# Keeping Original RAW Files and Finding Them if Necessary



## 21tones (Jul 22, 2015)

After reading a lot on this forum and various other places I think I have decided not to convert my RAW files in to DNG on import, or at all.
So given that the RAW file is not actually altered by changes in LR why do some people keep the original RAW file and then make a duplicate to work on in LR?
I'm wondering whether to import the RAW, do work on it then copy the worked on version, with sidecar file, to the backup drive.
This means that I don't have two extra copies of RAW files hanging around, one copy on each of the two drives.
If I need to work on the RAW file outside of an Adobe programme e.g. the camera maker's own software, can I not export the worked on file as an Original RAW file?
I guess the risk of my suggested approach is that I only have one copy of the RAW file until I back it up to the 2nd drive at the end of a session?

Your comments about the proposed approach would be appreciated.

When people keep the RAW file and duplicate it to work on in LR how do you track back to the original should you need to do so? I thought every file had to have a unique number/name?

Thanks for your advice


----------



## rob211 (Jul 22, 2015)

> So given that the RAW file is not actually altered by changes in LR why do some people keep the original RAW file and then make a duplicate to work on in LR?


Some people make copies at import to archive or backup the RAW files. So the result is two RAWs of one image, or maybe even three or more. There may be other reasons.



> I'm wondering whether to import the RAW, do work on it then copy the worked on version, with sidecar file, to the backup drive.
> This means that I don't have two extra copies of RAW files hanging around, one copy on each of the two drives.


So how many copies do you end up with? I have no idea what a "worked on" RAW is; they are either the original RAW, a copy thereof, or an edited RAW (Lr doesn't edit raw RAW, but other applications can). You should have AT LEAST two RAWS+sidecars in separate locations, otherwise you have no backup.



> I guess the risk of my suggested approach is that I only have one copy of the RAW file until I back it up to the 2nd drive at the end of a session?


Yes, and it's a big risk. If your photos and work aren't at all important, perhaps not, but even then at least make sure you haven't erased them from the camera's card yet.



> If I need to work on the RAW file outside of an Adobe programme e.g. the camera maker's own software, can I not export the worked on file as an Original RAW file?


I'm sensing you don't see that a RAW and a duplicate of a RAW and a duplicate of that RAW are all "originals" insofar as digital imaging is concerned. Most all of the time those files, once they leave the camera, don't get altered. Certainly normal image (note: NOT file) editing is Lr is designed to prevent that. And Lr references files, so you don't need to export a RAW from Lr to work on it in say an image editing program, assuming that program can handle your type of RAW files. A well-behaved external program will act just like Lr and will NOT edit the RAW file, but it might make changes to the XMP sidecar. Lr will take note of that, and then you can either overwrite Lr's metadata using the metadata from the external program or vice versa. Generally, however you'd export a TIFF from Lr, and have the other program work on that so there's no conflict. But sometimes you WANT the external program to make it's own rendering of the RAW, and having done that, the external program would export a TIFF, which you could import into Lr. Many plugins use the Lr>TIFF>external program>import TIFF to Lr route.


----------



## 21tones (Jul 22, 2015)

Rob
Thanks for your response.
By a worked on file I mean a file that has had work done on it with respect to developing. It would probably also have been keyworded etc.
For example, if it were a Canon RAW that I wanted to do some work on in their DPP software, you  are saying I wouldn't export the file from LR but would reference the same file from within the DPP software and maybe do developing work on it. But this might conflict with, or overwrite the developing "instructions" that have been stored in respect of the work done in LR.

OK - so if I kept an additional RAW file that was not touched in any way by LR and wanted to work on it in DPP, could it have the same filename if it is stored in a separate folder to those RAW files that are worked on in LR?
Or would this not be possible if the two RAW files (the same photograph) were imported by LR but one was never worked on in any way in LR, other than being imported?
I hope that makes sense!


----------



## Tony Jay (Jul 23, 2015)

Hi 21tones.

I can only think from reading your post that you are confused about a lot of issues.
This is an observation - not a criticism, even experts were ignorant once.

In Lightroom a raw file is never altered - never!
One cannot export an altered file in raw format.
Lightroom will let you export a raw file but it is always unaltered.
So one cannot export a processed raw file and then work on it in another raw converter.

My understanding of DPP is that it doesn't bend the pixels of a raw image either and that the only way to keep the result of any image converting in DPP is to create a TIFF file.
I don't really see any need to use DPP and Lightroom together and would not encourage it.
If you are committed to using DPP for raw conversions then attempting to use Lightroom as a digital-asset-manager immediately becomes very complicated and difficult.

As for keeping multiple copies of files on different drives - this are called back-ups.
Everyone should do this but in reality this is only a partial solution since one needs to keep back-ups of the the catalog as well on the same drives.

Lightroom will generally not tolerate duplicates of files and my advice is not to try to dupe Lightroom into importing duplicates of files.

My suggestion is to keep one's image collection on a single drive along with the catalog. Then back-up this drive to one and preferably more drives that may be external or internal drives. The key is that as far as Lightroom is concerned there is one catalog and only a single copy of an image is known to the catalog (i.e. imported).

Whenever someone asks questions like you have my immediate thought is that there is much more to the queries than is obvious. If there are bigger issues informing these questions feel free to raise them and we will help you work the your workflow.

Tony Jay


----------



## Ian.B (Jul 23, 2015)

_keep it simple_ 21tones (where you you blokes finds these names?) 

as usual Tony explained it very well. LR is very different from say PS as we don't need to save as our editing progresses; and every LR edit is removeable. Even when we export the edited file; the edits done to the raw file are still reservable or removable. However the _exported file; say to be printed _will have the edits saved/locked in. If we feel more editing needs to be done we just need to go back the raw file and do whatever is needed and then export again (best to delete the first exported file to save any confusion] Can be hard to understand when coming from a program like PS where we need to be continuing saving; but no saving is just one of the beauties of LR.

Not sure; then experiment with unimportant files. Always handy to have a test/experiment folder of files just for that reason

There is a way (help me Tony ) to transfer  LR edits to the original raw file in windows/finder; _HOWEVER _those edits are still removable. Tony will need to explain the buttons needed as I don't do that. Should I do it Tony?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jul 23, 2015)

Ian.B said:


> There is a way (help me Tony ) to transfer  LR edits to the original raw file in windows/finder; _HOWEVER _those edits are still removable. Tony will need to explain the buttons needed as I don't do that. Should I do it Tony?



That's not possible, at least not with original proprietary raw files (unless Tony knows of a way). Edits can be "saved" into XMP sidecars, but it would need specialist software to read and interpret those XMP files. Finder and Explorer can't do that.

 It's possible with DNG files to update the embedded preview, which is actually what Finder/Explorer shows, thus giving the appearance of showing the edited file.


----------



## Ian.B (Jul 23, 2015)

Thanks Jim; I must be thinking of something else


----------



## Tony Jay (Jul 23, 2015)

No, I am not aware of a way to transfer Lightroom edits directly into a raw file.
It is easy enough to save metadata to an XMP sidecar file but nothing alters the actual image information in the raw file and currently only an Adobe compatible application will read the metadata found in the XMP sidecar file anyway.

Tony Jay


----------



## rob211 (Jul 23, 2015)

21tones said:


> Rob
> Thanks for your response.
> By a worked on file I mean a file that has had work done on it with respect to developing. It would probably also have been keyworded etc.
> For example, if it were a Canon RAW that I wanted to do some work on in their DPP software, you  are saying I wouldn't export the file from LR but would reference the same file from within the DPP software and maybe do developing work on it. But this might conflict with, or overwrite the developing "instructions" that have been stored in respect of the work done in LR.
> ...


We're trying to be nice, but again: you need to study up on the concept behind both RAW files and non-destructive editing. Once you understand the underlying concept, your question will be answered. :nod:

Think of a RAW like a film negative; all the image editors treat it that way, and make different prints *from* it, not *to* it. They can make edits to each others PRINTS, which would be TIFFS or JPEGs exported (like printed) from the RAW (negative).


----------



## 21tones (Jul 23, 2015)

rob211 said:


> We're trying to be nice, but again: you need to study up on the concept behind both RAW files and non-destructive editing. Once you understand the underlying concept, your question will be answered. :nod:
> 
> Think of a RAW like a film negative; all the image editors treat it that way, and make different prints *from* it, not *to* it. They can make edits to each others PRINTS, which would be TIFFS or JPEGs exported (like printed) from the RAW (negative).



OK - thanks everyone, I get it regarding RAW files versus TIFFs, JPEGs, PSDs etc.
However, I still don't understand how some people do what they describe in this forum i.e. to keep two copies of the same RAW file.
Maybe I am using the wrong terminology to explain it so I'll try another way. 
I have 20 Canon RAW files. It would seem that some people "archive these" and don't do anything with them. It is a safety net. They then have another set of the same 20 Canon RAW files that they use in LR to keyword, develop etc.
Is this done in LR via the Import option of "make a second copy to"? If so, any file renaming via a renaming template could be applied to both sets of the 20 RAW files could it? Most importantly, could the two sets of 20 RAW files have identical filenames? The first set of 20 will not subsequently be worked on in LR but are there purely as a safety net if the second set of files gets corrupted etc? If the second set get corrupted and one wants to go back to the first set it would be easier to find the images if they have the same filename right? So the same filenaming across the two sets of RAWS seems important to me otherwise one would struggle to find the files in the archive set as they have not been keyworded, or put in collections or whatever else might happen to the second set which is worked on in LR
Obviously the archive set and the second set, which is worked on in LR are on the same drive and they would both be backed up to at least a second drive, along with the catalogue etc.
I don't know how to do that either but I want to get my queries above clear in my head first!

Thanks for you patience


----------



## Tony Jay (Jul 23, 2015)

Hi 21tones

If one does make a second copy on import then these images are NOT imported into Lightroom.
They merely serve as a second copy of the images and are intended only to be temporary back-ups, usually when one is travelling on location.
The filenames of the second copy will just be whatever the camera has named them even if one applies a renaming template on import since, as mentioned, the second copy is not imported into Lightroom.

The second copy option is not intended to be a long-term back-up or archive but only short-term.

Long term back-ups need to be organised differently.
My strong suggestion is to consider doing things this way:
Delegate a single hard drive to hold both your image collection and the Lightroom catalog.
Nothing else should be on this drive.
It doesn't matter whether this drive is an internal or an external drive.

A back-up now becomes a bit-for-bit copy of that drive to another drive (this drive should also be uniquely dedicated to your image collection).
I have several back-up drives that are all identical to the master drive.
Redundancy is a key concept here.
If any of these drives die then it is a simple matter of the buying a new drive and doing a bit-for-bit copy of the master drive to the new drive.
Another key concept to understand is that because each drive is an exact copy of the the contents of the master drive which holds both the catalog and the image collection both are backed up and up-to-date.
There will never be confusion about filenames or folder structure because each drive exactly mimics the the master.
Also only images imported into Lightroom are present on these drives.
I never put the so-called second copy files onto these drives.

I will let you digest this information.

Tony Jay


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jul 24, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> The filenames of the second copy will just be whatever the camera has named them even if one applies a renaming template on import since, as mentioned, the second copy is not imported into Lightroom.



The second copy does in fact get the same name as the original file, so if you rename on import the second copy is also renamed. Note though that if you convert to DNG on import, the second copy is not also converted, it will remain in the original SOOC format.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jul 24, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> The second copy does in fact get the same name as the original file, so if you rename on import the second copy is also renamed. Note though that if you convert to DNG on import, the second copy is not also converted, it will remain in the original SOOC format.


Thanks for that Jim - I have in fact just bumped into this tidbit in Victoria's book!

Tony Jay


----------



## tspear (Jul 24, 2015)

I use the second copy on import. That is my original RAW backup. I convert to DNG as part of the import, since I am usually only importing a few hundred photos at a time and I have other interests things to do (like eating dinner or sleeping) it does not bother me that it takes a while to convert. 
So, I keep the original raw file in case there is ever a need to go back to it, and I get the checksum, consolidated meta-data in one DNG file (I have auto write meta-data updates enabled; again as part of my last ditch recovery model).

Tim


----------



## 21tones (Jul 24, 2015)

Thank you for your responses. That is exactly what I was hoping was possible with the import and second copy process. Being able to name both sets of files with the same filenames is just what I wanted. I have read elsewhere that John Beardy has a plug-in called Syncomatic (I think - I can't find the thread) that allows the metadata from an existing file to be applied to a newly imported file. So if I really needed to I could import the RAWs outside LR and get the metadata from the files inside LR applied to the new imports. I'm now wondering whether to do what tspear suggests and have the files imported into LR converted to DNG. I always preferred the idea of having metadata written into the file rather than having separate sidecars, and the smaller filesize would also help. 
Thanks so much for your help I feel like I am "getting there". As I will be importing thousands of photos I wanted to try and get this as right as possible at the outset.
I will have queries about other aspects of the workflow and backups before I start importing but will post those separately.
Thank you again


----------



## rob211 (Jul 25, 2015)

21tones said:


> Thank you for your responses. That is exactly what I was hoping was possible with the import and second copy process. Being able to name both sets of files with the same filenames is just what I wanted. I have read elsewhere that John Beardy has a plug-in called Syncomatic (I think - I can't find the thread) that allows the metadata from an existing file to be applied to a newly imported file. So if I really needed to I could import the RAWs outside LR and get the metadata from the files inside LR applied to the new imports. I'm now wondering whether to do what tspear suggests and have the files imported into LR converted to DNG. I always preferred the idea of having metadata written into the file rather than having separate sidecars, and the smaller filesize would also help.
> Thanks so much for your help I feel like I am "getting there". As I will be importing thousands of photos I wanted to try and get this as right as possible at the outset.
> I will have queries about other aspects of the workflow and backups before I start importing but will post those separately.
> Thank you again


This usually takes care of itself.

If you make a copy of your RAW files to say an external backup drive, and then copy to your internal drive and add that one to Lr, the two RAW files have the same names. So if you RAW file on your internal got damaged, accidentally deleted, etc, all you do is copy that RAW file from the external to the internal. Lr would see it as the "original" since it doesn't know it's a copy. It's the same file. And would have the same adjustments, etc. And the sidecar would work with it too. If it's a DNG, it's a bit different, since there is no sidecar and the metadata is written into the DNG itself (and obviously not to the DNG on your external). But you just write the info from Lr into the "new" DNG and you're back where you started.

DNG's won't be that much smaller than your original RAWs, depending on your camera, but the lack of sidecars does have some benefits. And when converting, Lr uses the same filenames for them by default; only the file extension changes.

Syncomatic is great; I've used it for various projects. But you won't need it if you set up your workflow correctly. One of the reasons why many of us don't rename files when they come off the camera is that it makes it easier to keep track of the backups of those files, since they always have the same name.


----------



## tspear (Jul 25, 2015)

Rob,

I have had a DNG file corrupted and I just found the matching raw file, used the Adobe ACR Bridge to convert it to the DNG and replaced the bad DNG file. Lr noticed the bad meta data, I just told Lr to update the meta data in the file and I was done.
(I corrupted the file;  I was working on a script and an un-expected error had it output contents of the processing by appending to the first file in the directory).

 Tim


----------



## rob211 (Jul 26, 2015)

tspear said:


> Rob,
> 
> I have had a DNG file corrupted and I just found the matching raw file, used the Adobe ACR Bridge to convert it to the DNG and replaced the bad DNG file. Lr noticed the bad meta data, I just told Lr to update the meta data in the file and I was done.
> (I corrupted the file;  I was working on a script and an un-expected error had it output contents of the processing by appending to the first file in the directory).
> ...


Yep, happens. I just found some corrupted TIFFs from long ago. Unfortunately, some were from back in the past where I (misguidedly) renamed files with descriptions, rather than using IPTC title for this. It was a bear tracking down the originals. So now every file, export, and version of a file has the same name, perhaps with a suffix. Makes recovery operations a lot easier.

Some people use Lr to catalog their archived RAWs. I don't, but that's because I back up RAWs that have metadata written to the sidecars. But that obviously wouldn't happen if you archived the RAW at import.


----------



## 21tones (Jul 28, 2015)

rob211 said:


> If you make a copy of your RAW files to say an external backup drive, and then copy to your internal drive and add that one to Lr, the two RAW files have the same names. So if you RAW file on your internal got damaged, accidentally deleted, etc, all you do is copy that RAW file from the external to the internal. Lr would see it as the "original" since it doesn't know it's a copy. It's the same file. And would have the same adjustments, etc. And the sidecar would work with it too. If it's a DNG, it's a bit different, since there is no sidecar and the metadata is written into the DNG itself (and obviously not to the DNG on your external). But you just write the info from Lr into the "new" DNG and you're back where you started.
> 
> DNG's won't be that much smaller than your original RAWs, depending on your camera, but the lack of sidecars does have some benefits. And when converting, Lr uses the same filenames for them by default; only the file extension changes.
> 
> Syncomatic is great; I've used it for various projects. But you won't need it if you set up your workflow correctly. One of the reasons why many of us don't rename files when they come off the camera is that it makes it easier to keep track of the backups of those files, since they always have the same name.



Rob - thanks again for your reply. Having spent more time thinking about this I am getting concerned about putting all my photos into LR, doing all the work on developing, keywording etc and then finding that in the very near future Adobe withdraws completely from standalone versions. As a retired person I simply can't afford to pay a continuous subscription forever to Adobe even if they make it available only for LR. (But if they do the same for Photoshop Elements I am really struggling!). So, I have to know I can get out of LR to use some other form of RAW file editor in the future if necessary.

Given what you have said above and what John Beardy has said in another thread regarding his Synocamatic plug-in i.e. " You're now left with DNGs in LR with your adjustments/metadata, and raw files without any work. If you import the raw files into LR, you can then choose each pair of pictures and sync the settings/metadata from DNG to raw, and this can be automated using my Syncomatic plugin", I am proposing to use the 
import and second copy process. Being able to name both sets of files with the same filenames is just what I wanted. So if I really needed to I could import the RAWs outside LR and get the metadata from the DNG (or original RAW format) files inside LR applied to the new imports. 
But if I then wanted to use these RAW format files in another RAW converter what would be read by the other RAW converter? The LR develop settings wouldn't be presumably, but the built-in EXIF data and keywords written into metadata would be? 
 As you can tell I am getting very concerned about committing to lots of work in LR if the standalone version of it does not continue indefinitely.
I am prepared to buy LR 6 as the HDR and panorama features look really convenient. If LR 6 had to be my last version of LR I could presumably use the standalone DNG converter to convert future camera RAW formats not supported by LR 6 to bring them into LR 6 and work on them in the DNG format, and still keep a copy of the original RAW file outside of LR as usual?
Thanks in anticipation of your help.


----------



## rob211 (Jul 28, 2015)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you'd have the same problem of preserving RAW development adjustments in any DAM/PIE that does RAW conversion. ALL of them have that issue, but at least Adobe is the industry standard. Every program, even the one in your camera, develops RAW a bit differently. So what your Sony produces compared to what Adobe produces compared to what Apple produces compared to what Capture One produces compared to Dxo, etc, is going to be different. You can't take one's +.21 contrast and have that uniformly apply in some other software.

If you want to preserve the end product of RAW development, EXPORT it. That's what all these programs were designed to do. Ultimately that's the only way to preserve what you did. A PIE is a parametric image editor, meaning it only saves that +21 parameter. If you wanna save your work, don't save the parameters (instructions), save the finished product. The downside is OMG, now I have a TIFF or JPEG. But even if you can't re-edit that to your satisfaction (and many many times you can), you still have the RAW. And so you'd have to do it again, the irony being that sometimes as RAW programs and algorithms and tools have improved, you might get a better result.

Since you're retire, maybe older, this shouldn't faze you. Didn't you even have to go back and reprint something from negatives? yeah, maybe starting over with different paper? Not much different. And if that's burdensome, then you just pay for the Adobe stuff. Odds are they'll outlast us retired people (and BTW, dontcha wish software vendors gave senior discounts??).

And if you save metadata to files (DNG or RAW/sidecars) that's all preserved forever. And it's universal.

Saving metadata to images, and saving exports, and then backing THOSE up would mean you wouldn't have to go through all that complicated renaming/reimporting/synching business. Why not KISS and just backup after you've made changes? Making backups before that seems to offer no advantages that I can see.


----------



## tspear (Jul 29, 2015)

21tones,

So far Adobe has given you access to the library module when your license expires. You lose the ability to import, develop, book, print... But you can still search and export the images. The bigger concern is that the HW and SW would no longer be supported and then you lose access.

Tim


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jul 30, 2015)

Actually Tim, I think even in the reduced functionality mode you can still import and print. AFAIK the only bits "missing" are the Develop and Map modules.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jul 30, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> Actually Tim, I think even in the reduced functionality mode you can still import and print. AFAIK the only bits "missing" are the Develop and Map modules.


Yep, spot on.  And Mobile Sync, of course.


----------



## 21tones (Jul 30, 2015)

Rob
thanks for your patience and sensible suggestions. I guess it is unlikely that I would wish to go back and do further editing sometime later, if I have done it to the best of my ability already.
It's good to know that metadata is universal and could be read elsewhere if needed. Yes, it would be good if seniors got discounts the way that students do!
Thanks again.


----------



## 21tones (Jul 30, 2015)

Also
thanks for the confirmation about functionality after the license expires


----------



## 21tones (Jul 22, 2015)

After reading a lot on this forum and various other places I think I have decided not to convert my RAW files in to DNG on import, or at all.
So given that the RAW file is not actually altered by changes in LR why do some people keep the original RAW file and then make a duplicate to work on in LR?
I'm wondering whether to import the RAW, do work on it then copy the worked on version, with sidecar file, to the backup drive.
This means that I don't have two extra copies of RAW files hanging around, one copy on each of the two drives.
If I need to work on the RAW file outside of an Adobe programme e.g. the camera maker's own software, can I not export the worked on file as an Original RAW file?
I guess the risk of my suggested approach is that I only have one copy of the RAW file until I back it up to the 2nd drive at the end of a session?

Your comments about the proposed approach would be appreciated.

When people keep the RAW file and duplicate it to work on in LR how do you track back to the original should you need to do so? I thought every file had to have a unique number/name?

Thanks for your advice


----------



## tspear (Jul 31, 2015)

Jim, Victoria,

Cheers, you are correct. Except for import, I only focused on the parts I use. 

Tim


----------



## Hoggy (Aug 1, 2015)

21tones said:


> I guess it is unlikely that I would wish to go back and do further editing sometime later, if I have done it to the best of my ability already.
> It's good to know that metadata is universal and could be read elsewhere if needed. Yes, it would be good if seniors got discounts the way that students do!
> Thanks again.



Actually, I don't think that'll be the case at all..  Not only do your abilities constantly get better, but the tools themselves will too.  After the latest DeHaze stuff being added, I'm finding myself going through all my previously edited photos to dehaze them - and have been finding that my abilities since originally doing them has also increased quite a bit as well.  So I think it very likely that you will at some point want to revisit your old edits - at least some of them.

And it would also be great if they gave disabled people discounts as well..  Seniors and Disabled - just like the apartment building I'm in.


----------

