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?
>
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?
>
Facebook
Twitter