Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Saving or deleting ugly photos

Tags:
  • Photo
  • Cameras
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 3:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?

More about : saving deleting ugly photos

December 27, 2004 4:31:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:13:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 27 Dec 2004 12:06:22 -0800, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> 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"
Related resources
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:14:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> 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.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:34:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:
....
> What do you tend to do? Why?

I don't know what kind of answers I was expecting, but I got some
really useful ones that gave me some new ways to think about this
problem.

I've been saving most good and bad photos together in the same
directories. The result is that 1) I wind up flipping through lots of
dross to find the photos I really like, and 2) I get depressed seeing
what a poor photographer I am.

I think I'm going to work up some kind of scheme like others have done
here to put better and worse photos in separate locations, or name them
separately, or something like that. I'll study what you folks have
suggested and think about it.
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear any more ideas.

Thanks.

Alan
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:04:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104177982.954611.74590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.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
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> writes:
> I think I'm going to work up some kind of scheme like others have done
> here to put better and worse photos in separate locations, or name them
> separately, or something like that. I'll study what you folks have
> suggested and think about it.

There are a bunch of programs that put up thumbnails and let you
caption them. You could assign a rating (A=excellent, etc.) to each
photo as you caption it, recording the rating either as part of the
caption or in a separate field. Then when you browse, you could
look at just the A's, or only stuff higher than D, or whatever.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:23:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:24:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:-eWdnWM9EqHP4k3cRVn-sw@speakeasy.net...
> I'm running out of hard drive space quickly but up till now I've been
> saving almost everything.

I just bought a 250 GB hard drive at Best Buy for $99 after rebate.
December 27, 2004 8:24:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cynicor wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:-eWdnWM9EqHP4k3cRVn-sw@speakeasy.net...
>
>>I'm running out of hard drive space quickly but up till now I've been
>>saving almost everything.
>
>
> I just bought a 250 GB hard drive at Best Buy for $99 after rebate.

That ought to last a while, I got a new laptop as a desktop replacement
& you can't get bigger than 80 GB. I do have my old 120GB for backup on USB.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 9:17:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:

> Meanwhile, I'd love to hear any more ideas.

I forgot to mention that sometimes I use
Lupas Rename to batch rename entire
directories. It's a very handy application
that attaches to the right-click menu,
allowing you to bring it up from the Windows
Explorer. You can select files by extension,
prefix, suffix and so on, and can renumber,
add prefixes, suffixes, substitute text and
so on. I use ACDSee and Lupas Rename
a LOT.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 9:46:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104177982.954611.74590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
> So, my question is, how selective are you in keeping photos?
>
<snip>
> What do you tend to do? Why?
>

Keep in mind that this answer comes from a *complete* amateur. However,
here is what I do. I review pictures as soon as taking them as possible.
However, I only delete those where it is obvious that they are absolutely
unusable. Otherwise, I keep everything because I have often found that I
really can't see enough detail on the camera. Some shots that I thought
were inferior turned out to be much better than I expected after viewing
them on the computer screen (especially with some selective cropping and my
limited attempts at contrast control). I haven't even gotten into
histograms, but I am interested in this if I can learn enough to
"understand" it. More often, shots that I thought looked good on the camera
screen turn out to be unacceptable when viewed on the computer monitor.
Even so, I keep most pictures. I have a very large (and fast) hard disk, so
I don't mind the extra resources used in this way. I keep files labeled
"All 2004 pictures," "All 2003 pictures," etc. That is where I store the
originals. I never edit them in any way, and I keep the original filenames
generated by the camera. Then, I maintain folders by categories of pictures
that I want to view from time to time -- "family," "pets," "travel -
subcategorized by location," etc. There I store *copies* of the originals,
and these are the copies where I do some cropping and editing. I also
rename them by using descriptive filenames instead of the numerical sequence
assigned by the camera. And, of course, I greatly restrict the number
placed in these folders so that they won't get out of control.

MaryL
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:12:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104177982.954611.74590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.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.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:27:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:27:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> 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.
December 28, 2004 12:31:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:31:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"mort" <mort@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:41D0C582.ACCB42DA@cloud9.net...
> 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
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 1:13:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 1:17:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:
....
>> 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.

After reading some of the other replies I have to add something. It is
not storage space that is the primary reason for dumping duds, rather it is
my time. I just don't want to bother looking through all the duds to fine
the few really good images. I will often make several cuts, getting rid of
the real problems the first time, then the marginal ones and after a couple
of more cuts I get down to just the really good ones I am proud of or that I
must keep for other reasons.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
December 28, 2004 1:18:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 2:15:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?

I'll only delete shots that are severely screwed up (lens cap on,
pointing at feet, flash didn't go off in a dark room), and even then, I
can rarely be bothered... with a paif of 512MB CF cards, I can get
150-200 RAW shots out of my DRebel before I have to start worrying about
running out of space, even more on various JPG settings, so space is
rarely a consideration.

> 2. Review all your shots in the camera when time permits,
> deleting those that don't impress you?

See above. The on-camera LCD is generally too small to tell whether a
shot is all that good or not, unless you KNOW it's messed up royally anyway.

> 3. Save everything to your computer and review it there -
> deleting shots that don't impress you?
>
> 4. Save everything, impressive or not?

I tend to keep just about everything, except as noted, the ones that are
obviously useless. You just never know what you may have captured that
might be useful later.

> 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.

True, but at least in the digital realm, it's not much of a problem.
Storage space is cheap: big hard drives can be had for under a dollar
per gigabyte - that's less than half a cent each to store a RAW 6.3MP
image. DVD+/-R discs can be found for 30 cents each, or just over 6
cents per gigabyte (not counting the cost of the drive, but at <$100 you
make up the difference quickly).
> What do you tend to do? Why?
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:51:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:

>
> 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 prefer to view everything on the computer screen with one hand near
the delete button. If I am shooting in RAW, I am sure to trash both the
jpeg and the RAW file. If I can do this fairly soon after shooting, I
will learn more, and save fewer duds/duplicates/eyes closed.

If I'm in the field and have plenty of time, I am likely to trash images
in the camera.

The exceptions would seem to be if the subject is a loved one; there all
but the really horrible ones are saved.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 6:53:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 27 Dec 2004 12:06:22 -0800, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:

Excellent topic! Can't wait to read replies.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 6:55:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:14:05 -0500, "Cynicor"
<j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> 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! :( 
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:30:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I keep every single picture I have been taken since 2000 digitally.That is,
if the picture is totally dark, totally blured, or in anyway totally defect
technically, it will be deleted when I review it on the PC.

I have had a 1Mp camera before. Now I have a 5 Mp camera, and perhaps I will
change the procedure becuase of the more space it will ocupy on disks and
backups.

Regards, Lars.

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104177982.954611.74590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.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?
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:30:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lars Bonnesen" <noone@none.invalid> writes:
> I keep every single picture I have been taken since 2000 digitally...
> I have had a 1Mp camera before. Now I have a 5 Mp camera, and perhaps I will
> change the procedure becuase of the more space it will ocupy on disks and
> backups.

Disks and backups today are typically much more than 5x larger than
they were in 2000, so you shouldn't need to change your procedures.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 10:00:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lars Bonnesen <noone@none.invalid> wrote:
>I keep every single picture I have been taken since 2000 digitally.That is,
>if the picture is totally dark, totally blured, or in anyway totally defect
>technically, it will be deleted when I review it on the PC.

>I have had a 1Mp camera before. Now I have a 5 Mp camera, and perhaps I will
>change the procedure becuase of the more space it will ocupy on disks and
>backups.

>Regards, Lars.

I do the same and keep all but the totally ruined ones. When
I have the time, I look at the bad ones in more detail and
see if there is anything worth salvaging, such as "is this the
only picture of the grandson at birth" pic. Then I get rid
of the losers.

However, storage is so cheap that there is no reason why you
can't keep them all, unless 90% of the shots you take are ruined...
:-)

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 12:07:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:05:49 -0600, "Don Lathrop" <dl682@concrete.not>
wrote:

>Alan Meyer wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, I'd love to hear any more ideas.
>
>I save all my raw images in a hard drive
>folder with a folder name that starts with
>the date, then includes some info, like this:
....
>When I'm ready to save, I save to a subfolder
>under the original, named for the type of
>image I've created. So I end up with this folder
>scheme:
....
>Some of the shots might be copied out to a
>higher-order folder with a specialized purpose,
>like this:
....
>Now all this said, I often rename images to
>descriptive names, scatter them in junk folders
>and have a heck of a time figuring out where
>they came from!

What I do is to get everything into Photoshop format (.psd) as soon as
possible, after which most variations can be made and saved in a
single file. For example, the black-and-white version can live
alongside the full-colour version, just as 1 or 2 adjustment layers.
Even if I sharpen or blur, I do it by copying the background layer and
applying the filter to the new layer, so I could turn that tweak on or
off, or redo it.

To save on space, I use the UNIX underpinnings of Mac OS X to create
symbolic links to the original files. For example, I'll have a
directory full of pictures, all taken on the same day but encompassing
different subjects. I'll make two more directories, each for one of
the specialized subjects, and fill each with symlinks to all the
original files. Then in whatever file-browsing application is most
convenient, I'll delete all the irrelevant files from these new
directories; only the links go away, the original files aren't
touched. I can rename the files in the specialized directories to
have descriptive names, but the original files off in the main
directory still have their IMG_1234.JPG names. (Only ran into a
problem with one viewer program, which when asked to delete a symbolic
link, would follow it and delete the original file instead.)

Another way of filtering is to use the "Flag" function in the
Photoshop file browser. Make a directory full of all the shots on a
particular subject, then flag only the best ones that deserve to be
printed or uploaded, and hide all the unflagged ones.

The only time I create other versions is when resizing for a
particular medium. For the web, I'll auto-resize/rescale a whole
bunch of files to a particular width or height; those files can be
thrown away because that operation is easy to repeat anytime.

I'm wondering if it's practical in Photoshop to crop to 4x6, 8x10,
etc. and save that info all in the original file. For example, select
a 4x6 region and save an alpha channel, select an 8x10 region and save
another alpha channel. That way, maybe the cropped versions wouldn't
need to be kept around, they could be regenerated as needed, with the
crop area tweaked a little if necessary.

John
January 4, 2005 12:45:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MaryL" <carstan101@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote in
news:10t1jf3clftol76@corp.supernews.com:

> I have a photo of John F. Kennedy -- pretty ordinary, as you
[snip]
> However, it took on new meaning for me after the assassination, just a
> few months later.


OK, but suppose you had 20 of them, only one of which was in focus. Still
keep them all?

Bob
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 12:45:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95D3AAF249EC8j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
> "MaryL" <carstan101@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote in
> news:10t1jf3clftol76@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> I have a photo of John F. Kennedy -- pretty ordinary, as you
> [snip]
>> However, it took on new meaning for me after the assassination, just a
>> few months later.
>
>
> OK, but suppose you had 20 of them, only one of which was in focus. Still
> keep them all?

Can you stack the 19 blurry photos to create an image that shows he was
wearing a wire on his back?
!