Do you keep everything? (Page 3): My thoughts and exactly :sm24: :sm24: I find that making review of shots done some months after, I'm even more critical and dump a lot of the copies...

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

Bill_de wrote:

I initially keep about 60% after deleting most of the duplicate or near duplicate images.

At times when I go through looking for something to print I will go through a few folders and delete the images I figure I will never use for anything.

I am never concerned with deleting too many. I can always shoot more. It's a hobby.

--

My thoughts and exactly

I find that making review of shots done some months after, I'm even more critical and dump a lot of the copies that were processed differently and keep only the one or two best + the original.

dyximan

iggy wrote:

Way back when I purchased my first digital camera,... (show quote)

I keep all my photos, but look st about 1% of the old ones, and the new ones only briefly. I have about 65,000 and find it to overwhelming to even think about going through them all to delete the ones I don't want or like.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Nope definitely not!
The only images I might keep to fix later, when the technology is improved, are those with high noise and only if there is some attribute making it worth keeping.

If it is out of focus it goes away pronto. Poor composition is another thing that can't be fixed. Boring subject matter can't be fixed and it won't look better later. I don't keep multiple duplicates of the same subject. I pick the best out of the set and delete the others. I don't keep images with major exposure issues- usually not worth the effort to correct and often the correction is compromised.

I don't understand keeping thousands of poor photographs based on the premise that there may be some magic fix or use for them later or that they might be of some historical value. If they were poor images to begin with they will remain that.

anotherview Loc: California

Each photographer will have his own approach here regarding what to keep.

I delete the most obvious defects: accidental shots (say, of my foot), shots with severe motion blur, any shot that looks beyond rescue, (sometimes) shots very close to each other after picking one, etc.

I typically take one or more insurance shots in case of poor technique flawing a given shot. Later, I may delete some of them.

Yes, digital storage has become relatively inexpensive, so one could argue for saving everything no matter what. The judgment of a photographer may,
however, modify this absolute (likely from the film era).

iggy wrote:

Way back when I purchased my first digital camera,... (show quote)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

SharpShooter wrote:

Iggy, after I shoot, say I shoot 500 shots, I'll g... (show quote)

My total shutter count for a year is normally under 1000. In the days of film, I saved slides and negatives that were in focus; now that I am scanning all of them, I'm re-evaluating the ones I rejected, some 50 years old, and I find that some images I rejected 50 years ago I see differently now. So I keep all electronic images; they don't take much space, and maybe I'll see them differently 20 years from now.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

I usually keep everything that is on the card (or cards) after a day of shooting. I shoot mostly landscapes, wildlife, rivers, and some portraits. As I have the time, I usually have a quick look after the image is captured, I delete any blurred or incorrect exposures. I would take a guess that I do keep over 95% of the images. These are up-loaded to my Originals folder for the date of day. Clients get a different folder, as do events, as these are "Jobs" for other people.
Yes... 95% are a good "Keepers" number.

However - that is me. Everyone will have their own.

-0-

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Why keep sub-par images if you don't have plans to eventually Photoshop them?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

iggy wrote:

Way back when I purchased my first digital camera,... (show quote)

I usually do store almost everything. Storage space on modern hard drives is so much less expensive than the time it would take to cull through everything. I delete obvious errors, dumpster fires, and misfires on initial inspection. If it's reasonably well exposed and contains a recognizable scene or moment, I keep it. Then I rate everything, so I can use Lightroom as an image database to track my most usable images.

In my film days, I kept slides in binder sleeves. I kept negatives in glassines. Every roll of negs was proofed on an 8x10 sheet, keyed by number and date to the negative glassine. A quick glance at the proof sheet to find the frames circled in grease pencil is all it takes to find a scene I want to print (these days, I copy them with my digital camera and macro lens). A review of the rest of the sheet with a loupe sometimes reveals scenes I should have circled 45 years ago, but most often, my initial picks were spot-on.

My process IS a bit different for "spray and pray" sequences. I only keep the frames that make sense, visually.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

rwilson1942 wrote:

I keep anywhere from 20% to 50% of my shots but I shoot mainly macro and can shoot 5 to 10 shots of the same subject to insure good focus.
I don' keep anything on your list of blurry, etc.

InFocusFl Loc: Kennedy Space Center, FL

I keep way too much! :) initially, I will cull about 20-30% from a wedding shoot, then cut that to about 50% on the next pass. After that, I pick the shots I will deliver, but still keep the rest of the collection for potential use later (samples, promos, etc.) but rarely use them for that.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

It may look like a heresy to some purists, but I decided to erase really bad images and prefer to archive all memory cards - from the day ONE of the digital photography.
I try to follow the rule KISS in mind.
Memory cards are very reasonably priced these days.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

From this thread I now see that most photographers are hoarders. Their hard drives must be filled with clutter.

Hard drive space is cheap but the time to review all your images is not. Most photographers shoot new and a lot of the time better stuff all the time. And they don't have the time to revisit their files. Like I said, unless you occasionally review them and have the possible intentions to eventually Photoshop them, why not jettison your sub-par stuff. Life is too short.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

SharpShooter wrote:

Iggy, after I shoot, say I shoot 500 shots, I'll g... (show quote)

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I'm amending my comments. Most photographers at least in this post are not hoarders and can be discriminating.

Fotoartist wrote:

From this thread I now see that most photographers are hoarders. Their hard drives must be filled with clutter.

Hard drive space is cheap but the time to review all your images is not. Most photographers shoot new and a lot of the time better stuff all the time. And they don't have the time to revisit their files. Like I said, unless you occasionally review them and have the possible intentions to eventually Photoshop them, why not jettison your sub-par stuff. Life is too short.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

I am a ruthless deleter. Why would I ever want to clog up my hard drives or my head with photos that will never make the grade? I shot six to seven thousand pictures of whales every summer. If they aren’t better than what I’ve got or part of a story or needed for ID purposes, they are history. And this is just one subject. I store them in organized folders, moving them around using LR, and they are extensively keyworded, but if they don’t make the grade I don’t ever want to see them again.

iggy wrote:

Way back when I purchased my first digital camera,... (show quote)