# Medium Format Workflow (LR stitching best practices) **URL:** \ **Category:** Digital Camera Scanning\ **Created:** [January 28, 2020, 5:07am UTC](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/medium-format-workflow-lr-stitching-best-practices/1209 "2020-01-28T05:07:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![Digitizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@Digitizer](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/u/Digitizer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 12:10pm UTC](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/medium-format-workflow-lr-stitching-best-practices/1209/2 "2020-01-28T12:10:28Z")
> [@UOduck23](#): > > Then I got to thinking that I’d _lose some of the image quality_ and ability to print large which are big reasons to shoot medium format to begin with. Not to mention the corners on this lens would cause the image to vignette. So I began shooting 4 RAW images per frame (6x6 and 6x7) then merging in LR. The problem is that the DNG files were 200+ MB and that’s too big for me. _So I began to export the DNG as a JPEG with 100% quality_… Interesting and somehow contradictory. Your workflow delivers lots of pixels with a rather limited potential for tonal finesse, hmmm. What I do is similar, but I simply take one shot only. This is for cataloging and normal use. In case I want something really big, I can always rescan and stitch and live with that huge file, it’s not 100 in 100 but maybe just 1 in 100 - or not even that after all. How big a difference of keeping four shots vs. one stitched DNG that contains those four shots? Unless you keep both original and stitched files, the difference might be bearable. The magic lies in keeping track of the negatives. There’s at least one post dealing with this: [Organizing Negatives For Scanning](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/organizing-negatives-for-scanning/1131) --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/medium-format-workflow-lr-stitching-best-practices/1209)._