG as master reference anymore, to have the TIFF stacked on top of the original DNG.
That asks for the 2 files to be in the same folder.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2013, 03:34:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Where should I store my PSD and TIFF files I create from the original DNG within Lightroom?
1. In another folder such as one labeled "Derivative" as recommended in The DAM Book?
2. Right next to the original DNG file for easy comparison and location?
A big part of the logic behind The DAM Book's recommendations is that the need to backup & restore is what should drive folder structure, because metadata and virtual containers like collections are what you use to find and categorise. So you adopt a "bucket" style of folder structure for your originals, building folder structures to match the capacity of write-once media such as DVDs or blu-ray. Subsequently adding new derivatives into the buckets would break the correspondence between your hard drive and these write once media, and that's why you then need a separate series of buckets for the derivatives.

A classic bucket system with separated derivatives doesn't mean you don't have easy comparison and location (do you mean finding them?). You no longer think of your folders as a way to find or categorise pictures, and the time that you'd waste doing so goes into adding more keywords and setting up smart collections.

John
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2013, 03:35:02 AM »
ReplyReply

PS don't forget you can now stack in (not smart) collections.
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651



« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2013, 05:02:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I have never seen the point of converting to DNG but, with that caveat, I allow Lightroom to keep any Tiffs that are created (e.g. when editing from within LR in CS6 or any of the Nik programs) adjacent to the original Raws in the Library module.

Reason? Sometimes, if revisiting an image for a new or different purpose, I may sometimes want to use the Raw as a starting point and may sometimes want to use the processed Tiff. By having them together, I can make an instant comparison and then work on a virtual copy of whichever I select.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2013, 05:24:27 AM »
ReplyReply

By having them in a smart collection, "I can make an instant comparison and then work on a virtual copy of whichever I select". I can also see previous treatments of the same subject.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2013, 05:37:24 AM »
ReplyReply

One of the great benefits of LR for me is that I no longer have to bother with separate folders for different file types from a shoot. They all go in the same folder and if I need to separate them out, I simply filter them and job done.
Collections, smart or otherwise are in my opinion the wrong way to go for that sort of separation.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2013, 01:59:57 PM »
ReplyReply

In addition to the above comment i made and in line with other comments. If the image file stays under control of Lightroom, there is little reason to separate the storage into several different folders (The bucket approach described in The DAM book). However if the derived image(s) (f.i. an export to JPG etc) is(are) not under control of LR (not added to the catalog), then i use a folder for derived results. As i work per assignment or project if you will, my basic folder structure per assignment is: <Assignment>-ADMIN, <Assignment-EDIT>, <Assignment>-DERIVED
The ADMIN folder holds any assignment administration related files, like model-agreements, moodboard/soryboard, etc; the EDIT folder all the image files imported from cameras and any files created when going to Photoshop (LR stacks these by default), the DERIVED folder any derivatives not under control of LR, f.i. created with export command and not loaded into the catalog.
I use keywords extensively, and smart collections in combination with regular collections to manage my image development work the selection by customer and output per assignment.
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2013, 02:08:04 PM »
ReplyReply

write-once media such as DVDs or blu-ray.
does somebody really backup to those nowadays ?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2013, 02:41:08 PM »
ReplyReply

does somebody really backup to those nowadays ?
Certainly.
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651



« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2013, 03:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the secret of any effective back-up system is physical separation so that, if there is a house fire or similar calamity, the back-up survives.

I am afraid that I fail in terms of that criterion. My back-ups will protect against HDD failure but not against total destruction.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2013, 04:00:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think there's a single secret, though separation is one. The one I think is easiest to overlook is the ability to restore - we often know how to backup, but how familiar are we with restoring and reconstructing after a catastrophe? The beauty of the use of write-once media is there's no chance of overwriting the backup copies, and the "bucket" scheme is so low tech that you don't depend on knowing your backup software's restore features or even have it available (you could easily restore to a different operating system).
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2013, 06:06:29 AM »
ReplyReply

In addition to the above comment i made and in line with other comments. If the image file stays under control of Lightroom, there is little reason to separate the storage into several different folders (The bucket approach described in The DAM book). However if the derived image(s) (f.i. an export to JPG etc) is(are) not under control of LR (not added to the catalog), then i use a folder for derived results. As i work per assignment or project if you will, my basic folder structure per assignment is: <Assignment>-ADMIN, <Assignment-EDIT>, <Assignment>-DERIVED
The ADMIN folder holds any assignment administration related files, like model-agreements, moodboard/soryboard, etc; the EDIT folder all the image files imported from cameras and any files created when going to Photoshop (LR stacks these by default), the DERIVED folder any derivatives not under control of LR, f.i. created with export command and not loaded into the catalog.
Exported files from LR can be added to catalogue as they are exported, there's a checkbox in first part of Export dialogue to add/not add. Or is it that you choose not to add those exports? I would tend to add them to catalogue, to keep a check on what I've done so far from within LR.
With regard to your admin folder, this is where LR's limited file import drives me nuts. Files that are not photographs can also be a very useful part also a useful part of a photographic workflow. I don't care if LR cannot edit these files, but it would be handy to import information that for example may be text based such as everyone's names or titles which can then be used as keywords.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2013, 06:11:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the secret of any effective back-up system is physical separation so that, if there is a house fire or similar calamity, the back-up survives.

I am afraid that I fail in terms of that criterion. My back-ups will protect against HDD failure but not against total destruction.
A friend has a garage at end of his garden that he has converted into his office, so he has a physically separated area for his computers/back up, but all connected by a fast LAN network. I've been toying with a similar idea.
Having a friend/neighbour that you can leave stored data with is another option.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2013, 06:14:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think there's a single secret, though separation is one. The one I think is easiest to overlook is the ability to restore - we often know how to backup, but how familiar are we with restoring and reconstructing after a catastrophe? The beauty of the use of write-once media is there's no chance of overwriting the backup copies, and the "bucket" scheme is so low tech that you don't depend on knowing your backup software's restore features or even have it available (you could easily restore to a different operating system).
Sadly, low tech can also end up being out of date tech. And if you have many TBs of data…..
The big problem with write once media is when do you do the back up. As a lot of one's work takes place after the photo is taken and not necessarily immediately after. And work done on photographs can be as valuable as the shot itself.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 06:40:29 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2013, 07:39:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure, I wonder why the high volume shooters I know are still using DVD rather than blu-ray, but they do so. After all, high tech methods have a nasty way of going out of date (or never catching on) before more primitive methods, and even Apple aren't so stupid that they no longer make DVD readers.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2013, 08:04:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Apple don't make any computers with a DVD player these days and Blu-ray was never even an option on Macs. Hard drives tend to be seen as an easier and much cheaper option for back up than optical media. Which is different to archive, which is where Blu-Ray should be better, but how long will it even be around for? Tangible media is being got rid of as fast as possible it seems like with tech companies putting everything online, as nothing can go wrong there.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad