[tennjed]

I have noticed during the past year or so that I will shoot some pictures, load them into the computer, look at them, and immediately feel a sense of disappointment with the image quality. It might have to do with resolution, focus, WB, any of a number of things. Then, maybe a few days later, while reviewing other images, take a second look and decide that the previously shunned images are not so bad.... Good, in fact. It's not like I have spent the time pondering and adjusting to the previous images. My change in attitude toward the images is just as quick as my initial rejection was.

It has convinced me that I need to be slower on the Delete button. It has me wondering if it is an indication of excessive impulsiveness on my part, or if this is a common phenomenon out there. Maybe it is connected to frequent use of different lenses, leading to disorientation regarding what to expect in an image. I have read various pieces praising the old "One Camera One Lens" masters. Maybe there is more to it than just getting better at composition.

[manntax]

Any examples ? This would help us to help you you know besides yeah I think this isn't that unknown of a feeling to any creatively engaged photographer - in order to grow you have to challenge and critique yourself... and I know for sure me and many folks out there are their worse enemies with too harsh criticism.

So first things first : show us what you shoot and I am sure there will be many helpful responses on their way

[jrpower10]

The only thing I delete first time thru is something out of focus. I've gone back to shots I took a few years ago, that on first blush I wasn't fond of, and decided I actually like it. Attitudes change, tastes change, etc. It's kind of like watching a movie. First time I tried to watch "Princess Bride" I fell asleep I was so bored. Watched it again later and thought it was great.

[LFLee]

in the film era, every single shot become a memory down the road, including of out of focus one.

So maybe your feeling of a photo looks good after several day involve the emotional attachment to those pictures, or those feel-good emotion you have at the time you took those pictures.

[biz-engineer]

Same for me. To me, it's not the right time to review photos shortly after having shit them. I delete immediately obviously bad photos directly from the SD cards. I decide to do serious reviews of photos on my computer when I have time, usually during days of bad weather, it can be more than 6 months after the photos are taken.

[Swift1]

When I shot primarily digital, I became very preoccupied with image quality, sharpness, perfect focus, etc. to the point that I was constatly disappointed by my images not meeting up to standards that I wanted.
Shooting film taught me to see the potential in an image, and to look at the entire image and judge it for what it was, not what it wasn't.
Everyday I get out shooting, I learn more and more that image quality is more about viewpoint (what's in the photo, camera angle, composition), and less about sharpness, bokeh, and critical focus.

[lightbox]

Once I realized that all my pictures really are bad, this problem just went away

[mattb123]

There is a balance between over-deleting and being a digital hoarder. I think I have been to both extremes at some point.
I also do find old overlooked photos and wonder why I didn't see what I see now in them when they were new. So I probably hoard more than I really need to just in case.

[boriscleto]

The 10 Golden Rules

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/40921.Henri_Cartier_Bresson

[Jens Lyn IV]

To me, it's not the right time to review photos shortly after having shit them.

I think we can all agree on that. You might also want to give them a thorough cleaning after such an ordeal.

Sorry...

[officiousbystander]

I think when you take a photo with a camera you also take a photo with your brain and have an idealised view of what it's going to look like. This idealised view is based on every National Geographic issue you've ever seen. When you first look at it you realise it's not like you thought it was going to be, or rather how your brain fantasised about how it would look, so of course you're going to be disappointed. And when you come back to it you can see it's not so bad because you have an understanding of what a good photography is, and while it may not be the idealised perfect shot it must be on its way. Every now and then the camera captures what the brain has seen and that's such a great feeling.

[tennjed]

OK, here is an example, maybe not the best, because it is not every day you run into a chance to photograph an albino wild turkey hen, and I would likely not delete this photo in any event.

But, it is representative because I was initially disappointed in the fact that I missed focus on the bird. I was driving home from a friend's house when I spotted a herd of wild turkey hens that included this albino. When I stopped the car, she- and her group- began to move away, but slowly. I had my K5IIs with the Takumar SMC 135mm 2.5 manual focus lens attached.

The more I look at this photograph, the more I realize it better captures the moment, as is, than if I had accomplished the focus accuracy I had hoped for. It was dusk, and I am sure she was heading for her roost. I am new to this attached photos thing. Forgive me if I screwed up.

[RobA_Oz]

When I shot primarily digital, I became very preoccupied with image quality, sharpness, perfect focus, etc. to the point that I was constatly disappointed by my images not meeting up to standards that I wanted.
Shooting film taught me to see the potential in an image, and to look at the entire image and judge it for what it was, not what it wasn't.
Everyday I get out shooting, I learn more and more that image quality is more about viewpoint (what's in the photo, camera angle, composition), and less about sharpness, bokeh, and critical focus.

As a long-standing film user, I know exactly what you mean. The excitement of developing your own (mostly B&W, in my case) film involves the quiet anticipation that accompanies the chemical developing and fixing in the tank, the relief that you haven't erred in exposure or processing and then a cursory glance at the (small) images on the uncut reel.

The potential of each frame was more closely inspected with the proof sheets (or light box, in the case of reversal film) and a loupe, whether you developed your own or not. The potential was then tested in the darkroom under the enlarger, with the first print, and then taken further with grade selection, dodging and burning etc. Of course, that latter work is now done on the computer or tablet screen, using much the same techniques in digital analogy, but the initial work is now quite different.

The difference with digital is that the review process can commence instantaneously, as soon as you've taken the image, albeit with a less than ideal JPEG on a less than ideal LCD screen, so there's no sense of having worked to develop the initial image, after you've worked to capture it in the camera, and no commitment to giving it the time needed to objectively evaluate its potential.

There again, we take so many more images with digital cameras, that the time to develop and review just isn't there for most of us. It's a lesson to be relearned, I think. We need to slow down where we can, and make sure each image is as good as it can be, before we start.

[devouges]

I am quick on delete also. I take a lot of bird pictures but few make it in my "collection". Those darn birds do not follow the rules and do not stay still very much . I do, however, keep ANY picture of a bird that I do NOT have a picture of. Even if the picture is crappy and lousy, at least I still remember when and where I took it.

[Des]

Yes I delete OOF shots, but apart from that, not automatically. Ho-hum shots can often be improved a lot with some PP treatment and cropping.

I do, however, keep ANY picture of a bird that I do NOT have a picture of. Even if the picture is crappy and lousy, at least I still remember when and where I took it.

Yes, me too. Photos still serve as a record even when they are not works of art.