johnm1369 Loc: Indiana

I want to open a topic that has been bugging at me for a while. Don’t know if it has been up for discussion on UHH but here it goes.

When I am out doing a shoot, I shoot so many images that I feel as though I am over shooting. For instance, I went to England on a pilgrimage back in the summer. I shot over 6000 images. Didn’t realize that I had that many until I got home. Then you have to load them on your computer, analyze them, decide which ones to keep, do PP, and so on. I can usually get rid of 60% of them just because they suck.

Trying to figure out how possibly shoot less. Or, just shoot to my hearts content. Has anyone had this situation and how did you handle it.

Just curious!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'm working on three shooting dates from last summer's Chicago Air & Water Show. I don't have the original statitics, but let's assume 1000 frames per day, probably 3000 frames to start editing (probably actually more, but I've culled more than once since last August). As I pause to respond to this post, I've just reduced the count to 382. And, I know there's still some crap that will be deleted in the next culling round, but I want to update the keywords first. I hope there's really less than 100 of the very very best from what is now my 8th year of shooting this event.

There's nothing wrong with shooting a lot. But, there is something wrong with editing too many and keeping too many. Do you really have 2400 images worth editing in detail (6000 x .4)? Do you really even have 240 images work editing and keeping? Wasting time on editing inferior images is a discouraging waste of time.

You might need a better culling approach and / or tools and / or critical eye.

Regarding workflow, do you inspect your images at the 1:1 pixel level to confirm each image as a candidate keeper is, in fact, in sharp focus at the relevant details?

Regarding tools, do you have software and hardware that immediately renders the image details for 1:1 inspection? Do you have tools that render side-by-side images for comparison of similar images and a forced rejection of one, even if both seem acceptable? Do you have a database tool that lets you compare similar images, even across years, to confirm improvement and to reject more inferior and / or complete duplicative frames of the same subject?

Do you look at every image critically, with an approach of: give me a reason to not delete this frame? One must delete as many frames as needed to isolate the keeper. Consider what you'll do with each individual image? Would you share an inferior image, knowing in other's eyes, you're only as good as the worst image you share publicly? What would you do with two identical / near identical frames of the same subject? Couldn't you just re-crop from virtual copies of the 'best of all' frame and create different renderings?

If interested in some of the tools I use, continue to respond the discussion.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Learn to be selective? Saves culling time too.
(If you take 1000 and habitually cull 800, next time only shoot maybe 300.)

The most I've shot in Acadia National Park in a week is about 550.

For a once in a lifetime trip I'd probably take a crap load! Maybe not 6,000 though.
Easier to delete than go back again!

I peruse the images and edit the ones I want to use.
They remain in the "library", except for dupes.
I don't edit EVERY shot, only when I'm going to do something with it, if it needs it.

Compare various years images for any "improvement", never.
Each <year> shot stands on its own merit.

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

Like you, when I’m in a area I may not be able to visit again I shoot a lot.but when the day is done I edit in camera. You’d be surprised how many you can delete this way. Besides, the day may come when you can no longer travel. Then you can go back and play with those you kept but didn’t like so well.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The way to look at taking photos is to first LOOK at what you are photographing, if inanimate, walk around it for a 1/2 hour or so, look from different angles and decide what looks best to present. Then take 3-4 perhaps from the best directions. There are so many shots that are part of the same 200-300 view with imperceptible differences. This can apply to living animals or people as well. 200 shots of an animal just standing or slowly walking does not get the shot. Again, observe and do not rush. Then when you come in for the evening cull any that over enthusiasm caused you to motor through too many of the same thing. Then when you get home from the trip you have a good selection to choose those photos that actually are worth showing and discard the rest.
I wind up with 10-20 shots in a day at most to do a final cut to 4-5 depending on number of subjects.
So no I do not have this problem, never have had it. Guess starting out with film taught me to observe, look and study first. Same when hunting animals or people.

johnm1369 Loc: Indiana

Thanks for that information. That is a lot to process for me, but I will try to sort through your info and have more question for you. And, actually I don't keep 60% of my shots, I just pulled that out of the air. I like your phrase, 'give me a reason not to delete this frame'. I think I will use that approach to my images. I do only PP shot that I think I'll keep. Sharp images are important to me, out of focus shots get deleted immediately.
I would like more information on some or tools you use.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Even if John isn't, I am. I shoot a lot of bursts on birds an bugs in hope they will do something, birds turning head or take offs. Bees can become a BIF in the instant.

14kphotog Loc: Marietta, Ohio

Just go back to the old way mind set, GET IT in the camera with 1 great shot. Pretend you are shooting film. and it cost 50 cents every time you push the button.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Many moons ago I went on a float trip on the San Juan River. Five days, >1200 film exposures. Culled to about 600. Did I “overshoot”? Maybe. But it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, so the number of shots was justifiable.

How important is what you are shooting TO YOU?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Probably how I learned to be very selective on what I shoot.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What a waste of modern digital equipment. What an impossibility for shooting BIF, Airshows, Events, Sports, Journalism, most any moving subject that involves modern digital photography equipment. Imagine yourself as a successful photographer. Did you take too few or too many great images?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

THAT is the key operator!

Many I'll probably never print, but they still exist for the memories.

Bill_de Loc: US

Be more discriminating.

I think your post indicates you already know the solution to your problem.

---

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

The cost of digital is up front, gear. Once you have it using it is not measured by numbers. Shoot and re-shoot, fill a card. Processing requires more restraint.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you shoot RAW, consider the modestly-priced FastRawViewer that immediately renders the RAW for 1:1 pixel-level detailed review. I cull almost all RAW shoots in this tool before importing into Lightroom Classic, where all the other features I mentioned are employed.