Adobe RGB vs Prophoto for long term archiving
So, my current workflow uses C1 sessions for editing and exporting the results as Tiff / Adobe RGB into a C1 catalogue for long term archival.
Should I consider using ProPhoto instead of Adobe RGB? I understand it's benefits and assume it's widely used, so I assume that if ever move away from C1, then LR etc would have support for using that catalogue's photos?
-
Permanently deleted userWhy not just archive the RAW files? Then colour space is irrelevant, and you can move to any other converter as you see fit. Moving to - say - Lr with tiffs doesn't really make sense anyway.
0 -
Hey Keith, I perhaps should have been more detailed. I do archive the raw files, but want to archive my processed edits hence the tiff files. As I don't want to be tied in to any workflow tool long term, I prefer to bake in the edits to the final file and have these simply organised by C1.
0 -
Hi Paul,
I understand you want to save your adjustments in TIFF, but my own experience is that when I come back to an old RAW, I process it in a different way than I did some years ago.... And it is always a pleasure to "revisit" old RAWs. I only backup (twice !!) RAWs, then. And I throw away all my TIFFs and JPEGs once they have been used for their relevant purpose (print, web,...).
But if you want to keep your TIFFs with adjustments, I would suggest to keep them with the Prophoto colour space : recent printers go beyond Adobe RGB for some colours.
0 -
Cheers Robert,
I hadn't really considered throwing away the edits. However, having thrown away all my edits a couple of years ago, I agree - revisiting old RAW files is particularly enjoyable, especially with my improved editing skills.
I'll mull that over for a while, but if I do continue archiving the edits, I can't see a real reason not to go ProPhoto.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
4 comments