Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Mark Roberts wrote: 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. Needs keeping. In next year's book. That was easy. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Walt, here are my few pixels. Personally, I don't do montages, collages and other digital art forms. No specific reason except that I'd like to better myself as a photographer, not as a graphic artist. I don't have any specific /system/ as to how to decide which image to save and which to dispose of. Few random points * I tend to keep more weaker images if it has to do with my family/friends album, due to obvious emotional reasons. * I tend to keep photos from my international trips for similar reasons but I don't shoot like I am holding a machine gun, so it is not /that many/ images anyway. * Since I got K-7, I am this close to 10K shutter clicks. Had a look few days ago and under K-7 I have slightly less than 7K images in my collection. So, I reckon I delete (chimp off or otherwise later) about 1/3 of what I shoot. Given what Tanya and others said about the size of one's trash bin, I am pretty weak amateur ;-). Boris On 10/5/2010 7:37 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On 5/10/10, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed: Don't listen to Frank or Cotty is a good start. Now we know where you loyalties lie, eh Frank! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Wow! This thread really took off while I wasn't looking. In any event, it has been an extremely informative one. I wish I had time to reply to each person who responded, but I do thank you all for the many thoughtful answers. This has been a very educational thread for me -- lots of food for thought. I do have to say I've made one good decision since I started pursuing digital photography, and that was installing Picasa. I've seen where some have lamented its tendency to keep archives of original images, thus chewing up storage space on your hard drive. But, having spent the past few days going through those original images, I can't help but thank my lucky stars for that, given what I did to some of those images back when I had even less a clue than I do right now when it comes to editing and processing. I've really had a lot of fun with some of the images I didn't even bother with when I first started out because I found them overwhelming after a few hamfisted attempts. So, at least in a few instances, it's proven to be a bit of a boon to have the decision whether to keep a shot or delete it taken out of my hands. And, I suspect as I learn more about processing and editing as I go along, I'll develop a more discerning eye for what's treasure and what's trash. Thanks again, everyone. This has practically been a workshop. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
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 l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
I concur. There is no point in keeping stuff just because it is cheap to do so. It may only equate to 1TB per year, but it is also a whole lot of filing, cataloguing etc that I don't have time to do. There is no point in me keeping stuff that is average at best. I don't ever want to be an average photographer, and want to be proud of my portfolio of work. I don't want to look back at stuff and go omg, that sucks, what the heck was I thinking keeping that?!? Wrt to editing vs deleting - I agree with that too - editing does not = deleting - they are two separate processes for me. My post workflow is a three step process, that I refer to as D.C.E - 1. The mass delete. 2. A further, more refined cull. 3. The edit. #1 - is a fast process - if it isn't completely engaging or usable at first glance, it gets rejected immediately. 15 minutes max. #2 - is a more discerning look, zooming in to view focus, details, etc., and the rejection of those that looked ok at first glance, but upon finer inspection of focus etc, I realised that there are better shots in the collection. 30-60 mins. #3 - editing and creative processing. 4-5 hours for an average 300 image collection. I never waste my time editing stuff that is average. There just aren't enough hours in the day. UNLESS, I am on a tight deadline and have no time for a reshoot and HAVE to deliver something to the client asap. (I think that I have only done this twice and it felt SHITE to do so). Mark also said: Good photographers have to be ruthless editors of their own work. This is the point that I was making. I keep heaps of average/crappy stuff (I even take stuff on my iphone occasionally) if it is of my kids or whatever, for emotional/memorial reasons, but I don't consider that to be my photography. If I wasn't a ruthless editor of my own work, I don't think that I could ever improve on my work, AND I also think it would equate in me developing a massive ego as I would start believing that everything I do is great, which it most definitely isn't. I love editing/deleting my work harshly, it keeps me humble. Tanya Love Photographer www.lovebytes.com.au m: 0458 006 740 -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Wednesday, 6 October 2010 10:47 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros Mark said: 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
-- From: Tanya Love Subject: RE: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros I concur. There is no point in keeping stuff just because it is cheap to do so. It may only equate to 1TB per year, but it is also a whole lot of filing, cataloguing etc that I don't have time to do. There is no point in me keeping stuff that is average at best. I don't ever want to be an average photographer, and want to be proud of my portfolio of work. I don't want to look back at stuff and go omg, that sucks, what the heck was I thinking keeping that?!? I could come up with a very compelling reason, if you like. It's one of the fundamentals that I taught when I instructed beginner photography workshops. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
I should think that would be one of the best times to take pictures. Pretty shots of pretty places are easy... On 10/5/2010 6:27 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote: The PAW project came about as a result of the same thing we tend to do here (talk about equipment rather than taking pictures...but I blame that on Photokina). Kyle Cassity on the Leica Users Group came up (half-jokingly) that the LUG people should use their cameras rather than just talking about them, and challenged them to post one decent photo a week. I participated for several years, but when the demands of my job got to the point that I had almost no free time, I had to let the project go. Then Katrina hit us, and I didn't do much of anything photographic because the city looked like London after WWII. Jeffery On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Thanks for the input, Jeffery. I've been curious about the PAW project, having seen references to it in subject lines on the list in the past. I just assumed it was an individual effort. Maybe a kind soul will explain it to me sometime. Now, I've at least put together the fact that PAW stands for Picture-a-Week -- or something similar. As for trying to capture birds ... the funny thing is, that was my main focus when I got my K-x. It never occurred to me not to try it, inasmuch as I'd seen photos of birds in flight, so I just took it for granted that it was possible to do, and set about doing it. I get a passable shot only about ten percent of the time, but it's sort of like the old saw about taking a rather forward approach with women: Nine out of ten times, you get slapped. But, that tenth time... Thanks again! Walt -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Just try to add an interesting background to a good foreground shot in color in a chemical darkroom. It was difficult enough to do in BW, Photoshop's a snap. On 10/5/2010 4:59 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Thanks, P. J. Good point about storage. I guess I still think of hard drive space as coming at a rather high premium -- and also, there's the fact that I'm not the most well-organized person in the world. I tend to scatter copies of images in various forms hither and yon, throughout my drive. Though, I have gotten considerably better about it, now that I'm doing more editing. As for the Photoshop making it easy to combine elements into an interesting image ... all I can say to that is that easy is a very relative term. :-) As for selling photos to the AP ... if I were going to try and pull of something like that, I'd go to Reuters. ;-) Best, Walt On 10/5/2010 2:55 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Apply some blur, some motion striping and call it art... Hell, I seldom throw anything out, (unless it's just silly, like 100 pictures of a doorknob), storage is cheap, and you never know when a great idea for combined images will strike you. Somewhere on film I have a very nice photograph of an egret, with a dead white sky. I also have a number of establishing shots on that same roll of film that had nice blue sky fluffy clouds and interesting Jungle type foliage, Photoshop makes it easy to combine those elements to get an interesting image, where before there were several boring and flawed images. Just don't sell the result to the AP. On 10/5/2010 1:37 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On 10/5/2010 8:47 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Larry Colen wrote: On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, John Francis wrote: On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 08:57:04AM +1000, Tanya Love wrote: I know this is an opposing view to what most have posted here, but it works for me. And when I am shooting 2-3000 frames every week, the storage space and time it would take to keep the average shots, would be ridiculous. 2000 images a week, 50 weeks a year, at 10MB/image, is one TB a year. I don't think that's a ridiculous amount of storage; A decades worth of storage will fit in a single RAID array the size of a desktop PC. AT today's prices, that's about a buck a week for storage. With backups, call it $4/week or about $0.50 per day. 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! -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
In general I try to only keep those images that don't require an explanation for the viewer as far as technical deficiencies go. And I don't keep images that I wouldn't be proud to show others. Upon download, I make a fast ruthless selection of keepers and trash the rest. I'll do that again after I've perfected all the images from a particular shoot. The more you shoot the better you can be - work an image so you wind up with variations to choose from and keep only the best of those. Unless you use them for teaching purposes, keeping less than perfect images is a waste in time and effort. my $.02 worth. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com Subject: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot [...] Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. that's how you learn to be better. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
I would post it and say how do y'all like the bokeh in this shot? Dealing with focus and shutter lag when trying to photograph a flying bird (not to mention my poor reflexes) have convinced me never to even try them with my current equipment. So, you'll never hear me criticizing another one's efforts to do something I'm not even willing to try. :-) But all of us have to edit our collection to what is most presentable. Digital has increased the number of acceptable shots, and has also increased the number of turkeys (I'n not talking about a flying bird here). When I look at HCB's collection of work, I am struck by how many photos he didn't publish (the guy exposed a lot of film!). The PAW project was good for several things: (1) it got people and and shooting more regularly, (2) it forced us to edit a week's work down to a single photo, and (3) it allowed us to post some photos that weren't that good without feeling ashamed (it's the best one we got for that week). Jeffery On Oct 5, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Apply some blur, some motion striping and call it art... Hell, I seldom throw anything out, (unless it's just silly, like 100 pictures of a doorknob), storage is cheap, and you never know when a great idea for combined images will strike you. Somewhere on film I have a very nice photograph of an egret, with a dead white sky. I also have a number of establishing shots on that same roll of film that had nice blue sky fluffy clouds and interesting Jungle type foliage, Photoshop makes it easy to combine those elements to get an interesting image, where before there were several boring and flawed images. Just don't sell the result to the AP. On 10/5/2010 1:37 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
From: Walter Gilbert As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: I'm not yet a pro, but that's what I'm going to school for, so I'll stick my $0.02 in ... If it's an image I'll never get the opportunity to do a better job on, I keep it. I *might* find something in it that I can use, if nothing more than inspiration to do better work in the future. But good image or not, it's the history of where I was. If it's an image I might get to do again and do a better job, I keep it until I *can* do a better job. Once I've got a better image, I delete the inferior image. Learn what you can to improve your image and once you do improve, delete the dud and keep the better one. I probably should go ahead and delete it right away, but I find it's easier to allow some time to pass before evaluating my images. It seems like as I go back to them later, it's easier to see the real duds and it doesn't cause as much pain to delete them. And sometimes, rarely, I find something of worth I didn't originally see in the image. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
I see what you mean. Now, how do I learn to be GOOD? :) -- Walt On 10/5/2010 1:07 PM, Bob W wrote: that's how you learn to be better. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Thanks, John. That's just about as close to a verbatim description of my thinking as it gets. I have gone back over the past couple of days and found some shots that I wonder why I didn't do something with before. The reason, of course, is because I didn't have any idea how to make them look any better. I still don't know beans compared to you guys, but I'm slowly picking up ideas and techniques. Eventually, I hope to get to the point where I never take bad pictures, and they all sell for thousands. Then, I'm getting a 645D. Best, Walt On 10/5/2010 3:37 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Walter Gilbert As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: I'm not yet a pro, but that's what I'm going to school for, so I'll stick my $0.02 in ... If it's an image I'll never get the opportunity to do a better job on, I keep it. I *might* find something in it that I can use, if nothing more than inspiration to do better work in the future. But good image or not, it's the history of where I was. If it's an image I might get to do again and do a better job, I keep it until I *can* do a better job. Once I've got a better image, I delete the inferior image. Learn what you can to improve your image and once you do improve, delete the dud and keep the better one. I probably should go ahead and delete it right away, but I find it's easier to allow some time to pass before evaluating my images. It seems like as I go back to them later, it's easier to see the real duds and it doesn't cause as much pain to delete them. And sometimes, rarely, I find something of worth I didn't originally see in the image. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Thanks for the input, Jeffery. I've been curious about the PAW project, having seen references to it in subject lines on the list in the past. I just assumed it was an individual effort. Maybe a kind soul will explain it to me sometime. Now, I've at least put together the fact that PAW stands for Picture-a-Week -- or something similar. As for trying to capture birds ... the funny thing is, that was my main focus when I got my K-x. It never occurred to me not to try it, inasmuch as I'd seen photos of birds in flight, so I just took it for granted that it was possible to do, and set about doing it. I get a passable shot only about ten percent of the time, but it's sort of like the old saw about taking a rather forward approach with women: Nine out of ten times, you get slapped. But, that tenth time... Thanks again! Walt On 10/5/2010 1:53 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote: I would post it and say how do y'all like the bokeh in this shot? Dealing with focus and shutter lag when trying to photograph a flying bird (not to mention my poor reflexes) have convinced me never to even try them with my current equipment. So, you'll never hear me criticizing another one's efforts to do something I'm not even willing to try. :-) But all of us have to edit our collection to what is most presentable. Digital has increased the number of acceptable shots, and has also increased the number of turkeys (I'n not talking about a flying bird here). When I look at HCB's collection of work, I am struck by how many photos he didn't publish (the guy exposed a lot of film!). The PAW project was good for several things: (1) it got people and and shooting more regularly, (2) it forced us to edit a week's work down to a single photo, and (3) it allowed us to post some photos that weren't that good without feeling ashamed (it's the best one we got for that week). Jeffery On Oct 5, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Thanks, P. J. Good point about storage. I guess I still think of hard drive space as coming at a rather high premium -- and also, there's the fact that I'm not the most well-organized person in the world. I tend to scatter copies of images in various forms hither and yon, throughout my drive. Though, I have gotten considerably better about it, now that I'm doing more editing. As for the Photoshop making it easy to combine elements into an interesting image ... all I can say to that is that easy is a very relative term. :-) As for selling photos to the AP ... if I were going to try and pull of something like that, I'd go to Reuters. ;-) Best, Walt On 10/5/2010 2:55 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Apply some blur, some motion striping and call it art... Hell, I seldom throw anything out, (unless it's just silly, like 100 pictures of a doorknob), storage is cheap, and you never know when a great idea for combined images will strike you. Somewhere on film I have a very nice photograph of an egret, with a dead white sky. I also have a number of establishing shots on that same roll of film that had nice blue sky fluffy clouds and interesting Jungle type foliage, Photoshop makes it easy to combine those elements to get an interesting image, where before there were several boring and flawed images. Just don't sell the result to the AP. On 10/5/2010 1:37 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
can't help you with that - sorry! I see what you mean. Now, how do I learn to be GOOD? :) -- Walt On 10/5/2010 1:07 PM, Bob W wrote: that's how you learn to be better. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Walter Gilbert wrote: what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink That's a great question. There are many answers and it largely depends on to what end you put your photography. The image you used as an example could be an excellent illustration in some applications. (With some Photoshop tweaking it might be work even better as a photo illustration, as they're sometimes termed.) Out-of-focus shots can sometimes serve as backgrounds in multimedia applications or print layouts. Sometimes a composition that doesn't work as a standalone shot serves as an excellent container or background to a montage. In one instance that has gone down in PDML history, someone posted a shot of a Cormorant in a tree and expressed disappointment that he couldn't quite make the composition work as well as he would have liked. Then Cotty pointed out that the empty areas of the frame were situated in a way that made it ideal for a magazine cover. The mock-up he whipped together to make his point left reverberations that are being felt to this day: http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/1cormorant.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
I'm not too proud to say that's the greatest thing I've seen in a long time. And here I sat thinking that the whole cormorant thing was just some simple, quirky idiosyncrasy of the PDML list. Little did I know! Thanks for the info and the guffaw (a word which, if I'm not mistaken, is derived from the mating call of the cormorant). -- Walt On 10/5/2010 4:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Walter Gilbert wrote: what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink That's a great question. There are many answers and it largely depends on to what end you put your photography. The image you used as an example could be an excellent illustration in some applications. (With some Photoshop tweaking it might be work even better as a photo illustration, as they're sometimes termed.) Out-of-focus shots can sometimes serve as backgrounds in multimedia applications or print layouts. Sometimes a composition that doesn't work as a standalone shot serves as an excellent container or background to a montage. In one instance that has gone down in PDML history, someone posted a shot of a Cormorant in a tree and expressed disappointment that he couldn't quite make the composition work as well as he would have liked. Then Cotty pointed out that the empty areas of the frame were situated in a way that made it ideal for a magazine cover. The mock-up he whipped together to make his point left reverberations that are being felt to this day: http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/1cormorant.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Walter, I keep just about everything i shoot, unless its totally OOF then i'll delete it. I have a lot of photos that i consider just a bit OOF but find i can use them in the annual fair photo contest as the slight flaw does not show up. The example you have shown woudld be a forsure keeper in my books. Dave On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote: As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I see what you mean. Now, how do I learn to be GOOD? :) Don't listen to -- Walt On 10/5/2010 1:07 PM, Bob W wrote: that's how you learn to be better. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I see what you mean. Now, how do I learn to be GOOD? :) Don't listen to Frank or Cotty is a good start. Dave -- Walt On 10/5/2010 1:07 PM, Bob W wrote: that's how you learn to be better. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:15 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Walter, I keep just about everything i shoot, unless its totally OOF then i'll delete it. I have a lot of photos that i consider just a bit OOF but find i can use them in the annual fair photo contest as the slight flaw does not show up. That would be in the digital catagories as the resolution is not great and the flaw does not show up,. Dave The example you have shown woudld be a forsure keeper in my books. Dave On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote: As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
The PAW project came about as a result of the same thing we tend to do here (talk about equipment rather than taking pictures...but I blame that on Photokina). Kyle Cassity on the Leica Users Group came up (half-jokingly) that the LUG people should use their cameras rather than just talking about them, and challenged them to post one decent photo a week. I participated for several years, but when the demands of my job got to the point that I had almost no free time, I had to let the project go. Then Katrina hit us, and I didn't do much of anything photographic because the city looked like London after WWII. Jeffery On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Thanks for the input, Jeffery. I've been curious about the PAW project, having seen references to it in subject lines on the list in the past. I just assumed it was an individual effort. Maybe a kind soul will explain it to me sometime. Now, I've at least put together the fact that PAW stands for Picture-a-Week -- or something similar. As for trying to capture birds ... the funny thing is, that was my main focus when I got my K-x. It never occurred to me not to try it, inasmuch as I'd seen photos of birds in flight, so I just took it for granted that it was possible to do, and set about doing it. I get a passable shot only about ten percent of the time, but it's sort of like the old saw about taking a rather forward approach with women: Nine out of ten times, you get slapped. But, that tenth time... Thanks again! Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
An excellent example, Mark! I attended college in San Francisco, and had some very respected luminaries as teachers in the craft of photography. I was told, and remember this was in the days of film, to not expect more than one or two good shots per roll of 35 mm. Do not expect to get more than one or two really exceptional shots a year. If you work on several themes, it may take you 5 years to put together a show from one collection. Or maybe a lifetime. We were also told to catalog and file in strips of six every roll of film and keep them in archival storage in case we remained following our path in photography for the rest of our lives. Then nearing death, will them to some foundation and let them worry about what's good. You won't know if they threw some or all of them out after you're gone. Transparencies were different. Protect the true keepers. Store the also-rans so you can go through them again from time to time as you may see something with fresh eyes, or of historical significance, that can be used. Every ten years or so have some other photographer who is not close to you go through them and set those they consider worthy aside. Trash the rest if you want to. But heck, I still have an empty 100 sheet 4x5 Plus-X film box full of Ektachrome film ends I've kept for the great colors and swirls they contained. Clamp marks included! Compare this to digital work we are doing today. Throw out ones with no discernable image. Set aside those that seem pretty good to you in a folder on your hard disk using some kind of filing system, be it image type, month, or themes. Put the rest in a folder by the month or year. You may want to go back and look again at some later time. Work with the ones you think have merit that you culled into the pretty good folder. Set the ones that come out really well into a folder of their own to be printed, or booked, or displayed online. The volume of images is ten/twenty/a hundred fold compared to the film days. I use Aperture, which allows me to throw out images that will just get in the way. They are still there, both as originals on my drives and as working referenced images within Aperture. But I have to make a small effort to see them ever again. They don't get in the way. Lightroom, iPhoto, and other workflow designed programs all do the same. Here on PDML, we love to see all the work that we've set aside in the pretty good folder. Our critiques and comments will help to make you photography better. Because of the volume of images we all take, expect to get more keepers, but work harder to find the best ones in the chaff. Don't want to overwhelm the members. grin On Oct 5, 2010, at 14:53 , Mark Roberts wrote: Walter Gilbert wrote: what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink That's a great question. There are many answers and it largely depends on to what end you put your photography. The image you used as an example could be an excellent illustration in some applications. (With some Photoshop tweaking it might be work even better as a photo illustration, as they're sometimes termed.) Out-of-focus shots can sometimes serve as backgrounds in multimedia applications or print layouts. Sometimes a composition that doesn't work as a standalone shot serves as an excellent container or background to a montage. In one instance that has gone down in PDML history, someone posted a shot of a Cormorant in a tree and expressed disappointment that he couldn't quite make the composition work as well as he would have liked. Then Cotty pointed out that the empty areas of the frame were situated in a way that made it ideal for a magazine cover. The mock-up he whipped together to make his point left reverberations that are being felt to this day: http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/1cormorant.htm Joseph McAllister Lots of gear, not much time http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
A great photographer who took me under his wing years ago (see www.chunglee.com), once said to me the measure of a great photographer is the size of his/her waste paper bin. Meaning anything that isn't as perfect as you envisaged it should go in the bin. It took me a good while to get my head around it but I agree and it's the way I complete my workflow everyday. As soon as I upload my cards, I do a quick go through in LR using my x button to reject everything that doesn't come close to what I want, then I do one big delete all rejected photos afterwards. And then, I NEVER think of those shots again. Why? Because a) I don't have time to spend trying to save stuff, and b) because I don't ever want anyone to see anything but my best work for fear of tarnishing my credibility (which is the point that Chung Lee was making with his quote above. I know this is an opposing view to what most have posted here, but it works for me. And when I am shooting 2-3000 frames every week, the storage space and time it would take to keep the average shots, would be ridiculous. Hope that helps! Tan. :) Tanya Love Photographer www.lovebytes.com.au m: 0458 006 740 -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Gilbert Sent: Wednesday, 6 October 2010 3:38 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography, and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me. That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action. Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility? Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly appreciated. Best, Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
I agree with you as a working professional, Tanya. Work one is doing for a client, or on spec., is certainly different than the work an artsy-fartsy photographer does (like me). With few exceptions, if it doesn't meet the clients expectations or is not special to you for your own portfolio, trash it. Making that point was a friend of mine who only shot Kodachrome 135. In her living room were three big silver trash cans (like they use on stage in Stomp!), two of which were filled to overflowing with mounted slides. Her keepers were in a shoebox sized wooden slide storage box. I used to keep my keepers in a 3 ring binder tucked into the pockets of transparency pages. Until I tried to remove a few for projecting some years ago and found quite a few stuck to the plastic. Took a long time to remove them all, and quite a few were toast. On Oct 5, 2010, at 15:57 , Tanya Love wrote: A great photographer who took me under his wing years ago (see www.chunglee.com), once said to me the measure of a great photographer is the size of his/her waste paper bin. Meaning anything that isn't as perfect as you envisaged it should go in the bin. It took me a good while to get my head around it but I agree and it's the way I complete my workflow everyday. As soon as I upload my cards, I do a quick go through in LR using my x button to reject everything that doesn't come close to what I want, then I do one big delete all rejected photos afterwards. And then, I NEVER think of those shots again. Why? Because a) I don't have time to spend trying to save stuff, and b) because I don't ever want anyone to see anything but my best work for fear of tarnishing my credibility (which is the point that Chung Lee was making with his quote above. I know this is an opposing view to what most have posted here, but it works for me. And when I am shooting 2-3000 frames every week, the storage space and time it would take to keep the average shots, would be ridiculous. Hope that helps! Tan. :) Tanya Love Photographer www.lovebytes.com.au m: 0458 006 740 Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “ Nature is considerably more creative and inventive than humankind. Without Nature there isn't any humankind. Without humankind, Nature is fine.” -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 06:15:07PM -0400, David J Brooks wrote: Walter, I keep just about everything i shoot, unless its totally OOF then i'll delete it. I regard deleting digital images much as I would regard shredding negatives; it's an irreversible step, and one that offers no real benefits. Nowadays disk space costs $100 or less for a Terabyte. $50 worth of hard drive space will hold more images than you will probably take during the life of a $500 camera. Optical media (DVDs) are cheaper still - $40 or less gets you a Terabyte - but without the speed and convenience of directly-addressable near-line storage. Double the price, of course - everything should be replicated on multiple drives (and, if you're serious, kept at multiple sites). But even so I don't think deleting images is worth doing. If you never delete images it makes it harder to accidentally delete the wrong one. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 08:57:04AM +1000, Tanya Love wrote: I know this is an opposing view to what most have posted here, but it works for me. And when I am shooting 2-3000 frames every week, the storage space and time it would take to keep the average shots, would be ridiculous. 2000 images a week, 50 weeks a year, at 10MB/image, is one TB a year. I don't think that's a ridiculous amount of storage; A decades worth of storage will fit in a single RAID array the size of a desktop PC. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, John Francis wrote: On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 08:57:04AM +1000, Tanya Love wrote: I know this is an opposing view to what most have posted here, but it works for me. And when I am shooting 2-3000 frames every week, the storage space and time it would take to keep the average shots, would be ridiculous. 2000 images a week, 50 weeks a year, at 10MB/image, is one TB a year. I don't think that's a ridiculous amount of storage; A decades worth of storage will fit in a single RAID array the size of a desktop PC. AT today's prices, that's about a buck a week for storage. With backups, call it $4/week or about $0.50 per day. 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Tanya Love wrote: A great photographer who took me under his wing years ago (see www.chunglee.com), once said to me the measure of a great photographer is the size of his/her waste paper bin. Quite right. Meaning anything that isn't as perfect as you envisaged it should go in the bin That's a bit extreme, in my view (I find a lot of shots that didn't come out as I envisaged prove quite useful later), but I delete a lot. Good photographers have to be ruthless editors of their own work. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On 6 October 2010 11:03, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote: That's a bit extreme, in my view (I find a lot of shots that didn't come out as I envisaged prove quite useful later), but I delete a lot. Good photographers have to be ruthless editors of their own work. Editing does not equal deleting. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Rob Studdert wrote: On 6 October 2010 11:03, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote: That's a bit extreme, in my view (I find a lot of shots that didn't come out as I envisaged prove quite useful later), but I delete a lot. Good photographers have to be ruthless editors of their own work. Editing does not equal deleting. Nope, but it's part of it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 6 October 2010 11:03, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote: That's a bit extreme, in my view (I find a lot of shots that didn't come out as I envisaged prove quite useful later), but I delete a lot. Good photographers have to be ruthless editors of their own work. Editing does not equal deleting. As post processing tools get better many shots that capture a great moment, but were technically lacking become salvageable. Lightroom's new noise reduction is very impressive, and makes me glad that I shoot in raw. Even so, I would say that the vast majority of any improvement in the quality of my work over the past year or so is as much due to the pictures that I don't post, as it is in any improvement in my skills as a photographer. Giving credit where it is due, a lot of the pictures that I've taken in the past year are a lot deeper within the little stormtroopers performance envelope than they were the K20. The K20 is amazing under ISO 640, when you can take the time to manually set the exposure, double check the histogram, and take time with focusing, but as I've discovered recently when using both if you need high ISO, or accurate auto exposure, the K-x is so much better. As an aside, I'm somewhat bothered by referring to sensitivity as ISO, as it actually has very little to do with the International Standards Organization, but calling it sensitivity would probably cause more confusion than it clears up inaccuracies. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Out of curiosity: A question for the pros
Larry Colen wrote: On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, John Francis wrote: On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 08:57:04AM +1000, Tanya Love wrote: I know this is an opposing view to what most have posted here, but it works for me. And when I am shooting 2-3000 frames every week, the storage space and time it would take to keep the average shots, would be ridiculous. 2000 images a week, 50 weeks a year, at 10MB/image, is one TB a year. I don't think that's a ridiculous amount of storage; A decades worth of storage will fit in a single RAID array the size of a desktop PC. AT today's prices, that's about a buck a week for storage. With backups, call it $4/week or about $0.50 per day. 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
