Life after the scan (LR catalog management)

[froyd]

Contemplating taking scanning duty in house, rather than relying on a lab. I have read quite a bit on various scanners and scanning technique, but what I'd like to better understand is how other people manage their scanned files.

As far as I understand it, after scanning, I'll end up with a rather large TIFF file which will need further processing in my editor of choice. I use LR as my main catalogue and quick edit program, with PSE covering the few cases where LR cannot help.

Do you save the TIFF file in a separate folder from your processed images?
Do you catalog the TIFF or just the processed file?

My current filing structure is chronological and quite simple: images are copied (via LR) into folders labeled YYMM and sometime YYMM event (e.g. 1408 or 1408 Galapagos). I could add the TIFF into the appropriate folders using the current structure, or create a parallel folder structure under the sub-directory SCANS, e.g. Scans/1408/xxxxx.TIFF

My goal is to handle the TIFF as little as possible after the initial conversion to JPG, so I'm planing to export edited JPG images to avoid to work from the large TIFF all the time. This will create multiple versions of each image (TIFF + exported JPG) but that's not big deal, given the small size of JPGs.

In any case, please share how you manage and catalog your scanned files.

 

[Alan Klein]

LR doesn't modify the image file. It only creates a data file for each edit. The TIFF file remains untouched. You can even create virtual copies of the TIFF file and edit differently. You still only have one original TIFF file, just with different edits data files. So I don't see the advantage of not using the original TIFF file. It's "cleaner" than any jpg. The only question I have that someone else will have to answer is what happens to files when you also use Elements as you have to actually save a file after edits made by Elements or Photoshop.

 

[froyd]

I'm fully on board with your reasoning, Alan. It's just that LR and my whole computer would move a little faster if I worked from JPGs when going to print or create books, or put together web albums. For now I have decided to go with plan A, outline in my initial post: Add the flat-scanned TIFF to the catalog, develop a version with my adjustments and save it as a virtual copy. Having a parallel folder structure where I keep uncataloged scan TIFF seems like it will be a headache in the long run. Might be worth it if those were RAW scans though, correct? It would be a time-saving alternative to goign to my negs and rescanning them if I ever wanted to access the RAW scan data.

...All I know is that I'm very confused!

 

[pdeeh]

What Alan is saying is that LR is non-destructive.
Once you import your TIFFs, that TIFF remains exactly as it was when it was first imported - LR does not modify it.
From LR you can create (export) as many jpegs (or other formats) as you like. LR will associate the TIFF and jpeg made from it, if you want, so the catlogue keeps track of everything tidily.

This is how I handle my scans:
Make raw scans using either silverfast8 or vuescan, depending on which scanner and thus film format I am handling.
convert the resultant tiffs into positives using negfix8
save the original raw scan as a backup to a separate location.
import the converted tiffs to LR, adding keywords and whatnot.
I happen to catalogue my files by camera and then date, but you can organise your catalogue how ever you wish.

I like the security of keeping the "original" file intact and backed up, but tbh I only ever use digitised versions for sharing on the web, rather than hybrid printing - so if all my scans disappeared i'd be peeved but not crushed - I've still got my negatives for the darkroom

I put a description of negfix8 in the hybrid group over at APUG btw

 

[jovo]

I scan into LR, but understand that PSE only works with 8 bit files which seriously compromise quality, and prohibit certain kinds of manipulations. It's fine for on-line presentation, but not for making digiprints. So...either work with the TIFF files in the Develop module, or export to the full version of PS or a similar program that handles 16 bit files.

 

[rbultman]

Here is what I do using Vuescan and LR which results in the original TIFF files being untouched:

1) Scan to a directory ("scans") using Vuescan. I set Vuescan to automatically create the file names. My file naming is simply the roll and frame number resulting in a name like Roll-50-Frame-04.dng. The files are TIFF in dng format I also allow Vuescan to neg-pos inversion. I scan these to TIFF/DNG and also save a JPG simply as a kind of thumbnail. I never touch the JPG as it is a lossy format.
2) Import the TIFF file and convert to DNG in LR. The files get converted and copied to a different destination on import. I make a virtual folder (i don't remember exactly what this is called in LR) for the images by roll number.
3) Alter them in LR to my hearts content. These are the copies that LR made when the files were imported.
4) Move the TIFF files originally scanned from the "scans" directory to another directory ("/scans/camera/roll 50")
5) All of my negatives go into PrintFile pages and are labeled by roll number.
6) Each negative pages goes in a 3-ring notebook. I print a negative information page that goes with the negative page that contains information about the film, camera, date, exposure info, development info, and other notes as needed.

OK, I know that is more than with the OP asked for, but my system allows me to go back and forth between the negative, original TIFF scan, and altered files in LR. The three-ring notebook serves as my ultimate back up as it requires no power. I also periodically back up my original TIFF scan directory to a second computer. I have been meaning to use an off-site storage solution, like Carbonite, but have not done so yet.

Note: As stated in other responses, LR does not alter the original (imported) TIFF/DNG files. I'm not sure how it handles JPG but I believe it does alter the JPG file and does so in a manner that you cannot get the original JPG back. It is possible to come back to an "altered" (imported) TIFF/DNG after some time (weeks/months/years), undo all of the changes to a file, and get back the original TIFF image since LR does not alter the original TIFF image.

Another way to think about how LR "alters" an image is like a recipe. A recipe does not cook the meal for you. A recipe is a set of steps that when followed result in a meal. LR saves the steps that you do when you "alter" an image in LR instead of altering the file itself. It saves these steps as a recipe that gets "cooked" every time you open an image in LR that you have altered.

Import your TIFF's into LR and "edit" them knowing that the original TIFF is not really altered.

 

[lenny]

Contemplating taking scanning duty in house, rather than relying on a lab. I have read quite a bit on various scanners and scanning technique, but what I'd like to better understand is how other people manage their scanned files.

I wouldn't choose those methods.... it would really help if you would tell us what you are doing. Are you making some images for a web site? A family album? Are you planning on making large exhibition prints? What you are trying to accomplish makes a huge difference in how you go about it...

 

[froyd]

I wouldn't choose those methods.... it would really help if you would tell us what you are doing. Are you making some images for a web site? A family album? Are you planning on making large exhibition prints? What you are trying to accomplish makes a huge difference in how you go about it...

Happy to oblige.

Most of the use is digital printing for framed prints around my house and in self-published photo books (e.g. Blurb). I share images occasionally on forums and on Flickr but those uses are secondary for me and I'm not concerned about quality. Usually, after I prep a file for print, I just re-size it for web posing, but don't process it any differently for screen.


rbultman's system is something I read about from other users. Archive the RAW scan for future re-processing, but in a separate directory from the processed image. I thought about that, but it seems beyond my needs.


One thing I learned from 23 years of photography is that I very rarely go back to old material. I have almost every negative worth keeping filed with matching contact prints. My binders have a quick reference sheet with broad descriptions of what's on each roll... yet, I've reprinted no more than a handful of old negatives over the years. If I don't print something from a negative within a year of developing it, it is extremely unlikely I will go back and work on it years later.

I expect this is as much part of my personality as it is a work method and I expect it to be similar to the way I'll work with scans: preview a roll, identify keepers, scan them flat (little/no adjustments), import into LR, process within a week and mark the images to be printed right away or select candidates for the photobook. If I kept RAW scan somewhere, I'm not sure I would ever need them, based on personal habits.

 

[lenny]

Generally, you get scans in tiff. I open them in Photoshop, do any work I want to and then save it as a psd or psb. I don't archive the tiff because I don't do any destructive modifications. Everything is done with an adjustment layer. I use a RIP that expects a flattened tiff so when i am ready to print I duplicate the image, flatten it, sharpen if necessary and save. I don't downsize to 300 or any other dpi, I just send the printer whatever it is.

I do the same duplicating and flattening if I were saving for web. (And a conversion to jpeg.)

I use folders to identify what images are where, based upon my own setup, vs something that Lightroom forces on me...

Lenny

 

[Doyle Thomas]

I use a RIP that expects a flattened tiff

im very interested in RIP (colorburst) if it would truly improve print quality. I rarely keep raw files and don't do much post process in Light Room, generally just global color balance and exposure. then becomes the background layer in Photoshop. if needed I do noise reduction and spotting on a bg copy and flatten to conserve file size before additional editing. I never want to see spots and noise again anyway.