• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

FINAL EDITS IN LR: Convert to 8-bit, or leave 16-bit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mcavotta

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
18
Location
Cleveland
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
Lightroom Version Number
LRc 9.4
Operating System
  1. macOS 10.15 Catalina
As I'm watching the size of my LR library swell on a Macbook Pro without expandable storage, I find myself wondering what the downside would be to converting all of my final edits (PSD) from 16-bit to 8-bit. I know that once the conversion is made, I lose data that can't be recovered. However, I am also led to believe that what is lost is likely imperceptible and non-essential if an image is "done".

Thoughts?
 
As I'm watching the size of my LR library swell on a Macbook Pro without expandable storage, I find myself wondering what the downside would be to converting all of my final edits (PSD) from 16-bit to 8-bit. I know that once the conversion is made, I lose data that can't be recovered. However, I am also led to believe that what is lost is likely imperceptible and non-essential if an image is "done".

Thoughts?

Don’t export final edits until you have a purpose. Export to the web create a file for print at a commercial printer, Make a slide show. Then delete the exported derivative. The Lightroom catalog contains all of the edit instructions and the originals are you source that you must keep.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Disk space is cheap. Converting and compressing and such steps are stopgap -- unless you start deleting a photo for each new one, your problem will keep coming back. I think you'll be happier if you just solve the space problem instead of squeezing more and more. And gets worse -- every new camera, every new program takes more and more space.

That said, the best tool we all have is aggressive culling. Every time I find myself thinking "maybe I'll be interesting in that some day, I better save it" I mentally slap myself and hit delete. Well, I try to.

If my descendants are interested in 10 of my photos I'll be amazed (not counting family snapshots maybe). If they are mixed in with 90,000 others they will never find the 10.

One day I'll get serious about taking my own advice and cull more. :(
 
I agree with Cletus. It sounds like you save all your Lightroom edits as PSD. If that is indeed what you do, then stop doing that. The whole idea behind Lightroom's non-destructive workflow of raw files is that you do not have to save edits in another file format. The edits are saved already in the catalog, and the beauty of that is that you can export a derivative file if and when you need it, with the specifications you need for that particular purpose. And after you have used that file you can trash it, because you can export again whenever needed.
 
My own approach has always been - and will remain - to do all edits in 16-bit LR (then Photoshop if necessary) before converting the pics to 8-bit jpegs of highest quality ..... then deleting the RAW and PSD sources used to generate the jpeg exports. Well, not every RAW is deleted - those that I rate highly (for various reasons, not just their photographic technical quality) are retained as RAW files for possible later re-edits.

This is heresy to some, I realise. But look at it this way - I would never have the time (or inclination) to re-edit the tens of thousands of pictures I have just to improve their look by a few percent with the latest RAW editor. Only the few hundred special pics might be considered for that (and not often, in practice).

RAWand PSD files are of no use to others, should I want to let them see a pic or ten. They want jpegs, often jpegs small enough for their email and prattle box screen. Meanwhile the tens of thousands of my jpeg pics are viewed in various ways as bouts of remembering times and places past. For example, the all purpose 30" monitor in the living room corner, when not being used to run some software or as a TV screen, has a Windows screen saver slideshow running, changing pics once per minute. It accesses various very large collections that are themed (e.g fell-walking, coast, dogs, family, holidays, old scanned family pics, etc.).

I mention this as an example of why 8-bit jpegs are sufficient as a final output for those photos that are (as they are for most) just memory-enhancers rather than commercial products, works of art or otherwise of interest to anyone with a very critical eye.

***********
As a matter of interest, who of the non-commercial photographers here revists and re-edits significant numbers of their stored RAW files?

Lataxe
 
As a matter of interest, who of the non-commercial photographers here revists and re-edits significant numbers of their stored RAW files?

Very rarely, but I recently re-edited a set of photos of my family from 2009. They were extremely over-sharpened had far too much saturation applied!

Turns out that I know more about editing with light touch now!
 
As a matter of interest, who of the non-commercial photographers here revists and re-edits significant numbers of their stored RAW files?
Every time Lightroom updates its process version (currently at PV5), I revisit my "best of the best" photos and reprocess with the latest process version, usually resulting in an improved image. I'd say most of us have improved our editing skills from when we first started with Lightroom.
 
My own approach has always been - and will remain - to do all edits in 16-bit LR (then Photoshop if necessary) before converting the pics to 8-bit jpegs of highest quality ..... then deleting the RAW and PSD sources used to generate the jpeg exports. Well, not every RAW is deleted - those that I rate highly (for various reasons, not just their photographic technical quality) are retained as RAW files for possible later re-edits.
I don't know if you're old enough to have shot on film, but if you did use film in the past, did you also throw away your negatives after printing them?
 
I don't know if you're old enough to have shot on film, but if you did use film in the past, did you also throw away your negatives after printing them?

Yes, I'm old enough alright. :)

I gave all of the scanned slides, negs and prints (many hundreds of them) to various members of the wider family, along with the scanned and cleaned-up images (as jpegs) too. Re-editing all my kept-RAWs would be bad enough but re-scanning all those olde fashioned bits of cellulose again too! No, no ,no. Life is too short (especially at my age). It felt like a task of Sisyphus when I scanned them the first time.

I know that many of those family members who received the various old negs et al have scrapped them. Only some old photo albums remain, as far as I know, largely because the experience of looking through an album is still regarded as worthwhile by some. Personally I think an auto slideshow of randomly generated selections from one's photo collections on a large screen is more rewarding.

And yes, they're all backed up all over the shop. ;)

Lataxe
 
I don't know if you're old enough to have shot on film, but if you did use film in the past, did you also throw away your negatives after printing them?
Our parents certainly did thrown away negatives. I shot primarily chrome slide film and retained very little of my B&W Print film negatives from my college era. Also I have not retained any of the prints either.
 
I try to be as aggressive as I can during the import and selection phase, getting rid of the obvious misfires, but also the piles of images that are very similar. It is when the shoot is fresh in your mind is the best time to do this.

Then, every so often I treat myself to a journey into an old folder of images from years back. Because my perspective has changed, my editing skills improved, the paper I am using has different properties, the personal circumstances of people captured, I have found several gems.

So, my very old folders have all images captured, my recent folders have most of the obvious stuff removed. I keep these raws, plus whatever psd's I have. My exported jpgs are in subfolders of the project folders. These are such a small percentage of my disk storage that I keep them and they are the first folders I look at when I need to revisit a project, as these tell me how I used the images for a particular trip or project.

But there is no perfect system.
 
I remain convinced that the only photos of mine that will survive two generations after my death will be printed, probably in a family photo book.
 
I remain convinced that the only photos of mine that will survive two generations after my death will be printed, probably in a family photo book.

You come to that conclusion probably by looking two generations in the past. Millennials and the generations that follow are most likely to rely upon digital archives not paper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You come to that conclusion probably by looking two generations in the past. Millennials and the generations that follow are most likely to rely upon digital archives not paper.

Mostly I don't believe that anyone will maintain my disks or backup strategy. Hence the only photos that will survive are those that either belong to someone still alive and is in their collection or does not need any maintenance. Printed photos are the no-maintenance option.

There's always a chance that my grand children (if I have any) will ask me for a selection of my photos and will transfer them to their own mobile devices and then their grand children will ask for them. I would love to be wrong and an easy to way digitally pass photos down the generations comes along, but we're not there yet.

I would love to be wrong and my collection will continue to exist far into the future. Mostly though, it's for me :)
 
Our parents certainly did thrown away negatives. I shot primarily chrome slide film and retained very little of my B&W Print film negatives from my college era. Also I have not retained any of the prints either.
My parents didn't throw away my negatives. Just all my baseball cards from the 1950s. :speechless:
 
I remain convinced that the only photos of mine that will survive two generations after my death will be printed, probably in a family photo book.
I know that the vast majority of the photos I have now will not be wanted by anyone unless they're family photos. This is hardly a problem though, eh?

Most photos taken are for the taker. Some are shared with others in a passing interest sort of way but, let's be honest, most people's photos are of long term interest only to them, some members of their family and ....... no one else. Personally I find this quite comforting - part of the recognition that I am but a mote in an interminable history of life, the vast majority of which goes into the deep unknown. :)

If photos are basically memory enhancers, they're bound for oblivion like the rest of our memories when we die. Some special people get their memories (photos but also words and other cultural artefacts) into a more permanent form. But how long does even this fame last? There are but a few Shakespeares, Rembrandts and Ansels.

On the other hand, think how much history one could unearth in future times from the huge conglomeration of data artefacts generated since mass media became ... massive! One could spend a whole lifetime doing nothing but looking at someone else's lifetime doings of long ago. Later on, there could be historians of historians, looking at the life of someone looking at the life of someone. Ad infinitum. Gawd!

Lataxe
 
Most photos taken are for the taker.
I know there are exceptions, but I think for many of us it's not just "taken for the taker" but it is the experience of taking them that is more important than the shot. The shot in many case is just a reminder of a nice outing, a difficult challenge to shoot. It's the experience not the result.

It's why they will go unappreciated by our descendants for the most part.

There are LOTS of exceptions, truly shots of innate value; but I bet for most of us they are in the fractions of percents.
 
I know there are exceptions, but I think for many of us it's not just "taken for the taker" but it is the experience of taking them that is more important than the shot. The shot in many case is just a reminder of a nice outing, a difficult challenge to shoot. It's the experience not the result.

(snip)
This is a very interesting aspect of the photographic habit we all have. Myself, I've never really regarded my own photography as a hobby or other doing-for-its-own-sake. Like many, I do like to gain an understanding of, and competence with, the camera and its operation; also with the software, now. But fundamentally the photography is just an adjunct to other doings-for-their-own sake in my life.

Fell & coast walking, cycling of many kinds, cabinet-making and one or two other long term doings are my own obsessions. The photography has recorded some of it - photography for the walking, woodwork etcetera rather than to do photography per se. The same applies to family photos and photos of various significant events as they come and go. Photographing them is just an adjunct to a fundamental interest in the family and its doings, not playing with a camera.

Many do treat photography as a doing-for-its-own-sake but for me that always seemed a difficulty as all photography requires an interest in the subject-matter. You can't do photography without photographing something. For me, the subject-matter interest has to come first otherwise why take a photo of it?

Well, I've no doubt there are many cogent answers to that one! One answer might be the fascination with the gubbins - like those woodturners who have a huge complex lathe and a vast array of tooling to turn things .... which tend to be a series of highly complex but essentially useless pieces that attract some ooohs and aaahs for a minute or two but then go in a big dark box somewhere.

But I am teasing now. There must be a hundred better reasons to do photography-for-its-own-sake than just playing with expensive knobs, bits of glass and photoshop sliders ....... ?. ;)

Lataxe
 
Many do treat photography as a doing-for-its-own-sake but for me that always seemed a difficulty as all photography requires an interest in the subject-matter. You can't do photography without photographing something. For me, the subject-matter interest has to come first otherwise why take a photo of it?
Just to show that everyone is really different: Not so much.

I do sports photography. I'm decent at it, and do it a lot (well, pre-Covid). I enjoy it, it's quite a challenge. Every sport different, every game presenting new challenges and opportunity.

But I could care less about sports. I never go to a game without a camera, and almost never went before I started. If I stopped shooting sports I'd stop going.

It's probably like fishing (something I haven't done since the teen years) -- some people do it for the fish, some do it for the catching (and then release). Some do it for the beer.
 
.

It's probably like fishing (something I haven't done since the teen years) -- some people do it for the fish, some do it for the catching (and then release). Some do it for the beer.
And some of us do it for all three.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top