[Bruce]

I'd like to help you out but I don't have any wisdom on this. I just bite the bullet and do the best I can. I delete about half of what I shoot, process about a third of the remainder and post/print about half of what I process.

And to prove my point I like about half of what Dadi posts (only joking, more like 3/4s).

[Zafar Iqbal]

Bruce: that was the feeling I was getting as well, but I suppose I'm also insecure of my ability to pick the proper photos.

A bit "funny" really. I've worked with 3d graphics for many years, and tell good work apart from bad one and give all sorts of reasons as to why. And if someone happen to like something I don't, I also have a better idea of why that might be. This isn't the case with photography. Much more goes into what makes a good photo and it's freaking me out! :P

I was watching telly few months back and coincidentally there was a program about photography and some competition or whatever. The winner photo, seeming in a high profile national competition, completely went over my head. I could not see why even when trying hard. the commentator panel discussed what values the photo possessed and what meaning it had and I even then couldn't see it. to me it was just another random interior portrait style snapshot - turned into Black and white.

dadipentak: Heh, tell me about it. I was out the other day and came home with close to 372 shots. About 50 were deleted upon import (bad focus etc). I then narrowed my selection down to about 160 keepers in Lightroom - so far 35 of these are upload worthy and that number could get smaller. 6 of these are photos I really like, but 3 of those are color variations :P I max out my ratings at 3 stars but of those 6 6 (or 3 if you will) theres one I really really love).

I do not expect to come home with killer shots all the time, but that particular day was a bit disappointing - buuut, that one shot was kinda worth it.

[xfloggingkylex]

I had to learn this while working at a mall photo studio. After taking 50 pictures you want to show the customer one of each pose, otherwise they do exactly what you are doing and spend a lot of time thinking of which they like.

I usually go through them all once, deleting anything that's out of focus or just not fixable. After that, I go through and jump back and fourth between similar pictures asking myself which would I spend money on.

That usually helps me narrow it down, and if I still cant decide I leave both, though usually I narrow it down pretty well.

[Macario]

Bruce: that was the feeling I was getting as well, but I suppose I'm also insecure of my ability to pick the proper photos.

A bit "funny" really. I've worked with 3d graphics for many years, and tell good work apart from bad one and give all sorts of reasons as to why. And if someone happen to like something I don't, I also have a better idea of why that might be. This isn't the case with photography. Much more goes into what makes a good photo and it's freaking me out! :P

I was watching telly few months back and coincidentally there was a program about photography and some competition or whatever. The winner photo, seeming in a high profile national competition, completely went over my head. I could not see why even when trying hard. the commentator panel discussed what values the photo possessed and what meaning it had and I even then couldn't see it. to me it was just another random interior portrait style snapshot - turned into Black and white.

dadipentak: Heh, tell me about it. I was out the other day and came home with close to 372 shots. About 50 were deleted upon import (bad focus etc). I then narrowed my selection down to about 160 keepers in Lightroom - so far 35 of these are upload worthy and that number could get smaller. 6 of these are photos I really like, but 3 of those are color variations :P I max out my ratings at 3 stars but of those 6 6 (or 3 if you will) theres one I really really love).

I do not expect to come home with killer shots all the time, but that particular day was a bit disappointing - buuut, that one shot was kinda worth it.

It has happend to me a million times, a photo won, and I was wondering why. But it is just so personal what you like (and if you have alredy won some, then it is easier to win more, as a flaw in your photo will not be seen as bad as the same flaw in somebody elses photo)

[eddie1960]

It has happend to me a million times, a photo won, and I was wondering why. But it is just so personal what you like (and if you have alredy won some, then it is easier to win more, as a flaw in your photo will not be seen as bad as the same flaw in somebody elses photo)

The problem is as photographers we tend to look at the technical all the time and then have issues choosing a "best"
I find my favourites are only occasionally other peoples, while what i consider a throwaway generates interest. Perfect example was I asked my wife what she'd like a print of from recent trips for christmas. She surfed my Flickr for a while and her first choice was a shot from my old iPhone that i had played with some of the cheesy software on the phone. it was a blurry night shot at the Bastille. Fun but i never would have thought of printing it (800 x 600 ) To make her happy i printed and framed it anyway despite the low res @ 8x10 . Several people have seen it since and all thought it was one of my best
My best selling piece from when i've done shows in the past has always been another oddball piece multi exposed and cross processed from a holga at the trevi fountain. Technically it is a disaster. artistically though it has more than i give it credit for
multi thousands in gear and somehow the stuff made on cheap items seems to work out as popular. It's far too easy to look for technical perfection and overlook something that really has something else going for it.


As for keeping similars I do that with most event shots, I've sold pieces where they had seen a shot of an artist they liked and asked if I had something similar that hadn't been published yet. If I deleted similars I'd miss potential sales

[vonBaloney]

I never delete anything. Test shots and total disasters -- blown out shots, accidental shutter clicks, etc I will delete in camera, but once I import it into Lightroom it stays forever. It does get sorted and categorized so I can single out the stuff I'm interested in preparing for printing, but why erase? Storage is cheap. There are a number of reasons to keep everything, and no real downside.

[eddie1960]

I never delete anything. Test shots and total disasters -- blown out shots, accidental shutter clicks, etc I will delete in camera, but once I import it into Lightroom it stays forever. It does get sorted and categorized so I can single out the stuff I'm interested in preparing for printing, but why erase? Storage is cheap. There are a number of reasons to keep everything, and no real downside.

Exactly, i used to delete when storage was pricey but no longer (and regret some of the deletions for that matter). I do delete in cam though as you do, I also shoot more selectively now than i did when i first got digital and the novelty of being able to shoot 800 shots in a night at an event was too much too pass up (post production time cured that idea ) same type of event I might shoot 250-300 now

[vonBaloney]

Exactly, i used to delete when storage was pricey but no longer (and regret some of the deletions for that matter). I do delete in cam though as you do, I also shoot more selectively now than i did when i first got digital and the novelty of being able to shoot 800 shots in a night at an event was too much too pass up (post production time cured that idea ) same type of event I might shoot 250-300 now

I am fairly selective in shooting (trained using film) -- I need to learn to take more shots actually. And I'm not an assignment photographer where I take a gazillion shots of the same thing, I just wander around and look for stuff to shoot.

But with technology constantly marching ahead, who knows what I'll be able to do with some of these shots in 5 years post-processing wise?. Plus you may want to grab some clouds or whatever from one photo and put them in another -- I want that raw material. I also want to have record of my progression as an artist and the kind of subjects I was interested in -- some of these rejects may look very good to me at some point.

[eddie1960]

I am fairly selective in shooting (trained using film) -- I need to learn to take more shots actually. And I'm not an assignment photographer where I take a gazillion shots of the same thing, I just wander around and look for stuff to shoot.

But with technology constantly marching ahead, who knows what I'll be able to do with some of these shots in 5 years post-processing wise?. Plus you may want to grab some clouds or whatever from one photo and put them in another -- I want that raw material. I also want to have record of my progression as an artist and the kind of subjects I was interested in -- some of these rejects may look very good to me at some point.

I started on film back in 72, it was a novelty to not think cost when shooting I have gotten over that but have since started shooting a lot more events that last several hours so for those things I shoot a lot. Regular walkabout far far less. I've always got a bag with body and 2-3 lenses with me but i don't always see anything i want to shoot
other days i'll wind off 50-100 shots on the way home.

On days i carry film instead of digital i am far more selective Especially Medium format

[mysticcowboy]

Before you can judge whether a photograph is "good" or not, you have to ask yourself a prior question. What is the purpose of the image? What am I trying to portray? It's easy to judge sharpness or color accuracy, but look over some of the iconic photos from journalism. It quickly becomes clear that not all of them are sharp, especially some of the ones taken before reliable autofocus became common. But technically correct photos are not always the "best" photos. In fact, a lot of people learn the "rules" of photography, yet fail to make excellent images. It's probably fair to say that technical photographic competence is only the first step towards making meaningful images.

There are rules of composition, but not all great photos fit the rule of thirds, or any other rule. A study of composition will help us better frame our photos. A study of painting will probably help here too. 2D pictures are 2D pictures, whether photographed, drawn or painted. If you really want to improve your composition and learn how to portray mood, story, or the essence of a scene, lots of study will help. When the rules are internalized then, paradoxically, it's easier to break them in a way that works.

But, ultimately, good or bad are relative judgements, that are, at root, emotional. Maybe someday there will be enough computer analysis of good photos that we will have reliable formulae to follow, but, bottom line, your best photos will be the ones you like most. And that will change over time. It's even likely that, as you develop your own tastes and style, that your preferences will stray from the mainstream, that your photos will become less popular, that others won't see what you see in them. And, that's actually a good thing.

[Macario]

I agree on that, many try to make technical perfect pictures, cloning out lot of things. but in the end they end up with boring shots, becausue they all look flat, too perfect

[vonBaloney]

Beginners should also realize that they have a lot of crap in their system, for lack of a better phrase, from social conditioning, etc. If you look at the work of a photo 101 class, you'll notice that the students all tend to take the same photos (more or less) as all the other students (except for that one person that seems to be in every class that is just brilliant all the time). You might also notice that some individuals shoot the same photo over & over -- not necessarily of the same subject, but the same composition is repeated (e.g. big object on left-hand side in foreground looking slightly upward to smaller object on right-side background). Usually someone else has to point this out to them in order for them to notice.

You have to shoot a lot of pictures (and preferably work on them in PP, which makes you think about them) before you kind of flush out the stock ideas in your head and start to find your own style.

[Zafar Iqbal]

mysticcowboy: I'm sure being aware of why I'm taking a photograph would help but I have a hard time doing that with 99% of my photo's (if we exclude event/party type photos, in which case documenting and capturing the mood would be the purpose, amongst others).

I mostly shoot random stuff. Something might look interesting - maybe not, but I took it anyways because I don't have to pay for film these days - and later, while in Lightroom, I can end up getting (good) surprises.

And I suppose this is also why I'm puzled about how to find that good photo. I didn't really recognize it while walking. I didn't really recognize it after taking the shot - barely recognized it immediately after import and more than often, processing lifts my photos and they can then appeal or not to me.

with that said, I must also add that I do not believe I over process my photos. And yes, I might be exaggerating a bit, but it sums up the problem well.

It may also be that because I don't know exactly why I'm always taking a shot, that I'm really bad a judging what I've shot on the back of the camera. I can mostly only relate to exposure and stuff.

[vonBaloney]

mysticcowboy: I'm sure being aware of why I'm taking a photograph would help but I have a hard time doing that with 99% of my photo's (if we exclude event/party type photos, in which case documenting and capturing the mood would be the purpose, amongst others).

I mostly shoot random stuff. Something might look interesting - maybe not, but I took it anyways because I don't have to pay for film these days - and later, while in Lightroom, I can end up getting (good) surprises.

And I suppose this is also why I'm puzled about how to find that good photo. I didn't really recognize it while walking. I didn't really recognize it after taking the shot - barely recognized it immediately after import and more than often, processing lifts my photos and they can then appeal or not to me.

with that said, I must also add that I do not believe I over process my photos. And yes, I might be exaggerating a bit, but it sums up the problem well.

It may also be that because I don't know exactly why I'm always taking a shot, that I'm really bad a judging what I've shot on the back of the camera. I can mostly only relate to exposure and stuff.

All reasons why I never erase anything. I don't know why I take a shot either (except for wildlife when I'm exciting to grab a fleeting opportunity) -- cause it looks interesting. (And I never take pictures of people.) I've got enough analytical stuff to do in my life -- I do photography to get away from thinking (the shooting part of it, anyway -- PP less so) -- it is meditation and "being in the moment" as they say. Also I usually find the best photo is a completely different composition than the one I made in the camera so I've learned to take more shots with different compositions of the same basic subject (just because) and to leave a little breathing room on the edges to find the exact best composition later.

[eddie1960]

One thing that was mentioned a bit earlier that may help you in the long run is Composition rules. I.E.rule of thirds etc.
If you haven't already grab a couple of decent references on composition (there are some in the old Time Life series for instance) or try the 2 below which are supposedly pretty good. the rules aren't really any different than the rules you'd learn studying painting (heck most of them come from painting) Now I for one think rules are made to be broken...BUT you need to know the rules and be able to see them in life before you can break them with success consistently

Amazon.com: Photography: The Art of Composition (9781581154092): Bert Krages: Books

Amazon.com: The Art of Photography: An Approach to Personal Expression (9781933952680): Bruce Barnbaum: Books

Knowing these things make it easier to decide what does and doesn't work in a shot.

Pair working on this with using a suitable prime like a 28 or fast 50 (depending on the subject mater of course) Primes force you to think about the composition a little more and walk around a subject a bit. With a Zoom you can frame quickly, but frequently you end up with a snapshot type shot and less towards the art side

It's a matter of training yourself to "see" so to speak. Unfortunately it's rarely a quick fix it takes time to learn.