On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> By this time next year, it'll be about half that. If my time is worth any >> money at all, it's practically not worth the time to go through the bother >> of deleting them. > > Whenever I can't think of a better reason for keeping a shot than how > cheap and easy it is to do so, I know that's a photograph that isn't > worth keeping.
You make a good point. My current rating system is: 0: not yet rated 1: completely unsalvageable 2: technically blown, but there may be a reason to try to salvage it 3: Nothing technically bad, but nothing particularly noteworthy (unless you happen to be in the photo and it's the only picture that anyone has taken of you doing something you enjoy) 4: Good enough to post on the web 5: Good enough to print All of the photos rated 1 & 2 get deleted. Eventually, all that remains will go into a big archive, with the ones rated 4 and up staying in a more active archive. I also want to eventually change my rating system by bumping everything down a notch: 0: not yet rated 1: delete when convenient 2: meh, ( but might be interesting to the people in it or if the people in it are one day famous) 3: web worthy 4: print worthy 5: possibly show worthy I could spend a lot more time deciding which shots I want to disappear forever, though I frequently have people asking about shots that I'd rate a 3, because they are special to them. It's easier for me to just shuffle off the vast majority to digital purgatory, than to spend the time carefully sorting them out to "I'll never want" and "I might want at some time in the future". YMMV -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
