Leftover thriftiness from you film days?

On Jan 23, 7:21*am, John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:41:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote in :





Robert Coe wrote:
Trust me when I tell you that I'm not good enough to justify doing as you
suggest. I'm a packrat by nature, and if I throw away 60% of my shots, those
shots deserved their fate. Those that aren't technically or compositionally
deficient are duplicative of other shots that were marginally (or
considerably) better.

What may be getting lost in this discussion is that the only thing that
matters is the result. If I shoot 20 pictures and save one, and you shoot
three pictures and save one, each of us has one picture to show and/or enjoy.
If your picture is at least as good as mine, you can ignore my suggestion to
save more, If it isn't, you might want to consider taking more shots.

(Note that when I say "you", I don't mean *you*, Ron, especially since you
aren't really disputing my original premise. It's a generic "you".) *;^)
I think the difference is in what is being photographed. *If one is
trying to photograph a person (portrait), then keeping only 1 in 20
shots would make sense. *However, tossing 40% of your vacation shots
means you either don't know how to compose your shots, and just shoot
haphazardly, and discard the ones you don't like, or you don't like to
see a lot of pictures.

Depends on personal style. *I take lots of vacation shots of a given
subject with the intention of only keeping the best one, and take lots
of experimental shots that I know are probably not going to work out.
Labeling that as "haphazardly" or "don't know how to compose" is
judgmental and a bit insulting. *What matters is the result. *Note how
many trial images Ansel Adams would typically take before the one that
got published and became famous. *The best way to learn and to discover
is to take *lots* of images.

I think you missed the second part of what Ron said, "or you don't
like to
see a lot of pictures." Whereas Adams most likely took far more shots
then he published I doubt he threw away many of them.

Like you I take a lot of shots, but I don't throw away any of my raw
files and will only trim out maybe 5%-10% of my jpeg images, that were
converted from raw.

There have been times that we have gone back to the same spot years
later and I wanted to compare before and after shots, sometime it is
the weaker looking before shot that is of more interest. For example
a photo that is mostly an empty field that now has a shopping mall on
it might be interesting now, but might not look worthwhile saving when
first taken. It is so easy to just keep everything that for me at
least it does not make sense to edit down my raw photo collection.

Scott


Scott

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:19:10 -0600, nick hull wrote:
: In article ,
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:16:04 -0600, nick hull wrote:
: : In article ,
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: :
: : If you're not already a world-class photographer with the best equipment
: : money
: : can buy (and maybe even if you are), and if if you throw away fewer than
: : 60%
: : of the pictures you take, either you're being insufficiently aggressive
: : in
: : culling your images or you're not clicking the shutter enough.
: :
: : I'll second that; 30 years ago I took a lot of underwater pictures (on
: : film) and everyone marveled at how good they were. They were good
: : because I threw 90% of them away and only kept the best
:
: Which brings up another of my pet slogans. To most contributors to this
: newsgroup, I'm just restating the obvious, but I'll say it anyway: A good
: picture doesn't look better when displayed with other, poorer pictures. It
: looks better when displayed with other good pictures.
:
: I've seen many pictures that looked great thru the viewfinder but crap
: on film, the film sees different than the eye

So does the digital sensor! ;^)