Mxsmanic wrote:
> When shooting film I'm constrained by the fact that each shot costs a certain
> amount of money. When shooting digital, however, the cost of each shot is
> nearly zero, and the tendency is to shoot and shoot. So when I get home, I
> end up with 400 shots to sort through, instead of 30 or 40.
>
> Is there a methodical way to sort through such large numbers of photos? What
> methods do you use to weed through what you've shot and decide what to throw
> out and what to keep? I was thinking maybe of making multiple passes through
> the photos separated by a day or two, each time removing everything that isn't
> really worth keeping, but perhaps others have more efficient methods for
> rapidly getting rid of the bulk of photos and retaining only the "keepers."
Digital storage is so cheap that I don;t worry much about
getting rid of photos. I only discard are those that are
very bad. The rest I keep on a hard drive, backed up on CDs
or DVDs.
Your experience is like most of people who switch to
digital. My wife and I come back from a vacation trip with
hundreds of photos. We choose a few to put online as a
slide show, to share with family and friends.
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2uqdnSXHzMfGiuPVnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> Hans- Nice examples of solid work! For my own personals, however, I find
> too many similar shots of almost the same mountain. For more variety, I'd
> be inclined to add some closer-ins, maybe a few attractive people?
Thanks, I agree there can be a few that can be seen as too similar.
In article <Xns9ADD90685E252That80sGuy@198.186.190.61>, That80sGuy
says...
> In message news:487e1c76$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, "John"
> <john.langfield@tiscali.co.uk> done wrote:
>
> > I would have put it through Photoshop and used "Edit / Transform /
> > Perspective" and stopped the building from falling away from the viewer.
>
> How good an alternative is Photoshop to a true TS/PC lens?
The problem when you apply that kind of processing the upper image
pixels get stretched, while the bottom ones get squeezed, i.e. you end
up with an image which has more resolution in the lower part than in the
higher part.
--
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22e85cbb836419bd98bd73@news.supernews.com ...
>
> Heavy vignetting, see here:
> http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422763/medium
>
> But probably nothing which can't be corrected in post-processing.
Yes, it is not a perfect picture but under the conditions I'm pretty happy
with it.
The vignetting doesn't disturb me. I hardly ever adjust for that and
sometimes it's looking nice. And I didn't correct the perspective either ;-)
"That80sGuy" <clark@griswold.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADD90685E252That80sGuy@198.186.190.61...
> In message news:487e1c76$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, "John"
> <john.langfield@tiscali.co.uk> done wrote:
>
>> I would have put it through Photoshop and used "Edit / Transform /
>> Perspective" and stopped the building from falling away from the viewer.
>
> How good an alternative is Photoshop to a true TS/PC lens?
It down to cost. I would not use a TS/PC lens enough to warrant buying one.
In article <487e5ed3$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse
says...
> Yes, it is not a perfect picture but under the conditions I'm pretty happy
> with it.
>
> The vignetting doesn't disturb me. I hardly ever adjust for that and
> sometimes it's looking nice. And I didn't correct the perspective either ;-)
>
> With respect to being sharp or not, you can find a full resolution version
> her http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/100269283/original. Only default noise
> reduction is used in Lightroom.
Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
--
> Digital storage is so cheap that I don;t worry much about getting rid of
> photos. I only discard are those that are very bad. The rest I keep on
> a hard drive, backed up on CDs or DVDs.
The cost of keeping bad shots isn't in disk space, but in the time
required to sort through them. I you won't even do it, certainly nobody
else will have to interest to do so. Just as good photos build a
collection, bad photos dilute it.
If you must, archive all the trash on DVDs, kept in the closet where
they will likely remain forever. Just make sure the good ones are easy
to browse, or you never will go to the trouble enjoying them.
Re: Drowning in photos 
Linear Mode
