Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

tabl10s · 03-04-2013, 10:52 AM

I don't. I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's and I'm going to start deleting a few hundred shots.

joe.penn · 03-04-2013, 10:53 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by tabl10s

Do You Keep bad Shots?

Yes, if I didn't keep bad shots I wouldn't have any shots

...

mrNewt · 03-04-2013, 10:54 AM

Depends of the level of bad I guess ...

If is unrecoverable, I delete them.
If something might be used from the image (by cropping it out), I might keep it.

But then again ... I am very critical of myself and what I do and each single photo I make sucks anyway ... so yea ... hard to answer that question as well

Na Horuk · 03-04-2013, 10:55 AM

lol yep. I try not to, but I do. then sometimes I go back and delete bad photos I have taken months ago. Its a trap of the digital era, you can always make more shots and then just leave them.. and before you run out of space, hard drives evolve so much you can just buy a new one with 10x as much space..

**jatrax** · 03-04-2013, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by joe.penn

Yes, if I didn't keep bad shots I wouldn't have any shots ...

Sad but oh so true. But I keep trying, maybe someday I'll get a good one.

Originally posted by tabl10s

I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's

Not sure I understand the issue. I rarely have an image with the horizon line level. I usually don't bother to fuss with it, just correct in Lightroom where the tools are available to make it perfect.

If an image is 'bad' as in there is no value to it or it cannot be made useful with PP then it gets deleted on the first pass. Depending on the shoot this might eliminate 75% of the images. For example in a product shoot I will adjust lighting as I go along and document each change with a shot. Sometimes it ends up one of the early ones gets used but usually it is one very close to the end, So in a shoot of 20 images of the same thing I might keep 3 or 4 after the first pass and then in PP get rid of all but 1 or 2.

So deleting shots with a completely fixable horizon is confusing to me. Deleting shots because they are duplicates or are just poor images, yes of course.

JinDesu · 03-04-2013, 11:17 AM

If it's a shot that I can salvage, I keep it. If it's unsalvageable, I don't.

Salvage means - if I can fix it so the exposure, composition, colours, white balance, etc look correct. If it's an error in the subject or focus, then I ditch them.

kenafein · 03-04-2013, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by tabl10s

I don't. I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's and I'm going to start deleting a few hundred shots.

Sadly, the most expressive shots, with the best expression usually have some technical problem(often these look fine at web sizes). I tend to keep every shot unless it's simply way off. Fixing the horizon is very easy, as you know. I would never get rid of a shot simply for that. That said, I am out of hard drive space and I'm looking at at least $300 for a RAID setup.

vonBaloney · 03-04-2013, 11:34 AM

I don't delete anything except test shots (brick walls and such when I get a new lens) and utilitarian shots (shots of something I am selling on ebay). Random blurs and stuff like that I delete (usually in the field), but any real image I'll keep forever. It depends what your goals are and what you think the future holds. Who knows what software will do in 5/10/20 years? Some of this stuff may have just documentary value. I'll certainly be interested to see what I was interested in shooting now looking back in a decade -- maybe I'll like some of those "bad" shots. I shoot 100s of photos in order to get one or two that I think are worthy of the full processing treatment to prepare them as "fine art" prints for sale. But I keep all the raw material forever. And I back it up and save if offsite as well. I think it is precious material.

I don't understand what the rush to delete stuff is about -- you think the famed photographers of the film era sat around identifying the "bad" negatives and throwing them away?

Smeggypants · 03-04-2013, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by tabl10s

I don't. I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's and I'm going to start deleting a few hundred shots.

What an odd post.

Firstly may I recommend an accurate horizon level when taking photos. It's called eyesight.

Secondly, you're going to delete hundreds of shots simply because the horizon isn't level? Especially when correcting them, if you must, is a simpel process.

As for deleting bad shots? I only delete complete turkeys. whiteouts, unrecogniseable blurs, etc. I keep verything else. Why? Werll in a few decades time even the most crappy shots will have some historical interest. I've learned this from scanning my old negs taken 25 years ago.

VoiceOfReason · 03-04-2013, 11:46 AM

I get rid of the really bad ones, but keep ones that I may be able to crop or fix or reduce in size to where they are okay looking.

Franky2step · 03-04-2013, 11:49 AM

I think in film days you definitely kept everything and printed the best ones. Nowadays, your soso files are stored cheaply on HDD's etc, and I still print my best photos.

Lukinosity · 03-04-2013, 12:36 PM

I get rid of most of my duds unless there is some reason to keep it. If it's a dud, it's a dud.

tabl10s · 03-04-2013, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

What an odd post.

Firstly may I recommend an accurate horizon level when taking photos. It's called eyesight.

Secondly, you're going to delete hundreds of shots simply because the horizon isn't level? Especially when correcting them, if you must, is a simpel process.

As for deleting bad shots? I only delete complete turkeys. whiteouts, unrecogniseable blurs, etc. I keep verything else. Why? Werll in a few decades time even the most crappy shots will have some historical interest. I've learned this from scanning my old negs taken 25 years ago.

I don't think anything is odd about what I asked. I rarely keep bad prints and have thrown away pics from 30 years ago. I do keep the special ones like the time as a 19 year old, I had a Mojave Green rattler around my neck.

jamarley · 03-04-2013, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

Who knows what software will do in 5/10/20 years?

I can't remember where on the web it was, but I recently saw a short blurb about not deleting "bad" pictures because the capabilities of software keeps improving at breakneck speed. I'm not too good about deleting (call it anal if you must), so these are all welcome justifications for my laziness!

**pearsaab** · 03-04-2013, 01:26 PM

i find over time my definition of bad changes...hopefully that is a reflection that i'm getting better or i just know more what i want...i don't keep everything so i do delete the really "that sucks" shot but i know there others i'm not happy with and will probably never use but i still keep them...might be like lba but instead i'll call it picture deletion affliction PDA

03-04-2013, 10:52 AM	#1
tabl10s Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Sacramento(formerly from B'Ham, England). Posts: 1,424	Do You Keep bad Shots? I don't. I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's and I'm going to start deleting a few hundred shots.

03-04-2013, 12:41 PM	#13
tabl10s Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Sacramento(formerly from B'Ham, England). Posts: 1,424 Original Poster	Originally posted by Smeggypants What an odd post. Firstly may I recommend an accurate horizon level when taking photos. It's called eyesight. Secondly, you're going to delete hundreds of shots simply because the horizon isn't level? Especially when correcting them, if you must, is a simpel process. As for deleting bad shots? I only delete complete turkeys. whiteouts, unrecogniseable blurs, etc. I keep verything else. Why? Werll in a few decades time even the most crappy shots will have some historical interest. I've learned this from scanning my old negs taken 25 years ago. I don't think anything is odd about what I asked. I rarely keep bad prints and have thrown away pics from 30 years ago. I do keep the special ones like the time as a 19 year old, I had a Mojave Green rattler around my neck. Last edited by tabl10s; 03-05-2013 at 04:06 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Not bad for using a TC? What do you think?	volley	Post Your Photos!	5	01-20-2013 10:45 PM
How do you keep up with your processing?	Ilovemypentax	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	11	10-24-2012 06:11 PM
bad ebay purchase, what would you do?	ripit	General Talk	43	07-18-2011 10:31 PM
How do you keep files straight with identical cameras?	barondla	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	12-24-2007 07:44 AM
How many photos do you take/keep?	Rak	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	12-08-2006 11:33 PM

03-04-2013, 10:53 AM - 2 Likes	#2
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by tabl10s Do You Keep bad Shots? Yes, if I didn't keep bad shots I wouldn't have any shots ...

03-04-2013, 10:54 AM	#3
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	Depends of the level of bad I guess ... If is unrecoverable, I delete them. If something might be used from the image (by cropping it out), I might keep it. But then again ... I am very critical of myself and what I do and each single photo I make sucks anyway ... so yea ... hard to answer that question as well

03-04-2013, 10:55 AM	#4
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	lol yep. I try not to, but I do. then sometimes I go back and delete bad photos I have taken months ago. Its a trap of the digital era, you can always make more shots and then just leave them.. and before you run out of space, hard drives evolve so much you can just buy a new one with 10x as much space..

03-04-2013, 11:01 AM	#5
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by joe.penn Yes, if I didn't keep bad shots I wouldn't have any shots ... Sad but oh so true. But I keep trying, maybe someday I'll get a good one. Originally posted by tabl10s I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's Not sure I understand the issue. I rarely have an image with the horizon line level. I usually don't bother to fuss with it, just correct in Lightroom where the tools are available to make it perfect. If an image is 'bad' as in there is no value to it or it cannot be made useful with PP then it gets deleted on the first pass. Depending on the shoot this might eliminate 75% of the images. For example in a product shoot I will adjust lighting as I go along and document each change with a shot. Sometimes it ends up one of the early ones gets used but usually it is one very close to the end, So in a shoot of 20 images of the same thing I might keep 3 or 4 after the first pass and then in PP get rid of all but 1 or 2. So deleting shots with a completely fixable horizon is confusing to me. Deleting shots because they are duplicates or are just poor images, yes of course.

03-04-2013, 11:17 AM	#6
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	If it's a shot that I can salvage, I keep it. If it's unsalvageable, I don't. Salvage means - if I can fix it so the exposure, composition, colours, white balance, etc look correct. If it's an error in the subject or focus, then I ditch them.

03-04-2013, 11:22 AM	#7
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by tabl10s I don't. I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's and I'm going to start deleting a few hundred shots. Sadly, the most expressive shots, with the best expression usually have some technical problem(often these look fine at web sizes). I tend to keep every shot unless it's simply way off. Fixing the horizon is very easy, as you know. I would never get rid of a shot simply for that. That said, I am out of hard drive space and I'm looking at at least $300 for a RAID setup.

03-04-2013, 11:34 AM	#8
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	I don't delete anything except test shots (brick walls and such when I get a new lens) and utilitarian shots (shots of something I am selling on ebay). Random blurs and stuff like that I delete (usually in the field), but any real image I'll keep forever. It depends what your goals are and what you think the future holds. Who knows what software will do in 5/10/20 years? Some of this stuff may have just documentary value. I'll certainly be interested to see what I was interested in shooting now looking back in a decade -- maybe I'll like some of those "bad" shots. I shoot 100s of photos in order to get one or two that I think are worthy of the full processing treatment to prepare them as "fine art" prints for sale. But I keep all the raw material forever. And I back it up and save if offsite as well. I think it is precious material. I don't understand what the rush to delete stuff is about -- you think the famed photographers of the film era sat around identifying the "bad" negatives and throwing them away?

03-04-2013, 11:43 AM	#9
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by tabl10s I don't. I know for a fact that the horizon level is off in one of the K-5's and I'm going to start deleting a few hundred shots. What an odd post. Firstly may I recommend an accurate horizon level when taking photos. It's called eyesight. Secondly, you're going to delete hundreds of shots simply because the horizon isn't level? Especially when correcting them, if you must, is a simpel process. As for deleting bad shots? I only delete complete turkeys. whiteouts, unrecogniseable blurs, etc. I keep verything else. Why? Werll in a few decades time even the most crappy shots will have some historical interest. I've learned this from scanning my old negs taken 25 years ago.

03-04-2013, 11:46 AM	#10
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I get rid of the really bad ones, but keep ones that I may be able to crop or fix or reduce in size to where they are okay looking.

03-04-2013, 11:49 AM	#11
Franky2step Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793	I think in film days you definitely kept everything and printed the best ones. Nowadays, your soso files are stored cheaply on HDD's etc, and I still print my best photos.

03-04-2013, 12:36 PM	#12
Lukinosity Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 201	I get rid of most of my duds unless there is some reason to keep it. If it's a dud, it's a dud.

03-04-2013, 01:22 PM	#14
jamarley Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: New Jersey Photos: Gallery Posts: 409	Originally posted by vonBaloney Who knows what software will do in 5/10/20 years? I can't remember where on the web it was, but I recently saw a short blurb about not deleting "bad" pictures because the capabilities of software keeps improving at breakneck speed. I'm not too good about deleting (call it anal if you must), so these are all welcome justifications for my laziness!

03-04-2013, 01:26 PM	#15
pearsaab Otis Memorial Pentaxian Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,900	i find over time my definition of bad changes...hopefully that is a reflection that i'm getting better or i just know more what i want...i don't keep everything so i do delete the really "that sucks" shot but i know there others i'm not happy with and will probably never use but i still keep them...might be like lba but instead i'll call it picture deletion affliction PDA