On Jul 16, 6:22*am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> 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.."
Just be ruthless. remember if you keep them all, you are keeping
the worse stuff you have, You really don't want anyone to see your
second best, get rid of it now. When you only show your best, you
look your best.
jmeehan@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> On Jul 16, 6:22 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> 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."
>
>
> Just be ruthless. remember if you keep them all, you are keeping
> the worse stuff you have, You really don't want anyone to see your
> second best, get rid of it now. When you only show your best, you
> look your best.
I agree! Cull.....Cull.....Cull.
I know it's hard at first.
There is a certain pride of authorship in taking photos.
A considerable emotional investment is made in taking each shot
It hurts to discard nice photos that are, nevertheless, third rank.
I used to keep about 25-30% of my shots.
After all, H.D. space is cheap and easy to use. Why not keep 75%%..100%?
But retrieving the image I wanted from an archive of several thousands
of saved images became more trouble than it was worth, because I so
rarely ended up actually using the third rank pictures.
Now, my criterion is, "Am I willing to spend time editing this picture".
(Even a basic crop, levels and color adjustment and a bit of sharpening
require several minutes of time. Heavy editing takes me a lot longer.)
If the answer is yes or maybe, I save it. Otherwise it gets ditched.
I end up keeping about 10% of my images, most of which I edit in PS.
I know that many people will advise keeping all the shots on a hard
drive. After all, it is EASIER to keep everything than it is to cull.
And MAYBE one of these days you will wish you had saved them...Perhaps.
But IMHO,storage is not the problem.....Retrieval is the problem.
And like the OP, one ends up drowning in saved images, the vast majority
of which will NEVER be accessed again........One man's opinion.
Bob Williams
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22e8855fa43260ef98bd76@news.supernews.com ...
>
> Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
> --
It was cropped, but the rest is in full resolution.
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22e810cdf55be5da98bd70@news.supernews.com ...
> By the way Hans, this image
> http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422763
>
> Very nice, but why did you go up to ISO1600, with F2.8 and 1/15s? If me,
> I would have shot this with a tripod at ISO 100 and F8.
John <john.langfield@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "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.
It's not simply usage. The cost has to balanced against the cost of
acheiving the same performance by different means. Using software
perspective correction tools loses you some image resolution. Suppose
for example at the kind of tilts you want you would lose 30%
resolution by doing the tilting in software. That won't matter if your
camera and lenses happen to give you 30% extra pixels to spare with
respect to the requirements of your final image. So if you were buying
a complete architectural photography kit from scratch you should
compare the cost of a tilt shift lens with the cost of buying enough
extra resolution to be able to get the same results from software
tilt-shifts.
Of course that doesn't apply if you also need to be able to tilt the
plane of focus, because that remains something that can only be done
optically.
In article <487f0818$0$90273$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse
says...
>
> > Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
> > --
> It was cropped, but the rest is in full resolution.
Corners cropped away? I actually wanted to have a look at the corners.
Regarding your ISO 3200 shots: didn't see them before, but they are very
nice.
I'll be on a trip in France at the end of the month and am planning to
carry a lightweight tripod permanently with me (so that in any situation
I can take a comfortable tripod shot at lowest ISO and small apertures
with optimal lens performance and high depth of field).
The overall weight of the camera pack will still be moderate, because
the camera is lightweight (the body of the Sony A350 weighs < 600gr),
I'll carry only two lenses (around 500gr each) and the tripod weighs
only 900 gr.
--
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:44:33 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <487f0818$0$90273$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse
>says...
>>
>> > Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
>> > --
>> It was cropped, but the rest is in full resolution.
>
>Corners cropped away? I actually wanted to have a look at the corners.
No need to look at the corners in full resolution. You can see
vignetting in the upper corners in the reduced resolution image at:
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22e940d2c406b1e398bd77@news.supernews.com ...
>
> Corners cropped away? I actually wanted to have a look at the corners.
I made a full resolution of the same picture you saw. But why is this so
interesting?
> Regarding your ISO 3200 shots: didn't see them before, but they are very
> nice.
>
> I'll be on a trip in France at the end of the month and am planning to
> carry a lightweight tripod permanently with me (so that in any situation
> I can take a comfortable tripod shot at lowest ISO and small apertures
> with optimal lens performance and high depth of field).
>
> The overall weight of the camera pack will still be moderate, because
> the camera is lightweight (the body of the Sony A350 weighs < 600gr),
> I'll carry only two lenses (around 500gr each) and the tripod weighs
> only 900 gr.
When I'm on a serious photo trip I do bring a tripod along always, but not
when I'm on a trip like this to France. I still could make the photos and I
don't think they would have been visible that much better using a tripod.
But it depends, of course, on what you want to achieve. These pictures were
never meant for a gallery anyway :-)
But good luck with your trip and take some good pictures.
In article <487f3dc5$0$90272$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse
says...
>
> > Corners cropped away? I actually wanted to have a look at the corners.
>
> I made a full resolution of the same picture you saw. But why is this so
> interesting?
I was curious how the lens performs in the corners wide open. Usually
that is the weakest spot.
--
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22e95d468939002898bd79@news.supernews.com ...
>
> I was curious how the lens performs in the corners wide open. Usually
> that is the weakest spot.
Re: Drowning in photos 
Linear Mode
