[Canada_Rockies]

I should add that I came back from China with 4.500 shots. Almost two months after our return, I'm still wading through them. At this point I'm pretty grateful that most of them are crap or redundant (or redundant crap.)

I'm with you on this!

[KSmith]

Play with crop tool on that 25-50% and you may keep another 10-15%... Composition can change in post...

Yeah, I know. I am starting to be a little less drastic. Whenever I am on the fence with an image I leave it, but sometimes you look at a shot and just know that you won't touch in a month or in a year. I do, however, strive to learn from the rejects. Whether or not it's working is another story...



Ken

[KSmith]

5% is too high. I remember when we went to Tajmahal, I told my wife that if I could take one photo that I could enlarge and print it, this trip will be worth it (it was already worth it because it was with my wife, but from photography point's).

I was lucky I finally had few that I could print.

still usually when I make trip, I now plan on how to get that 1 print photo. sometimes I succeed sometime I fail.

Last 5 years I do not think I have 20 good photos to show.

Actually, I think that 5 / 100 is not too high at all. I should probably point out though, that I am refering to a photo that I would hang at home or give to a friend. I am not talking about gallery quality prints or selling my work.

Ken

[Francis]

Well, we went to Alaska with three cameras: my K5, an Oly SZ30 (wife) and an Oly mju (daughter). Thank God for the SZ30 is the only thing I can say at the moment. I'm trying to PP the K5 shots to clean up dust spots, but there are more bad ones on my K5 than on the SZ. I guess more control of parameters means more possible "failure" points. I just hope I improve, otherwise my wife will be making fun of me in the background for the rest of my life ;o)

[JeffJS]

Well, we went to Alaska with three cameras: my K5, an Oly SZ30 (wife) and an Oly mju (daughter). Thank God for the SZ30 is the only thing I can say at the moment. I'm trying to PP the K5 shots to clean up dust spots, but there are more bad ones on my K5 than on the SZ. I guess more control of parameters means more possible "failure" points. I just hope I improve, otherwise my wife will be making fun of me in the background for the rest of my life ;o)

What software are you using for that cleaning up?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-camera-articles/121739-those-...ml#post1259109

See the third post in the article. You can download and use Photoshop CS5 for a solid month, get your pics cleaned up, and you'll be good to go on that. Remember, the dust will always appear in the same location so there is no need, with the right software, to individually go through and fix each one. JPG files can be opened in camera raw too (referring to the article linked above).

[MadAmos]

Yeah, I know. I am starting to be a little less drastic. Whenever I am on the fence with an image I leave it, but sometimes you look at a shot and just know that you won't touch in a month or in a year. I do, however, strive to learn from the rejects. Whether or not it's working is another story...



Ken

I read somewhere that 1 in 10 being a keeper was considered a good success rate and that was from a pro. So my hobbyist self is happy with fewer. However, storage is cheap. I dump a complete copy of my memory card to my backup drive before I even begin sorting and editing. I've found some cool candid shots by cropping down one I thought was a toss. So long as its not too out of focus it might be useable later.

[Francis]

I bet your re\jects are probably far better than some of my keepers.

Jeff I use Lightroom to PP

[tibbitts]

While obvious duds should be disposed of, sometimes images look uninspiring but just need PP, especially when dealing with a raw image. I had a picture of some clouds and mountains that looked so drab that I almost discarded it, but after PP it turned out much more interesting. So I'm not sure that inexperienced photographers should be too quick to dispose of their images. As skill with PP, and PP software, gradually improves, you might regret deleting some of those images.

That applies more to subjects like landscapes, though. If you have a portrait or action photo where you just missed the image you wanted, then technical adjustments won't help.

Paul

[RioRico]

PP is part of the image-making process. Discarding shots before shooping them is just a waste.

[baro-nite]

PP is part of the image-making process. Discarding shots before shooping them is just a waste.

Waste of time for having taken the shot in the first place? Maybe, or maybe a useful learning exercise. Waste of what might have been a good shot? Sometimes, but then one can also waste time trying to rescue a shot in PP, only to send it to the bin in the end. Of course that, too, can be a useful learning exercise.

Will depend on type of subject and on shooting style, but for me it's important to do an immediate cull on transferring the files to the computer. Disk space may be cheap but time and attention aren't. Learning to quickly recognize and to be ruthless about what's good/workable vs. what's trash should help develop a better eye for getting good captures in the first place. At least I hope so; I've got a looooong way to go.

That said, I keep all my 'maybes'.

[KSmith]

PP is part of the image-making process.

Can't argue with that.

Discarding shots before shooping them is just a waste.

Unless you learn why you're rejecting said shots and try to prevent it in the future.

Disk space may be cheap but time and attention aren't. Learning to quickly recognize and to be ruthless about what's good/workable vs. what's trash should help develop a better eye for getting good captures in the first place. At least I hope so; I've got a looooong way to go.

That said, I keep all my 'maybes'.

Pretty much my philosophy at the moment ( doesn't mean it won't change in time however...).

Ken

[RioRico]

Discarding shots before shooping them is just a waste.

Unless you learn why you're rejecting said shots and try to prevent it in the future.

And that depends on what I can *do* with said shots. If an image fails as a photo-realistic rendering of a subject, it may yet succeed as a posterization or abstraction or deformation. Cherish the best, transform the rest: that's my paradigm. By no means are all my shots keepers; depending on the situation, I may chimp and delete half of any sequence, if I can see that they're totally unsalvageable, mostly due to my careless sloppiness. Of those that reach my hard discs, very few more are deleted. YMMV. But in my profile I say that "I capture and torture sounds and images" and that is exactly right.

[dsodko]

Keep on shooting. Ask for advice.

I go through my shots after being out and about deleting the real duds. Sometimes I wait several days before doing basic PP , B&W and or cropping.

Last week I rendered a color shot of a Magnolia to B&W and I was highly surprised !

I remember learning to drive a car. It wasn't easy. But I didn't stop trying.

If you can find patience in yourself you will improve. Slowly at first and it will surprise you.

I guess as I age learned a few of these things.


Good luck,

Dave

[Francis]

I take several runs through my pics. First run I dump the obvious duds. Second pass I work with LR to fix the not-so-obvious duds and discard the unfixables. Third pass I consider keepers and then just manipulate.

Now, one thing I learned over the weekend is that LR has a graduated filter option lol. I realized I had some unfixables that I discarded already, so too bad. These were typically the high contrast bright sky with a "normal" foreground (like my wife, or mountains). I've also been looking for a graduated nd filter to use.

Here are some photos I put on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63621367@N02/sets/72157627588985204/