Keeping your raw files is a good idea

My post about the person who made tiffs and threw away the raw files, made me think about an obvious example I had, where keeping the raw file and using an improved version of Adobe Camera raw has proved invaluable. 9 years ago I was using a Sony f828 camera which was known for its quite dramatic purple fringing and the fact that the images were very "grainy" i.e. with lots of luminance noise. A few days ago I got out some of those files and saw just how easy it is to now to address both of those problems simply and quickly in the current version of ACR and produce a much cleaner file, without the need to lots of complicated post processing work, which didn't always work that well anyway. 






What this means is that I now have some much more usable images and I processed a few from this batch ready for upload to image libraries. These were a vast improvement on the saved edited versions I had in my files and turned images from a flawed camera into files that now stand a good chance of being bought and used. To me this is the obvious benefit of saving the raw files (I had stored them as DNG files) and no matter how much time I would have spent on getting the best I could in 2004, improvements and enhancements to ACR have meant that I can now get a much better result in a few seconds. How people cannot see the benefit of this bewilders me. But then I guess I should know by now that not everyone values their images, in terms of wanting to get the best possible result from them, as much as I do. 


N.B. to see more on the cameras and lenses featured in this post click on the relevant labels (tags and keywords) below.

All original material on this blog is © Soundimageplus

Join the Soundimageplus Blog Readers Group at Google+

For comment and discussion - join me over at Google+