How much work can be done with jpgs and still be archived as "virgin"?

[dtraughber]

After reading both DAM books, and looking through the forum, I'm not clear on how much I can do with jpgs "safely" before archiving. Can sorting, re-naming, culling, and/or adding contact/copyright info be done and the files still be considered "virgin"?

My situation: I shoot often and a lot of images. Because the subjects are mostly wildlife and native plants, and most shooting is handheld, a lot of culling is in order (due to blurring of plants moving in wind, or subjects on the move). I do not want to keep everything, no matter how cheap storage is!

These legacy files are jpgs. I'm in the process of bucketizing, and doing DVD backup. I've sorted and renamed files (IVMP). Many files have added contact/copyright info (Lightroom2), and have been culled along the way. No adjustment settings were made.  Is this considered "altering the archived originals"?

After backups, I'll go to the working files on the computer and rate and keyword. So that much will go into the catalog, and not into the file itself.

Now, does the above still conform with what the book states: "When you first archive your images they will be saved along with any embedded metadata, and that metadata will be included in the backups of the archived files."

Right now I'm backing up and racing against time with the recent Seagate internal hard drive issues. Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

d traughber

[peterkrogh]

Dadre,
For JPEGs, the most important thing to consider when creating a virgin archive is to refrain from any image adjustments. Any rename or metadata is just fine.
Don't let this part worry you, keep moving ahead.
Peter

[dtraughber]

Thank you Peter. I needed to hear that! I appreciate your immediate response.

Looks like my archive is still intact.

I've been working long hours for days, doing deep backup and system logistics. The issue with Seagate forced me to move forward with making buckets for about 750 GB of photos. I've burned more than 200 DVDs, all at x6 speed, on two optical drives. All the bucket work was done on one of the problem drives. It was tedious and stressful knowing that the drive could go at any moment. I could have done this from a backup drive but wanted to get it from the primary drive instead.

The good news is that a lot of headway was made with the archive. It will have to be bucketed again after being culled. After trying to get information on how to update the firmware on the Seagates and running into deadends, I've decided to take the drive out and deal with it later. If it dies, it dies.

This situation has made me re-think the reality of computers. I was getting too comfortable and complacent after switching to the Mac, as everything had been going so very smoothly. But hard drives will be hard drives.

There's a new 1TB (not Seagate, mind you) replacement and more RAM sitting here waiting to be installed. If that goes well, that will make me very happy.

The other thing that is a bright spot is YOUR new book! It's a gem and a life-saver.

Thanks again,

dadre

[peterkrogh]

Dadre,
Thanks for the nice words.
Indeed, I think people get too complacent. Magnetic media can break completely, and I worry that people rely on t a bit too much.
Burning the disks is a pain, but it is a wonderful fail-safe if the worst happens to your drives.
Peter

BTW, always looking for more reviews on Amazon.

[Dick Holtman]

I have been reading the Dam book with much pleasure. I learned a lot!

My main question is the definition of original files. If I understand correctly a image file is original when the image is not changed. However the metadata can be updated one of more times. So the file is handled one or more time and each time there is the risc of damage.

If there is one tool with I would trust with my images to change the metadata then it is ExifTool. But even ExifTool has bugs.
I made a search on the history page of Exiftool and found the word "Fixed" more than 370 times. So this will effect the quality of my original archive.

I have the same question with the use of DNG. When I read the information on the Exiftool site about DNG http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/DNG.html I get nervous.

I hope that companies as Canon and Nikon will start support the DNG format.

I would like to hear your opinion.

[peterkrogh]

Dick,
I think you're right on, mostly here.
Keep in mind, though, that the risk is small, and if you use backups like outlined in the book, you'd be well-protected even if you were among the few unlucky ones.

THis is one reason I suggest updating metadata only on occasion, rather than at each change.
Peter