Saving or deleting ugly photos

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?

Substitute "poorly exposed or focussed" for "don't impress you", and
that's my approach.


3. Save everything to your computer and review it there -
deleting shots that don't impress you?

This is the second level,where one can see in more detail if a shot is
technically acceptable, and start to make aesthetic decisions.


4. Save everything, impressive or not?

If you own stock in Seagate or WD or Maxtor, sure


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?

Edit, edit, then edit again, where editing means to eliminate photos
that don't make the cut. When you get to where you're not comfortable
cutting any more, save them all.

Lisa

Hi,

Save everything, copied to CD-R, where you can store about 200 hi-res
pix for under $1. You never know when a seemingly ordinary picture
becomes important, or even priceless.
Mo

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?

"mort" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Save everything, copied to CD-R, where you can store about 200 hi-res
pix for under $1. You never know when a seemingly ordinary picture
becomes important, or even priceless.
Mo

Alan Meyer wrote:



I have a photo of John F. Kennedy -- pretty ordinary, as you described. I
was standing right by the side of the road, and he turned directly toward me
as the motorcade passed by. There is nothing wrong with the photo, but
there is also nothing "special" about it -- at least, there wasn't when I
first took it. The photo is like any of many, many others taken by
thousands of other people. However, it took on new meaning for me after the
assassination, just a few months later.

MaryL

Lisa Horton wrote:

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?

Substitute "poorly exposed or focussed" for "don't impress you", and
that's my approach.


3. Save everything to your computer and review it there -
deleting shots that don't impress you?

This is the second level,where one can see in more detail if a shot is
technically acceptable, and start to make aesthetic decisions.


4. Save everything, impressive or not?

If you own stock in Seagate or WD or Maxtor, sure
No, no,no. A blank CD-R that can hold 200 hi-res pix costs less than $1.
You definitely do not have to store pix on a hard drive.

Morton



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?

Edit, edit, then edit again, where editing means to eliminate photos
that don't make the cut. When you get to where you're not comfortable
cutting any more, save them all.

Lisa

Lisa Horton wrote:

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?

Substitute "poorly exposed or focussed" for "don't impress you", and
that's my approach.


3. Save everything to your computer and review it there -
deleting shots that don't impress you?

This is the second level,where one can see in more detail if a shot is
technically acceptable, and start to make aesthetic decisions.


4. Save everything, impressive or not?

If you own stock in Seagate or WD or Maxtor, sure
No, no,no. A blank CD-R that can hold 200 hi-res pix costs less than $1.
You definitely do not have to store pix on a hard drive.

Morton



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?

Edit, edit, then edit again, where editing means to eliminate photos
that don't make the cut. When you get to where you're not comfortable
cutting any more, save them all.

Lisa

On 27 Dec 2004 12:06:22 -0800, "Alan Meyer" wrote:

Excellent topic! Can't wait to read replies.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:14:05 -0500, "Cynicor"
wrote:

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.

What discipline! (And I'm not being a smart ass) I wish I had that
discipline. I seem to go at it hodge podge using method 1 through 4
at random!

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:14:05 -0500, "Cynicor"
wrote:

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.

What discipline! (And I'm not being a smart ass) I wish I had that
discipline. I seem to go at it hodge podge using method 1 through 4
at random!

Don Lathrop wrote:

I use ACDSee and Lupas Rename
a LOT.

I use ACDsee for the drag & drop rearrangement into a slide show and ACD
does an easy right click batch rename to freeze the new slide show
sequence with numbers:

01-DSC_5354++.jpg
02-DSC_5331.jpg
03-DSC_5330+.jpg

ACD is quick loading thumbs & browsing but chokes moving files for some
reason.

ThumbsPlus is good for moving into the reject folder but slow building
thumbs.

Irfanview is crap with thumbnails but super fast as my default file
association to load & scroll thru a folder & display full screen and
rename with the F7 key to add plusses for shots that really grab me.
ALT-F-E opens the file in photoshop.

I always (try to remember to) keep the unique file number 5354 in
DSC_5354.JPG when renaming with clever names so I can find the original
if needed:

DSC_5354-rare-lightning-show++++.jpg

An when I remember, I use ACD to rename the extension to lower case JPG
jpg for web consistency.

paul wrote:

I use ACDsee for the drag & drop
rearrangement into a slide show ...

ThumbsPlus is good for moving into
the reject folder but slow building thumbs.

Irfanview is crap with thumbnails but
super fast as my default file association
to load & scroll thru a folder & display full
screen and rename with the F7 key ...

Frustrating, isn't it, to keep trial copies of
these and IMatch and half a dozen others,
all of which shine at one chore or another?

Add the five or six image editing applications
and the three or four video non-linear editors,
a few sound editors, a Ken Burns applet,
a few dozen plug-ins -- after a while you wish
Bill Gates really had sucked everything into
Windows Multimedia!