The Case for Letting Go: Why My Raw Files Don’t Live Forever

In the world of digital photography, there’s an unspoken rule: you must keep your raw files. They are the digital negatives, the pristine source from which all your beautiful JPEGs and prints are born. They offer ultimate flexibility, a safety net for future edits, and the promise of a do-over if your initial vision falls short. For many photographers, the thought of deleting them is akin to sacrilege.

But I’m here to make a case for the opposite. I’ve found that, for me, the vast majority of my raw files don’t need to live more than a few months. And the reason is simple, yet powerful: I’ve learned that I rarely, if ever, go back to edit an image that I’ve already finished.

The initial editing process is a critical part of my creative workflow. When I sit down to sort through a fresh batch of photos, I’m fully immersed in the moment, guided by the narrative of the shoot and the vision I had when I pressed the shutter. I cull ruthlessly, selecting only the strongest images. Then, I pour my energy into them, making adjustments to colour, light, and composition. This is where I define the final look, the definitive version that I’m proud to share. The edited JPEG is the final product, the culmination of my effort and artistic intent.

And here’s the key realisation: once that final image is exported and shared, it’s done. The creative journey for that specific photograph has concluded. The chances of me revisiting it to apply a different colour grade, crop it in a new way, or “fix” something I initially missed are slim to none (and if I have to use the jpeg, I know it has more than enough flexibility for most things!). My time and creative energy are better spent on new projects, new shoots, and new challenges.

Think about it this way: how often do you truly go back to re-edit a photograph you were happy with? Do you find yourself sifting through years-old raw files, trying to find a new perspective on an image you’ve already published? For most of us, the answer is rarely, if ever. We are constantly moving forward, creating new work. The raw files from a wedding shot three years ago, or a landscape captured last autumn, are likely just taking up space on a hard drive, a digital archive that we’ll never open.

Of course, there are exceptions. A photographer working for a major publication or a client with a long-term contract may need to maintain an archive for future use. But for the vast majority of personal and freelance work, the need to keep every single raw file is a myth.

So, a few months after a project is complete, I do a final review. I make sure I have all the edited images I need, and then, with a clear conscience, I let go. This process is not about being careless; it’s about being deliberate. It’s about recognising the finished product for what it is and freeing up my digital space and mental energy for what’s next.

This approach isn’t for everyone. But for me, it’s a practice that reinforces the finality of my work and encourages me to be confident in my initial creative decisions. It allows me to move on and, in a way, it keeps me present. The real magic happens in the creation, not in the endless possibility of re-editing. And once that magic is captured, there’s no need to cling to the ghost of what could have been. The finished photograph is enough.

Published by Mark G Adams

Nikon Documentary Photographer, Creator, Tutor, YouTuber & Blogger. Capturing moments, sharing thoughts and ideas in images, reviews and more.

6 thoughts on “The Case for Letting Go: Why My Raw Files Don’t Live Forever

  1. The other exception I raise is for scientific work, such as many of my bryological and ecological macrophotographs. Some of these want to have measurements made of them, so getting as close as possible to the original light pattern is critical.

    — Jan

    Jan Galkowski

    Westwood, MA 02090

    607.239.1834

    bayesianlogic.1@gmail.com

    (pronouns: he, him, his)

    member, American Bryological and Lichenological Society (ABLS)

    member, New England Botanical Society

    member, Association to Preserve Cape Cod

    member, British Bryological Society

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting read, Mark. I’m actually on the same page as you, but went the opposite way. I used to keep all my RAWs after finishing a series, but realized they eat up space and indeed, I rarely revisit them – except for special edits like HDR or IR. Since I work in RawTherapee, every edit is saved in a (only few kb) PP3 file, so I can always recreate the JPEG. That made it obvious for me: ditch the JPEGs, keep the RAWs. Different choice, same reasoning. Either way, your article is solid food for thought – storage space doesn’t lie. All the best, Marc.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you, the reason I choose jpeg as the final resting place for my images is of course two-fold. Jpegs can be read anywhere and are universal, on any machine, without any raw editors and I use cloud storage and share the images a lot of course.

      Oh! And of course I take thousands of images, which all tally up as raw files that I never go back to!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Makes perfect sense, Mark. JPEGs are universal, easy to share, and perfect for cloud storage. Different approaches, same goal – and that’s why we work so well together. Like you said before: our workflows may differ, but both make perfect sense. For many, your choice will probably be the better one. You even have me second-guessing myself now – have a great evening, Mark!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to ecoquant Cancel reply