If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Saving or deleting ugly photos
I heard a very experienced professional National Geographic
photographer interviewed on TV talking about some of the differences between film and digital. One difference he noted was that, with digital, he tended to review his shots in camera and delete those that he thought were no good. With film, he sent his exposed film back to headquarters where his editor looked at it before he did - sometimes choosing an image to publish that the photographer would have thrown away. Only later, after the photo editor singled it out for him, did he realize that it was a great shot. He thought that some photos were only recognized later for being as good as they were. So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos? Do you: 1. Review a shot immediately after taking it and delete it if it doesn't impress you? 2. Review all your shots in the camera when time permits, deleting those that don't impress you? 3. Save everything to your computer and review it there - deleting shots that don't impress you? 4. Save everything, impressive or not? It seems the closer we get to number 1 above, the more likely we are to delete good photos by accident. But the closer we get to number 4, the more likely we are to hang on to reams of useless, embarrassing dross. What do you tend to do? Why? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Meyer" wrote in message ups.com... So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos? Do I have never ever deleted a single RAW. There have been times when I have breathed a sigh of relief at this, when finding something I just -knew- I had somewhere. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Meyer" wrote: So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos? Do you: 1. Review a shot immediately after taking it and delete it if it doesn't impress you? 2. Review all your shots in the camera when time permits, deleting those that don't impress you? 3. Save everything to your computer and review it there - deleting shots that don't impress you? 4. Save everything, impressive or not? It seems the closer we get to number 1 above, the more likely we are to delete good photos by accident. But the closer we get to number 4, the more likely we are to hang on to reams of useless, embarrassing dross. What do you tend to do? Why? When I review a pic on the camera, I'll delete it if it's badly blurred or if it didn't come out - like the corner of a room instead of a person's face, or if something walks in front of the lens. Otherwise, I save EVERYTHING, usually in both JPG and RAW. I make daily directories with shooting information in the name (like "1998-12-11 XMas tree and sideboard") so that I can browse through the directory quickly. I can make more than one directory with the same date ("2004-12-25 Christmas" and "2004-12-25 Moon") if I'm shooting more than one thing. I name them yyyy-mm-dd so that they automatically sort by date. But yeah, everything's saved if it's legible. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Meyer wrote: I heard a very experienced professional National Geographic photographer interviewed on TV talking about some of the differences between film and digital. One difference he noted was that, with digital, he tended to review his shots in camera and delete those that he thought were no good. With film, he sent his exposed film back to headquarters where his editor looked at it before he did - sometimes choosing an image to publish that the photographer would have thrown away. Only later, after the photo editor singled it out for him, did he realize that it was a great shot. He thought that some photos were only recognized later for being as good as they were. So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos? Do you: 1. Review a shot immediately after taking it and delete it if it doesn't impress you? 2. Review all your shots in the camera when time permits, deleting those that don't impress you? 3. Save everything to your computer and review it there - deleting shots that don't impress you? 4. Save everything, impressive or not? It seems the closer we get to number 1 above, the more likely we are to delete good photos by accident. But the closer we get to number 4, the more likely we are to hang on to reams of useless, embarrassing dross. What do you tend to do? Why? Hi Alan Not at all qualified to answer, not a photographer, just a guy that takes tons of pictures... nevertheless, I'll offer my 2 cents worth, and include a reason, if I may. I'd suggest that with the possible exception of bracketed shots that you save every single one of 'em. Storage is so cheap that it's virtually free, and you never ever know what's going to tug at your (or someone else) heart strings later on in life. Got me a picture of my youngest about 30 years ago. A slide. Back in the days of manual focus. So badly out of focus, so poorly exposed that only I really know who she is and what she's doing. So bad that it never even made it to a tray, just stayed in the little yellow plastic box that Kodak mailed it back in. Back then it was totally valueless. Today, it's my most precious picture. If I had to somehow lose all but one, then in a heartbeat I'd pick that one to save. Brings back incredible memories for me (and for her) So - save 'em all. You never know what decades from now will be important to you. Take care. Ken |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Weitzel" wrote: Got me a picture of my youngest about 30 years ago. A slide. Back in the days of manual focus. So badly out of focus, so poorly exposed that only I really know who she is and what she's doing. So bad that it never even made it to a tray, just stayed in the little yellow plastic box that Kodak mailed it back in. Back then it was totally valueless. Today, it's my most precious picture. If I had to somehow lose all but one, then in a heartbeat I'd pick that one to save. Brings back incredible memories for me (and for her) So - save 'em all. You never know what decades from now will be important to you. I took some throwaway photos of my son when he was about 4 years old, at a firehouse a couple of blocks away from my father's apartment on the Upper East Side. They were nothing special at the time - he's standing next to the truck, looking at a firefighter, etc. They were very nice to him though, considering we just walked off the street because he wanted to see the engines. Four years later, a dozen men from that firehouse died on 9-11, and the pictures now provoke a very different emotional response. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Meyer" wrote in message ups.com... I heard a very experienced professional National Geographic photographer interviewed on TV talking about some of the differences between film and digital. One difference he noted was that, with digital, he tended to review his shots in camera and delete those that he thought were no good. With film, he sent his exposed film back to headquarters where his editor looked at it before he did - sometimes choosing an image to publish that the photographer would have thrown away. Only later, after the photo editor singled it out for him, did he realize that it was a great shot. He thought that some photos were only recognized later for being as good as they were. So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos? Do you: 1. Review a shot immediately after taking it and delete it if it doesn't impress you? 2. Review all your shots in the camera when time permits, deleting those that don't impress you? 3. Save everything to your computer and review it there - deleting shots that don't impress you? 4. Save everything, impressive or not? It seems the closer we get to number 1 above, the more likely we are to delete good photos by accident. But the closer we get to number 4, the more likely we are to hang on to reams of useless, embarrassing dross. What do you tend to do? Why? I am close to option 4. I save almost everything, but I do delede some very bad and very obvious duds. Uses a lot of disk space, but that is cheap. Don Dunlap |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Dec 2004 12:06:22 -0800, "Alan Meyer" wrote:
I heard a very experienced professional National Geographic photographer interviewed on TV talking about some of the differences between film and digital. One difference he noted was that, with digital, he tended to review his shots in camera and delete those that he thought were no good. With film, he sent his exposed film back to headquarters where his editor looked at it before he did - sometimes choosing an image to publish that the photographer would have thrown away. Only later, after the photo editor singled it out for him, did he realize that it was a great shot. He thought that some photos were only recognized later for being as good as they were. So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos? Do you: 1. Review a shot immediately after taking it and delete it if it doesn't impress you? 2. Review all your shots in the camera when time permits, deleting those that don't impress you? 3. Save everything to your computer and review it there - deleting shots that don't impress you? 4. Save everything, impressive or not? It seems the closer we get to number 1 above, the more likely we are to delete good photos by accident. But the closer we get to number 4, the more likely we are to hang on to reams of useless, embarrassing dross. What do you tend to do? Why? 3.8. Everything goes on the computer to see. Then the obvious bad shots get dumped. These are the out-of-focus shots, the ones where someone stepped in front, the snap shot (not *snapshot*) that didn't work at all. I find that often the ones that I would delete because they don't strike *me* as being any good are later seen (by myself or someone else) as something that's actually very decent. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I'm running out of hard drive space quickly but up till now I've been
saving almost everything. I'll download them & scoll through, either marking with a + in the name or simply moving them into/out of a "seconds" folder and sometimes even a "thirds" folder. If I edit a file, I stow the original in the seconds folder: I've also made a folder called "originals" for that but prefer to keep things simple. It is exhausting torture for me to go through the weeding process so I don't dare throw out things casually. As I go back to two year old archives, I'll pretty often find something interesting in the seconds folder. Also I do save a lot of pics because they capture the subject accurately but are not particularly beautiful compositions, usually that's when I get into a "thirds" scenario. Renaming with the plusses is also nice because I can search for "++" or "+++" and find the most gorgeous shots in a category quickly. OTOH I often re-discover unmarked pics later with no + mark. I think the guy above had the right idea about naming: 2004-12-27-rainstorm 2004-12-27-rainstorm-originals 2004-12-27-rainstorm-seconds 2004-12-27-rainstorm-web-version is better than what I've mostly done: 2004-12-27-rainstorm originals seconds web-version 2004-12-27-rainstorm Because you can see what you've got without opening folders & can move the seconds easily to backup when your hard drive fills up! Also I've moved my web versions into another folder so ultimately I'll have: C:\pictures 2004-12-27-rainstorm C:\web\pictures 2004-12-27-rainstorm D:\picture-extras 2004-12-27-rainstorm-originals 2004-12-27-rainstorm-seconds |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I'm running out of hard drive space quickly but up till now I've been
saving almost everything. I'll download them & scoll through, either marking with a + in the name or simply moving them into/out of a "seconds" folder and sometimes even a "thirds" folder. If I edit a file, I stow the original in the seconds folder: I've also made a folder called "originals" for that but prefer to keep things simple. It is exhausting torture for me to go through the weeding process so I don't dare throw out things casually. As I go back to two year old archives, I'll pretty often find something interesting in the seconds folder. Also I do save a lot of pics because they capture the subject accurately but are not particularly beautiful compositions, usually that's when I get into a "thirds" scenario. Renaming with the plusses is also nice because I can search for "++" or "+++" and find the most gorgeous shots in a category quickly. OTOH I often re-discover unmarked pics later with no + mark. I think the guy above had the right idea about naming: 2004-12-27-rainstorm 2004-12-27-rainstorm-originals 2004-12-27-rainstorm-seconds 2004-12-27-rainstorm-web-version is better than what I've mostly done: 2004-12-27-rainstorm originals seconds web-version 2004-12-27-rainstorm Because you can see what you've got without opening folders & can move the seconds easily to backup when your hard drive fills up! Also I've moved my web versions into another folder so ultimately I'll have: C:\pictures 2004-12-27-rainstorm C:\web\pictures 2004-12-27-rainstorm D:\picture-extras 2004-12-27-rainstorm-originals 2004-12-27-rainstorm-seconds |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Meyer wrote:
I heard a very experienced professional National Geographic photographer interviewed on TV talking about some of the differences between film and digital. One difference he noted was that, with digital, he tended to review his shots in camera and delete those that he thought were no good. With film, he sent his exposed film back to headquarters where his editor looked at it before he did - sometimes choosing an image to publish that the photographer would have thrown away. Only later, after the photo editor singled it out for him, did he realize that it was a great shot. He thought that some photos were only recognized later for being as good as they were. So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos? Do you: 1. Review a shot immediately after taking it and delete it if it doesn't impress you? 2. Review all your shots in the camera when time permits, deleting those that don't impress you? 3. Save everything to your computer and review it there - deleting shots that don't impress you? 4. Save everything, impressive or not? It seems the closer we get to number 1 above, the more likely we are to delete good photos by accident. But the closer we get to number 4, the more likely we are to hang on to reams of useless, embarrassing dross. What do you tend to do? Why? I review them as time permits. I dump everything I don't like. I have to please only myself, I don't really care if anyone else hates them or loves them. In the end, I'll bet most people who see my photos, would say I am a much better photographer than if I saved them all. -- Joseph Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
best compression for saving photos in jpeg? | Brian | Digital Photography | 14 | December 24th 04 12:59 PM |
iPod & saving photos | Roy | Digital Photography | 20 | October 26th 04 10:45 PM |
Saving old archived photos | Ron G | Digital Photography | 19 | August 24th 04 12:54 PM |
Scanning and saving old family photos | Big Bill | Digital Photography | 5 | July 14th 04 03:51 AM |
Scanning and saving old family photos | John Conrad | Digital Photography | 7 | July 12th 04 07:06 PM |