Have I discovered what everyone knows?

Hi folks, I like most responses and some very much.

It is my personal perception. I like the one asking me to think about composition of picture or rather the situation I take the shot. The very first one is also exceptional advise just to think what I am looking at, what I want to show, why to press the button.

Yes you are also right in regard of the subject. If the situation is fast and dynamic, you may choose series of shots like bracketing or even film, in other situations you may choose normal shots or even on tripod or special techniques. All will be a bit different.

I mainly like to shoot flowers but want to do people. I treat people photos are difficult. With photos of people the boring thing is when you shoot people stairing (looking at) the camera.

My favouritte photo is of people deeply engaged in discussion and totally disregarding camera. With shooting people, often not who is on photo but when exactly to press the button decide if the shot it not worth to look or is actually very pleasing. I play badmington, the opponent looks at you and concentrate, but you can sometimes manage to serve so one is caught off guard. So timing is essential particularly with photos of people.

While taking macro of my flowers sometimes I use the unique feature of the ricoh cx series the multitarget focusing. It can sometimes by chance capture the bee hovering over the flower or other surrounding objects as more interesting than originally intended object.

With photos of flowers the lighting and angle or view is very important but also a background. Yes, I try sometimes to learn from my mistakes and photos I delete. I've discovered that a few photos by chance I made on dark background and they turned to be magnificent. later I tried to arrange the background more consciously. I even tried to bring a piece of fabric (usually black) and place behind the flower. It however for various reasons did not work. (must be large and far behind). Other factors to explore are the play with optical properties of camera. Well known depth of focus depending on the diafragm. In my ricoh cx3 camera there is no access to diafragm, so the only play I have is to use the dependence of depth of view from focal lenght.

Those things are important because a bunch of tiny flowers on the background of equally tiny pebbles or grass makes a mess and painful to watch, you do not actually know what you look at. Here you do not concentrate on the nice flower but on whole view.

Why I do not like to keep my all 17k pictures?

I have one friend a real horder. He is sick and sick of being sick. No, you do not want to see the pictures in his home, you do not want to hear how terrible his life is because of that. He is also a keen photographer. I have problem to persuade him to take as many shots as he want (initially) and later delete the bad ones and keep only outstanding ones.

No here I do not want to argue over that. I want to share my experience. He is as incapable of processing thousands of his sun sets on pc as not capable of keeping his house in reasonable order. No matter how much I help him to clean his home or pc, in no time it gets back to mess.

I do not want his sickness, nor problem. I know that our mind has only certain capacity to process things.

I know that I cannot have in mind all 17 k of my photos. I can manage portion of them but only portion.

I believe in replacing bad ones with better ones on ongoing basis.

I agree with you about cataloging photos, making displays but also on reducing and against hording.

My favouritte advised include thinking what and why I want the photo and what the whole composition is, what I want to show, how to arrange it. Is it important the sadness of the situation or that Mary has a red dress?

Being a flexible person, I also think it is not much wrong to make a few more shots than you want. If situation is relatively fast and/or you have not much chances to think and prepare the stage, take a few shots of people or flower and there is more chance that one of 2 o 3 will be at least acceptable or even in focus..

Thanks for sharing your ideas. Well I try to reduce my photo storage for about half an hour every day.

--For most travel photographs and even around home I overshoot by about 2/3rds. Each subject should be looked at from a few perspectives and as we are dealing with digital here it costs no more. Film didn't lend itself to this approach.

I download each lot in a labeled folder over a given year and cull out the obvious loosers right away. The remainder (may be half) gets edited. These are reduced again, keeping only the best. 1000 becomes 300. And yes, I do look at them on occasion and kick out a few more near duplicates or missfits.

Don V. Armitage

There is nothing wrong with throwing out 90% of your shots, as a first good measure when you look at the day's production.

Digital photography is cheap and allows to learn from mistakes without ruining a budget.

As you make progress you will probably slow down and improve your hit rate of good shots.
Isn't that the normal process for all of us ?

I'm actually surprised (or did I miss it?) that none of the above replies suggest reviewing the photos in the camera, as soon as there is a spare moment after the photographs have been taken, and mercilessly deleting all frames that did not achieve what we had in mind when the shutter was pressed. That way, the recollection of why exactly the photo was made is still clear in our mind, and the decision to delete could be easier to reach. Net result is beneficial two-fold: better learning and fewer files in archives.

The second suggestion I have is to divide the permanent disk repository into two parts: the first is a "master archive" strictly chronological collection of time-period-named directories where the original, unmodified camera files are saved; and the second consists of processed (if necessary or desired) and resized images organized in distinct set of audience, subject matter or display device specific "publication collections". I would suggest that if a quarter of the images from the first archive part end up in one or multiple publication collection in the second part, you are doing well.

MaxTux

LeRentier said:

There is nothing wrong with throwing out 90% of your shots, as a first good measure when you look at the day's production.

Digital photography is cheap and allows to learn from mistakes without ruining a budget.

As you make progress you will probably slow down and improve your hit rate of good shots.
Isn't that the normal process for all of us ?

Click to expand...

+1

MaxTux said:

I'm actually surprised (or did I miss it?) that none of the above replies suggest reviewing the photos in the camera, as soon as there is a spare moment after the photographs have been taken, and mercilessly deleting all frames that did not achieve what we had in mind when the shutter was pressed. That way, the recollection of why exactly the photo was made is still clear in our mind, and the decision to delete could be easier to reach. Net result is beneficial two-fold: better learning and fewer files in archives.

Click to expand...

Probably because a lot of us have tried that. The results are bad, bad, bad.

I don't know what it is exactly, but with exception of some obviously bad shots (obviously out of focus, blurry, etc) there's just been so many pics I've taken that looked good on the lcd but didn't look good when I got them on the computer, or that I would have deleted based on how they looked on the lcd but that looked great on the computer...

MaxTux said:

The second suggestion I have is to divide the permanent disk repository into two parts: the first is a "master archive" strictly chronological collection of time-period-named directories where the original, unmodified camera files are saved; and the second consists of processed (if necessary or desired) and resized images organized in distinct set of audience, subject matter or display device specific "publication collections". I would suggest that if a quarter of the images from the first archive part end up in one or multiple publication collection in the second part, you are doing well.

MaxTux

Click to expand...

Personally, I've tried stuff like that but it just takes to much time and I end up spending more time organizing your pictures than I do every actually looking at them. Then I get angsty about which collection they belong in, and if I did some post processing if I could fix them...in the end I end up with a lot of photos that I never actually process just sitting on my computer. It's better if it's a straight "up/down" vote. Of course I'm writing only about my experience, this may or may not apply you. I just find that for me, at when I end up doing that much work on things the organizing takes on a life of it's own that becomes an obsession, but that I find very unrewarding in the long run.

mmistrz said:

So I conclude that because it is easy to make a photo, it does not mean that I have to press the release button with obsession, the more the better. I think that making a good quality photo requires a lot of time and care in order to achieve a good or acceptable outcome.

Click to expand...

...... on your subject.

I once attended a local concert by a famous folk singer. I carefully set up at several good vantage points and then fired away. After each set up, I didn't have time to carefully ponder each shot as in a landscape.

The result was that I got many great shots... in retrospect it turned out to be a one of a kind opportunity and I have often congratulated myself on my foresight to shoot many almost redundant images and sort the good ones out later.

--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

mmistrz said:

With the introduction of digital cameras, it is easy to just click and not think.

Click to expand...

Digital is too easy. Why learn good composition and depth of field when most folks don't bother to explore the power they have in their cameras now? Just set it on "program" and fire away JPG. Its the way now. Let the camera do it all. Right?

cell phones
lots of talk
little to say

WBirch said:

mmistrz said:

With the introduction of digital cameras, it is easy to just click and not think.

Click to expand...

Digital is too easy. Why learn good composition and depth of field when most folks don't bother to explore the power they have in their cameras now? Just set it on "program" and fire away JPG. Its the way now. Let the camera do it all. Right?

Click to expand...

Digital is an easy snap but hard to be interesting and individual with.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Elliot H said:

cell phones
lots of talk
little to say

Click to expand...

Pretty much sums up the whole digital era really. Lots and lots of empty, empty data.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

mmistrz said:

With the introduction of digital cameras, it is easy to just click and not think. But as the pc is being filled with thousands of photos and than long, long hours and days of sorting and deleting worthless records of past time, one start to think why I took those shots in a first place? there is not much value in them at all.

So I conclude that because it is easy to make a photo, it does not mean that I have to press the release button with obsession, the more the better. I think that making a good quality photo requires a lot of time and care in order to achieve a good or acceptable outcome.

I want to hear from all of you who already discovered it long time ago and practice it.

Please give me some hints, accelerate my learning. I want a fewer but better photos. Be generous and share your secrets.
Thanks

Click to expand...

I think that it is not just the digital camera that is contributing to this. It seems to be all things digital and the nature of the times.

Artistry is under attack with cameras that make all the decisions for us to music that is created by D.J.s that never actually play an instrument but just stand there and punch a button, twist a knob or just sample someone else and add an electronic beat over it. Fads are produced these days by the product of the first exposure instinct of a new piece of software. I was listening to a CD the other day and realized that all the sounds off it were the demo samples from a piece of audio software. He didn't even try to make it his own.

Minimalist and conceptual have taken over as justifications for a lack of passion for the creative effort and the technology is drooling forth to make this lack of need for expertise possible.

I sometimes think that we are creating a world where even after we become extinct our machines will be able to go on making the art of the 21st century ad infinitum (or should I say ad nauseum).

I know the real photog though. They are the ones who dream of control and like to make the camera do things wrong and then study the results to expand their visual vocabulary.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

I've just talked to my friend on this subject. He has an early digital camera and rarely use it. His essence to my dilemma could be described in a few words around: what is the purpose of photos like record from my life, friends met, places visited. Another big question is who will watch it. It is ok if just myself but it must have a clear purpose.

Why not delete bad shots in camera? I very rarely do it because typically when shooting, I am in mood of shooting and enjoying time. Also honestly no camera monitor can match the pc monitor in any way. I often am on a bit longer trips and for this and other personal reasons do not want to waste battery charge if not necessary. Thirdly it is not as easy to delete or edit as on my pc with picasa.

This is me, perhaps someone may prefer or benefit from deleting on camera.

While there is generally no right nor wrong answer to this dilemma, some seem to have more sense to most people than other ideas.

On one hand the few nice tips like get the thought, find the purpose, the viewer, frequent review and deletion are worth to practice.
On the other hand the question arise: why bother to shoot and delete?
Simple answer is: practice.

The more you shoot, analyze and delete bad ones, the better quality photos you produce and less of bad ones. Than in situations that you just have to shoot without thinking the mentioned practice turn to be invaluable. Your analysis of the purpose and all other as you suggest, become your second nature, you do it and not always know consciously why.

It can be drawn a parallel to the learning to drive. When I learned to drive I read carefully all the steps as were written. 1. seat, 2 belt, 3. mirror, turn on ignition, 4. is road free to start, 5 indicator etc.

After repeating those steps number of times now I simply do it as written and do not have to check my belt when approach the traffic light or see the police car. I am free to travel.

Same with shooting photos. When I practice the basics which are a common sense, than I will do it optimally and concentrate only on creativity and not on basics.

Some years ago I've read on professional sites that to make a nice photo is nothing. The photo must tell the story, must show something. A pretty flower is nothing but it must be in a logical context. It took me years of remembering it, thinking about it and now asking your for your opinion. I think I am closer than ever to actually try to implement this. Or perhaps the very statement already triggered me trying all that time?

Not really, because I have still thousands of rubbish photos. The good thing is that I do have photos which I clearly like and clearly dislike. That indicate I am not an extremist but simply am overwhelmed by my far too large collection.

A good test is when a rare friend come I have a photo in mind and no way that I can find it within not 2 min but 2 hours. This clearly does mean I have much too many photos.

Picasa suppose to be an excellent software to organise photos in easy way. But with lots of photos and picasa limitations it creates a problem on it's own.

It seems that most people have a similar limit and idea of how to manage the bulk of photos.

beshannon said:

IMHO the beauty of digital is that there is no waste in taking lots of images.

When in doubt I will always take more than I think are necessary as they can be deleted later.

Proper composure and technique are valuable and will lead to better results but there is nothing wrong with deleting images from your pc. I delete several thousand each year and segregate my best ones on separate folders
--
http://brianshannon.smugmug.com/
http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

+1. I would add that I bracket exposures, knowing that sometimes the meter can be fooled. I know in advance that I'll be deleting two thirds of my shots.

It's insurance. I remember back in the film day taking one picture, waiting for the film to come back from the lab, then discovering to my dismay that I missed the shot.

My personal record would be the redwinged blackbird. One day I shot 400 of it, trying to get one in flight, sharp, etc. I'm not a birder but I thought the wings were so pretty I had to try. The "best" I could do (cropped)...



--
Gear listed in profile under "plan."

Someone stop me before I buy again, please!
Dave

Yes I practice: (1) I shoot little, (2) I delete lots in camera. And then (3) I delete lots on the computer.

But really I hate computers - so I try to avoid photographing anything that doesn't interest me in the first place. And then when I have a minute I check the shots and delete any that don't please me on the moment.

Then I come back to them a couple days later when any emotional attachment from the shooting session has faded away, and I delete more.

Then I upload, and while I do that I check again whether I don't want to delete any.

I frankly don't want to have zillion of average or even poor shots on my computer. I want a few good ones, and if possible a couple very good ones.

Shoot a lot and get a few good ones. It was the same in film, you bought a roll, shot a lot, kept a few. But there is no doubt you should think about what you are shoot thus increasing your chances out of many you do shoot, a few might be good.

mmistrz said:

With the introduction of digital cameras, it is easy to just click and not think. But as the pc is being filled with thousands of photos and than long, long hours and days of sorting and deleting worthless records of past time, one start to think why I took those shots in a first place? there is not much value in them at all.

So I conclude that because it is easy to make a photo, it does not mean that I have to press the release button with obsession, the more the better. I think that making a good quality photo requires a lot of time and care in order to achieve a good or acceptable outcome.

I want to hear from all of you who already discovered it long time ago and practice it.

Please give me some hints, accelerate my learning. I want a fewer but better photos. Be generous and share your secrets.
Thanks

Click to expand...

first of all, "bulb exposure" is truly old fashioned. just try getting bulbs these days. i think the last time i used a bulb was in the late sixties---maybe early '70's. even when i worked at a camera shop in the mid-late '80's bulbs were getting hard to come by, and our stock was very, very dusty. i think we call it "T" mode now ;-}

Roger99 said:

Digital is an easy snap but hard to be interesting and individual with.

Click to expand...

no harder than film in my long experience. what's actually challenging is trying to be interesting or individual in an era of complete media saturation. all media, btw, not just photography.

mmistrz wrote:
...

mmistrz said:

Picasa suppose to be an excellent software to organise photos in easy way. But with lots of photos and picasa limitations it creates a problem on it's own.

It seems that most people have a similar limit and idea of how to manage the bulk of photos.

Click to expand...

I am not aware that Picasa has a 'size' limit. It uses pointers to the hard drive(s) and the thumbs are quite small. It is quite good, and you cannot beat the price.

For more $$ you can get either Lightroom, Adobe Elements (number of pix can be an issue) or Capture One...

Any of the above will give you a very nice and quick way to 'keep' your keepers in collections or albums or whatever they call the grouping of pictures. I have used all of them. My personal take is either Capture One/Lightroom, as I shoot RAW. If you shoot jpegs, Picasa would be my choice.
--
Jerome Boyer
Equipment in profile
Picasa Web

After deleting the wrong image a few times... in the camera, I stay away from that feature. With a good memory card, one can take hundreds of pictures... It is much easier to delete them as you see them on a 'real' screen, in your computer.

Tongue in cheek: If you are shooting digital images, not liking to use a computer may prove to be a challenge... I would stick to film or print all my pictures and put the card data on a CD. These services are not expensive.

antoineb said:

Yes I practice: (1) I shoot little, (2) I delete lots in camera. And then (3) I delete lots on the computer.

Click to expand...

--
Jerome Boyer
Equipment in profile
Picasa Web

SirLataxe said:

Mmistrz,

Photos of "stuff" that has no emotional connection to your life is pointless. So take photos of things, people and events that really mean something to you, rather than just "interesting photographic subjects". As you have discovered,it is difficult to retain an interest in mere photographs per se. Photos are windows to past times, places and events and its that history, not the photograph itself, that is of value.

Click to expand...

Obviously, much of this is a "matter of taste."

But from time to time I like to walk around and shoot objects as common as grass, but which most of us just don't see. Take a vent alarm for example. Half the buildings in New York have them, but nobody sees them...





And then there are other objects, common as dirt...







I like seeing photographs in the "hum drum," in the common, in the seen but not seen.

Go figure?

Dave