Skip to main content
L
leosantare
Inspiring
February 20, 2022
Question

Raw File Size

  • February 20, 2022
  • 3 replies
  • 6198 views

Hello,

 

I'm just trying to get a good idea of the space I will need for my picture collection. This way, I can choose an appropriate size hard drive. I'm looking to get a new camera and plan to shoot exclusivley in the largest raw format option. Let's take the Cannon EOS Ra for example or any other 30 megapixel camera. That should be around 6720 x 4480 and the raw file size being about 50MB per image. Is this correct?

 

My main question is what else is involved. For example, I will have to convert all my raw files to DNG so I can edit them in older camera raw software. At that point, I would delete the origial raw file. What would a DNG file size be when converting it from a 30mp raw file?

 

Now, I have just a DNG file. In order for me to edit or view this picture, will I need a copy of the image in another format, such as Tiff? Basically, will I end up with 2 copies for each picture, a DNG and a Tiff? I guess I could edit the DNG, save it as a Tiff and then delete the DNG file.

 

Once I know about how much space I need for one picture, I can then detrmine how much space I need for my collection.

 

Thank you,   

This topic has been closed for replies.

3 replies

L
Lumigraphics
Legend
February 22, 2022

There isn't a way to pre-determine how much drive space you need. As everyone is telling you, file sizes will vary depending on numerous factors.

Right now, you can get a 4-6TB hard drive for under $US100. Storage prices will continue to fall, by the time you are close to filling one drive, a second one will be larger and cheaper.

    L
    leosantareAuthor
    Inspiring
    February 23, 2022

    Thanks everyone. I insist there be a way to predetermine how much space my picture library will be. Atleast to some degree. Again, I'm not looking for a exact amount, just a calculated idea.

     

    You said, 30mb is more of an average for 30mp raw files, instead of 50mb. Are you referring to the proprietary raw files or the converted dng files?

     

    After I convert to dng, I plan to open in camera raw, make adjustments if needed and then render as jpeg or tiff. Although, I'm undecided as to which one right now. 

     

    Plus, I'm undecided on which camera raw workflow options to go with. It looks like 16bit is best and/or more common.

     

    After spending time processing/correcting the raw(dng) file and rendering it to a jpeg or tiff, why keep the dng? 

     

    I may process the dng and render in both tiff and jpeg. Then, discard the dng.

    elie_dinur
    elie_dinur
    Participating Frequently
    February 23, 2022

     

    "After I convert to dng, I plan to open in camera raw, make adjustments if needed and then render as jpeg or tiff. Although, I'm undecided as to which one right now.

    Plus, I'm undecided on which camera raw workflow options to go with. It looks like 16bit is best and/or more common.

    After spending time processing/correcting the raw(dng) file and rendering it to a jpeg or tiff, why keep the dng?

    I may process the dng and render in both tiff and jpeg. Then, discard the dng."

     

    I absolutely disagree. Why keep thousands of tiffs and jpgs? (My current collection of Raws - proprietary or dngs - is 30,000, which would probably be considered small for 20 years in digital.) If you have no immediate need for those rendered files, automatic conversions are just piling up deadwood. Once you have edited and backed up the Raws there are only a number of reasons why you might want to render RGB files; 16 bit tifs are needed if you want to do more editing in a pixel level editor and should be saved if can't or don't want to recreate that editing in the future, jpgs are needed for sharing as web postings or emails or for sending to a print lab. Once they have served that immediate purpose, the jpgs can be deleted, Should you need them again in the future, they can easily be rendered again in seconds.

     

    Moreover, the technology is still evolving, but you cannot add more editing to a rendered file without doing a certain amount of damage - lesss to a 16 bit tif, more to a jpg. You can return endless times to a Raw without loss. The Raw is your source file which must always be preserved.

      TheDigitalDog
      TheDigitalDog
      Inspiring
      February 20, 2022

      Generally, DNG converted raws take up less space than proprietary raws. There are other advantages and a few disadvantages of DNG but for me, everything gets converted.

      As to keeping the proprietary raws, that's up to you. Some suggest always save them. Some suggest a DNG (which is as raw as the original) is fine and being openly documented like TIFF, is fine for future access. If you ever decide you'd go back to the camera makers proprietary software, then yeah, keep the proprietary raws. I have zero intention of ever doing so. You can embed the proprietary raws into the DNG, seems pointless to me but that's yet another option. Consider TIFF (and JPEG) as an output specific format. You need a JPEG to upload to say the web, and it has to be sized so you'll render the DNG/raw to the size, color space and format needed. The same may be true for TIFF if you send the image out for printing. Or you want to work in Photoshop from the rendered raw. At this point, you've got a new version in TIFF and of course, you want to keep that too.

      Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
      L
      leosantareAuthor
      Inspiring
      February 21, 2022

      Okay, so for 30MP proprietary raw files, I should fiqure about 50MB each.

       

      When I convert the proprietary raw file to DNG, do I have to include a preview? I thought when converting a proprietary raw file to DNG you end up with a slightly smaller file. Either way, I need to know what a 50MB proprietary raw file becomes in size when converted to DNG. I will be deleting my proprietary raw files once converted to DNG.

       

      I only plan to use Photoshop (13.0.1) and Carema Raw (9.1.1) for my pictures. 

       

      Can I open/edit a DNG file in Camera Raw and save it as a DNG? 

      (Meaning, save the DNG file as a DNG by overwriting the current DNG file. This way, I don't end up with (2) DNG files for the same picture.)

       

      I guess this isn't recommended, the original DNG file should remain as is and backed up. Since you can't really do anything with a DNG file, (other than view/edit it in Camera Raw) should I edit and save it as a TIFF or JPEG? (I personally would be going with TIFF.) 

       

      If this is the case, I will end up with (2) copies for each picture, (one DNG and one TIFF.) How much space will a TIFF file be coming from a DNG that was 30MP?

       

      Thank you,

       

      TheDigitalDog
      TheDigitalDog
      Inspiring
      February 21, 2022

      The DNG will work in ACR/LR just like the proprietary raw, with respect to previews and parametric edits. No, you don't need any more than the one DNG and after getting, the instructions (depending on the product and settings) are simply instructions to render a new image as a TIFF, JPEG, PSD etc. Yes you want to backup the DNG and other settings. And again, if you render the DNG as a TIFF then edit that TIFF, you'd want to backup both. They are no longer the same.

      You might want to view at least these two pieces on DNG to get a better idea of what it provides:

      http://digitaldog.net/files/ThePowerofDNG.pdf

      https://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/

      As for space: HDs are inexpensive and your images are valuable. Get the biggest drive you can afford, understand that in the future, prices will continue to drop, they drives will get bigger and you'll be making more images. It isn't a big deal, it is expected that you may need to copy your assists from one driver to another bigger drive in the future.

      Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
      Per Berntsen
      Community Expert
      Per BerntsenCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      February 20, 2022

      Raw files are compressed, and file size will vary with image content.

      Lots of sharp, busy detail (and noise) does not compress well, and will lead to a larger file size, and predominantly flat, smooth areas do compress well, and will lead to a smaller file size.

      I found a collection of sample files for the 30 MP Canon EOS R, and the file size varied between 27 and 48 MB.

       

      I downloaded a 40.6 MB file, from which I made two conversions to DNG – one with a medium size embedded jpg preview (1024 pixels on the long side), and one with a full size preview.

      They came out at respectively 37.4 and 46.6 MB. The image happened to be very noisy, which explains the large size of the full size preview (image content has a large influence on jpg file size).

       

      I routinely convert all my raw files to DNG, and use the medium size preview, which saves some space.

      I usually delete the original raw files soon after the conversion, but not until the DNGs have been backed up.

      As an additional precaution, I have set Lightroom Classic to automatically write changes into XMP, which saves the edits to the header of the DNG files, with no need for sidecar XMP files, as with proprietary raw files. (you can probably do the same thing in Bridge/Camera Raw)

      I also don't format camera cards until I have to, which works as an extra, temporary backup.

       

      You don't have to create Tiff (or jpg) copies of every DNG file.

      If you need a copy for a particular purpose, export from Bridge. If you don't need a copy, don't export.

      Never delete raw files (unless they are rejected).

      They are like film negatives, containing large amounts of information that is not immediately visible until you make a print.

      A raw file is a hundred times more worth than a tiff, and a thousand times more worth than a jpg.

      You will get much better and higher quality results from editing a raw file than from editing a tiff.

      And although you may be pleased with the way you have edited an image, as your skills improve, it is likely that you'll want to edit it again at a later stage. I've been working with raw files for almost 20 years, and I often re-edit older work, also because Camera Raw (or Lightroom Classic, which I use) is getting new features that makes is possible to do things I couldn't do previously.

        Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
        Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices