cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

As an art director working with many pro photographers, we would shoot as many as 15 rolls of 36 exposure film to get one or two good frames if we were shooting 35mm (--20+ rolls if shooting 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, the 5 x 7 or larger sheet film was usually processed while we waited if we were close to a lab and pick the first "good" one that came back from the lab). So... I keep about 50% of what I shoot now with my digital camera and cull out about 50% of what's left over when I go to find the one I like best. That being said, I'm still a slob and not organized with my images!

Dabe Loc: Southern Missouri, Ozarks

Never know when you might run across an otherwise perfectly serviceable squirrel that's missing a tail.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

When I started I not only kept everything but every time I edited a photo I gave it a new name. So eventually I would have 10 slightly different copies of the same photo. And I was learning, so it took a lot of tries to get to an image I liked.

Eventually I had so many images I couldn't find anything. The first thing I did was to give the images meaningful file names. That helped a bit, but it was cumbersome downloading things and changing the file names. After a while I spent some money to purchase Downloader Pro, software that changes the name of a file at download time according to a template that you set up. I could select photos on the card by their thumbnails and give them a common name, then added a modifier (initially just an index number) to avoid duplicate file names. After a while I started getting duplicate file names because the index numbers started at 001, so I added the date.

Then I got LR and learned to put keywords on the photos. That made it easy to find things. I developed a workflow that started with triage of the photos. That made it easier to delete the real duds from the disk (out of focus, terrible exposure, photos of my foot, etc.). It also made it possible to select the best photos and delete the rest from the catalog (but they were still on the disk).

My wife was an archivist, so she impressed on me the importance of keeping everything. So I keep everything because memory is cheap, but that doesn't mean that it has to get in my way when I'm looking for something. If it's not in the catalog it's less likely I'll actually use it. But it's not impossible.

On a related note, I would like to advocate for meaningful file names. I use LR and the catalog makes it easy for me to find things (as long as I put good keywords on them) no matter what the file name is. However, in the long run I will not be here forever. Some of my shots will be useful for those who come after me (probably only the family shots). Knowing what I do of my family, there is not one person who knows how to find things using LR. However, if the files have meaningful names, standard file search techniques will bring them up. I should note that since I shoot raw, I have to store jpgs of the finished images, otherwise all a searcher would find would be the raw files. Just think about it. That great shot of the family from Christmas 2006. If the file name is DSC_7453, who's going to find it?

tandac01

I attended a seminar given by a professional action photographer. His take was that the liberal use of the delete key was the first and a very important step of post processing. He shot surfers, motocross and skateboarders. During the shooting day he would shoot hundreds if not thousands of images. The delete key preserves that one asset that none of us have enough of and none of use can buy more of, time. Assume that the shoot results in 1,200 images. If you invest 1 minute post processing in each image you have spent 20 hours on them. Pull them up into Light Room and Photoshop and invest 5 minutes trying to correct out of focus and other issues you are up to 100 hours and you still don't have that exceptional image you are after. You don't have to delete them but rate them as a one and write them off to another drive. After deleting 95%, focus of the few images that are worth the effort and use the time to learn and shoot the next batch.

jwohlhueter

Similar to tandac01, I completed a 10 day workshop on the Oregon coast in September. The instructor called it lessons not workshop. He concentrated on teaching us how to use our equipment with the emphasis on doing everything in camera. Minimal to NO post processing. As I gained confidence in my work I went from 200 shots a day to 40 or 50. A remarkable instructor. The class of 11 had a mixture of Nikons, Canons and a Sony mirrorless. Learn your camera and use your delete key in the field.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Other than family type photos I keep about 30%. After a shoot I will go through and delete any shots I know I will not go further with. I will then look at the remainder as critically as I can and delete some more either because I don't think them worth the trouble or they are duplicates of the best shots. Then I will do some rough PP on the rest to see if the shot can be made into something I would want to show other folks. If I question the value of any, I keep them for a week or so and they either grow on me or I let then go. Storage is cheap but my time is very valuable and I would rather spend it on something other than going over and over the same questionable images.

IBM

I do something like that ,only my ratings are seconds not a number 1, if I can't look at my own images in my camera for at
Least six seconds before I go to the next one, I sure don't expect any one else to , I there for deleat it , try that looking through
Through a mag . Or book with a lot of pic, you will find a lot that your flipping the page 2seconds , 3 seconds, it if you can count
To Mississippi 10 to Mississippi 15, on one image then that will be good photo , I studied one in a book one time for 30 min.
Then kept coming back to it for another round .it was a loner book that I have not seen again.