Confession time why you so lazy?

[The Bad Guy]

Had a person follow me on Flickr today….they had 70 000+ photos on their stream.

Have clients often come in (I run an Apple resellership) with their 150 000+ iPhoto libraries.

Reading here at this very website, I often see people commenting on their multi terabyte photo collections.

Me personally (semi professional, who does studio work), I take 10 photos to get that 'one' image and don't delete what I should.


My question: Why do you have so many photos and why don't you cull the bad ones (i.e. the majority of your pics)?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Had a person follow me on Flickr today….they had 70 000+ photos on their stream.

Have clients often come in (I run an Apple resellership) with their 150 000+ iPhoto libraries.

Reading here at this very website, I often see people commenting on their multi terabyte photo collections.

Me personally (semi professional, who does studio work), I take 10 photos to get that 'one' image and don't delete what I should.


My question: Why do you have so many photos and why don't you cull the bad ones (i.e. the majority of your pics)?

I delete a lot of my bad photos. My typical day out I shoot about 150 shots. I then upload into LR. I then go through them and flag the good ones and reject the bad. I then delete the bad (out of focus, duplicate of another, exposure of composition way off). Typically around 60-70 get binned.
Then I tweak about 10-20 of my remaking 90. What do I do with the rest? Well just leave them there of course!

 

[Meister]

I am a file horder. And have better things to do then delete files.

 

[Cheese&Apple]

It's like cleaning out the garage. I save the job for a rainy day when there is nothing better to do but the weather has been great and there's always some distraction that's far more interesting.

Lazy? Maybe, but I'm more likely to call it procrastination.

 

[thedeske]

Had a person follow me on Flickr today….they had 70 000+ photos on their stream.

Have clients often come in (I run an Apple resellership) with their 150 000+ iPhoto libraries.

Reading here at this very website, I often see people commenting on their multi terabyte photo collections.

Me personally (semi professional, who does studio work), I take 10 photos to get that 'one' image and don't delete what I should.


My question: Why do you have so many photos and why don't you cull the bad ones (i.e. the majority of your pics)?

Nice - I remember reading about some of the great Photographers of the past 30 years and their routines. They'd go out with a huge rig, only to return with 30-50 shots from an amazing location. That was the attitude. Now people frame a big cat, animal, bird and squeeze the trigger. 20 shots later they have the animal moving perhaps 3 inches. They squeeze off another 18 in the next few seconds.
The problem is that 60% will look good with a top end camera.
There's no incentive to let go for some people and it get's worse when they decide to keep almost all of them "In Case" they like something better than their pick later in life. Hard drives are cheap? Yeah, so?

Too many amateurs with Mark3s?

Something tells me that Pros rarely keep huge libraries of their personal stuff and little to none of client work unless it's a paid-for archive.

 

[bhtwo]

Had a person follow me on Flickr today….they had 70 000+ photos on their stream.

Have clients often come in (I run an Apple resellership) with their 150 000+ iPhoto libraries.

Reading here at this very website, I often see people commenting on their multi terabyte photo collections.

Me personally (semi professional, who does studio work), I take 10 photos to get that 'one' image and don't delete what I should.


My question: Why do you have so many photos and why don't you cull the bad ones (i.e. the majority of your pics)?

Same here 'cept I delete all the carp, I don't have the system to store stuff I don't want, or the processing power to catalogue and library all those shots.

Typically I may go out and shoot 30+ and get one I like... the rest are binned.

Memory card is wiped to start over.

 

[akhilleus]

People organize their stuff differently. Most people keep a ton of files because they see it as "hey, I have a ton of space, why not... maybe I'll need one later." With photos I usually just keep the "best" shot(s), whereas with video, I keep all the raw video files because I could always use a quick shot somewhere down the line, even if it doesn't fit in my current project.

Diff'rent strokes...

 

[genshi]

Nice - I remember reading about some of the great Photographers of the past 30 years and their routines. They'd go out with a huge rig, only to return with 30-50 shots from an amazing location. That was the attitude. Now people frame a big cat, animal, bird and squeeze the trigger. 20 shots later they have the animal moving perhaps 3 inches. They squeeze off another 18 in the next few seconds.
The problem is that 60% will look good with a top end camera.
There's no incentive to let go for some people and it get's worse when they decide to keep almost all of them "In Case" they like something better than their pick later in life. Hard drives are cheap? Yeah, so?

Too many amateurs with Mark3s?

Something tells me that Pros rarely keep huge libraries of their personal stuff and little to none of client work unless it's a paid-for archive.

I agree with this, and to further elaborate... this is [obviously] a result of the digital age. I come from a film background, and though I have been shooting digital for the past decade and a half, I also still shoot Medium Format film (only 12 shots per roll) equally. So when I move over to my digital gear, I treat it like a film camera; all manual settings, and I take the time to compose the shot and try to only shoot what I need to.

The generation that grew up on digital cameras only, seem to take as many shots as possible (all the while chimping) and thus wind up with a hundred shots or more just in a single outing!

I think people need to slow down and put some thought and mindfulness into their photography if they want to hone their craft. Just my opinion.

It reminds me of a mini-documentary that I recently saw about 4 or 5 of the top "digital photographers"; they were each given a Hasselblad and a single roll of film to see what they could do... they were all so confused at how anyone can do photography with only 12 shots. And because they were now very aware that they can't just take a hundred shots and hope for the best, most of them spent up to 10 or 12 hours using up those 12 shots! It seemed to really open their eyes about their own skills and how they approach photography.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I hear this a lot treat digital like film. Tbh I don't get it. Yes don't be snap happy, take time to compose your shots and composition. But going out for a day and coming back with 12 shots is just limiting your opportunity's to get a good shot or tell a story.

Using a tripod is a great way to do this (and gives you a nice steady shot!).
It costs nothing to take more. Perhaps combining a few shots in to an HDR shot, or maybe they will fit an assignment you have in the future.

I think the generation that started with film need to let the hobby/profession evolve, and not tell everybody to do it the way they used to.

 

[genshi]

I hear this a lot treat digital like film. Tbh I don't get it. Yes don't be snap happy, take time to compose your shots and composition. But going out for a day and coming back with 12 shots is just limiting your opportunity's to get a good shot or tell a story.

Using a tripod is a great way to do this (and gives you a nice steady shot!).
It costs nothing to take more. Perhaps combining a few shots in to an HDR shot, or maybe they will fit an assignment you have in the future.

I think the generation that started with film need to let the hobby/profession evolve, and not tell everybody to do it the way they used to.

And this is why you are missing the whole point...

EDIT: I decided to clarify before you come back with "so what is your point".

Putting limits on yourself is what forces you to get better at what you do. It's the same with music; everyone with a maxed out computer and FruityLoops/Reason/Ableton Live and "all teh Elektron kits" thinks he's a "producer". But if you go back and limit yourself, no computer, just a synth and a guitar or something, and try to actually play your instrument (instead of endless MIDI editing) you will actually get better at your craft! It's true! Try it!

Instead, the younger generation just doesn't seem to get it (boy, I never thought I would get to the point where I sound like an old man!) They always want everything fast, and now, and spoon-fed to them. I'm sorry but it's just true for the most part; based on my past experience in teaching "Principles of Digital Photography" and "Digital Music Technology" at a College in Los Angeles.

 

[Apple fanboy]

And this is why you are missing the whole point...

EDIT: I decided to clarify before you come back with "so what is your point".

Putting limits on yourself is what forces you to get better at what you do. It's the same with music; everyone with a maxed out computer and FruityLoops/Reason/Ableton Live and "all teh Elektron kits" thinks he's a "producer". But if you go back and limit yourself, no computer, just a synth and a guitar or something, and try to actually play your instrument (instead of endless MIDI editing) you will actually get better at your craft! It's true! Try it!

Instead, the younger generation just doesn't seem to get it (boy, I never thought I would get to the point where I sound like an old man!) They always want everything fast, and now, and spoon-fed to them. I'm sorry but it's just true for the most part; based on my past experience in teaching "Principles of Digital Photography" and "Digital Music Technology" at a College in Los Angeles.

I know nothing about digital music producing (or anything about music except buying it) so I can't really comment on that.
For me I think people are always trying to compare digital to film get it wrong. Eg this lens is the equivalent of shooting with this lens on a 35mm camera. But what they forget is there is a generation of people who know nothing about film and never will.
When I download music, I don't think of it in the equivalent of 45's or 78's (that will confuse some readers!). I just buy it and add it to a play list to listen to.
My dad still converts his petrol purchases into galleons and works out the mpg.
Why don't they just do it in mpl? That's how they sell it (in the UK).

Digital photography is the best thing that has happened to photography. A lot of my early digital stuff was rubbish. I'm so glad that as I went through that learning curve, I didn't have to literally pay for each shot.
If it was wrong I just binned it. Great. Why would I want to go back to just getting 12 shots in a day? My learning curve would have been so much slower than it was.

 

[Meister]

I, like most people, started photography with film. the fact that the film roll was limiting and expensive is not good in any way. Obviously now I also shoot much more and have much more bad shots. I try to limit those because its hard to have to look through them to find the good ones. so people will automatically try to shoot a bit less. Until a few years ago film still had advantages. the dslrs now are better than film in every way.
thats progress and its a good thing.

 

[genshi]

I know nothing about digital music producing (or anything about music except buying it) so I can't really comment on that.
For me I think people are always trying to compare digital to film get it wrong. Eg this lens is the equivalent of shooting with this lens on a 35mm camera. But what they forget is there is a generation of people who know nothing about film and never will.
When I download music, I don't think of it in the equivalent of 45's or 78's (that will confuse some readers!). I just buy it and add it to a play list to listen to.
My dad still converts his petrol purchases into galleons and works out the mpg.
Why don't they just do it in mpl? That's how they sell it (in the UK).

Digital photography is the best thing that has happened to photography. A lot of my early digital stuff was rubbish. I'm so glad that as I went through that learning curve, I didn't have to literally pay for each shot.
If it was wrong I just binned it. Great. Why would I want to go back to just getting 12 shots in a day? My learning curve would have been so much slower than it was.

I get where you are coming from, and I'm not knocking digital photography at all. Again, I do digital... and taught it.

But, when you say "there is a generation of people who know nothing about film and never will", why? Why will they never know nothing about film? They could if they would...

And that's my point. If, instead of being so insulted by what I say, you would instead take my advice and actually try it... say for instance, get a cheap twin-lens reflex like the Seagull or something, and a roll of 120 film, and then try taking 12 shots... you might actually be surprised by what happens! You might actually start to see photography in a whole new light (pun intended.) And you might learn a thing or two that you can actually apply to your digital photography!

Or not... I was just stating my own observations, that's all.

 

[thedeske]

I think people need to slow down and put some thought and mindfulness into their photography if they want to hone their craft. Just my opinion.

The trigger happy travelers I know just throw money at glass, batteries & a stack of WD Passports

 

[bhtwo]

In my film days I used to shoot slide film (Ektachrome). I could only afford a twenty shot roll every couple of weeks... taught me a lot of patience.

I still shoot miserly on digital. I'm 57.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I get where you are coming from, and I'm not knocking digital photography at all. Again, I do digital... and taught it.

But, when you say "there is a generation of people who know nothing about film and never will", why? Why will they never know nothing about film? They could if they would...

And that's my point. If, instead of being so insulted by what I say, you would instead take my advice and actually try it... say for instance, get a cheap twin-lens reflex like the Seagull or something, and a roll of 120 film, and then try taking 12 shots... you might actually be surprised by what happens! You might actually start to see photography in a whole new light (pun intended.) And you might learn a thing or two that you can actually apply to your digital photography!

Or not... I was just stating my own observations, that's all.

Not insulted. Just stating my point.
Personally I don't see this as a way to develop my photography. I know many who do. It's a personal choice, but I'd rather leave the past where it belongs. In a museum or on a shelf gathering dust.
But to each their own.

 

[genshi]

I, like most people, started photography with film. the fact that the film roll was limiting and expensive is not good in any way. Obviously now I also shoot much more and have much more bad shots. I try to limit those because its hard to have to look through them to find the good ones. so people will automatically try to shoot a bit less. Until a few years ago film still had advantages. the dslrs now are better than film in every way.
thats progress and its a good thing.

So wrong. Which is why many top digital photographers are actually going back to film, at least for their personal photography. There is an aesthetic to film that you just don't get with digital (not to mention, dynamic range, latitude, etc.) This is a fact. It is why there are so many plug-ins now that try to simulate film. Again, it's the same with music. It's the reason so many people, and now so many manufacturers, are going back to analog synthesizers. Even though digital synths can store hundreds of sounds, play 64 voices at the same time in pristine crystal-clear quality and have 100 waveforms, why are people clamoring for the new analogs with one or two voices, 5 waveforms, and often no presets!?

Of course there are numerous advantages to digital photography, but I'll put Medium Format Film up against any Nikon or Canon DSLR ANY day (not to mention Large Format; there's a reason why there is a resurgence of wet plate collodion photography happening.)

Talk about beating a dead horse... should we also fight about which is better, Mac or PC? Coke or Pepsi? I was simply saying to the point of the whole thread, that in the digital age, people tend to shoot more, which is why they have more bad shots, but if they take the time to slow down, get back to how it use to be with film, maybe they will actually get better at shooting. It's as simple as that. And it happens to be true for most people.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Talk about beating a dead horse... should we also fight about which is better, Mac or PC? Coke or Pepsi? I was simply saying to the point of the whole thread, that in the digital age, people tend to shoot more, which is why they have more bad shots, but if they take the time to slow down, get back to how it use to be with film, maybe they will actually get better at shooting. It's as simple as that. And it happens to be true for most people.

I'm a Diet Coke man myself, and you can probably tell where I come down on the Mac Vs PC debate from the user name!

If I shot film exclusively, maybe I'd have shot 250 exposures in the 16th months I've been doing photography. Imagine how little I would have learnt compared to the 1000's I have. You can't beat experience for learning.
I'd still have plenty of bad shots either way, but I'm willing to bet I'd have far fewer good ones.
Most people assume just because you have a digital you just shove it in auto and spray and prey. That's not what I do. But with modern DSLR's even that will give you some good shots.
Keep it in Manual, use a tripod and learn about the full functionality of your camera. Then learn how to PP correctly and you can get great images.

 

[Meister]

Of course there are numerous advantages to digital photography, but I'll put Medium Format Film up against any Nikon or Canon DSLR ANY day (not to mention Large Format; there's a reason why there is a resurgence of wet plate collodion photography happening.)

Medium format and larger is a whole different story. The modern dslrs are way superior to 35mm film.

But since you are a fan of MF film, I am selling my mamiya rb67 pro with a pro back and a secor 127mm 3.8 lens.
Mint condition

 

[Policar]

And this is why you are missing the whole point...

EDIT: I decided to clarify before you come back with "so what is your point".

Putting limits on yourself is what forces you to get better at what you do. It's the same with music; everyone with a maxed out computer and FruityLoops/Reason/Ableton Live and "all teh Elektron kits" thinks he's a "producer". But if you go back and limit yourself, no computer, just a synth and a guitar or something, and try to actually play your instrument (instead of endless MIDI editing) you will actually get better at your craft! It's true! Try it!

Instead, the younger generation just doesn't seem to get it (boy, I never thought I would get to the point where I sound like an old man!) They always want everything fast, and now, and spoon-fed to them. I'm sorry but it's just true for the most part; based on my past experience in teaching "Principles of Digital Photography" and "Digital Music Technology" at a College in Los Angeles.

"Your first 10000 photographs are your worst."

Being able to be "snap happy" is an objective advantage. It allows you to be lazy, but also allows those who aren't lazy to learn fast/create amazing results.

I probably should sell my camera. Take a few shots a year lol.

 

[Cheese&Apple]

I started with film many moons ago and if I said to to someone that I'm trashing my thousands of negatives they would gasp and say "are you crazy!".

 

[kallisti]

This thread has some interesting comments.

Just to offer some counter examples from people who only shot film:

Vivian Maier was unknown during her lifetime. Her work only came to light when over 150k film images were discovered after her death, some undeveloped. She was an amazing street photographer. Also kind of a hoarder.

Garry Winogrand was found to have 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film after his death and 6,500 developed but not proofed images. His archive comprises 20k prints and 100k negatives. All shot with film obviously. You may not care for his work, but hard to argue that he wasn't an influential photographer.

What the **** are all you "purists" whining about?

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

A very interesting conversation, thanks genshi.

I don't suffer from this affliction. My photographs are generally planned out to the nth degree, well ahead of time and for those times where I am somewhere doing a walk-around, like the art gallery last week, I return with under 40 images. I only get to 40 because of an OCD tendency to take a couple of each image, just in case I moved or something.

I started off with the spray and pray approach, starting from out wide of my subject then working every angle and viewpoint I could. Sometime about a year and a half ago, I went to sitting or standing in the place, to get a feel for it and its character, then started to look, trying to develop my sense of photographic vision. I'm still working on it.

I find that by taking time with a space and getting to observe it at a deeper level than just walking in with lenses blazing, I get a different and usually much better take on the place.

Having commenced photography just a couple of years ago and in digital format, I'm just starting the journey to film and the multitude of explorations and trials and tribulations that offers.

 

[themumu]

It's like cleaning out the garage. I save the job for a rainy day when there is nothing better to do but the weather has been great and there's always some distraction that's far more interesting.

Lazy? Maybe, but I'm more likely to call it procrastination.

Spot on. I try to delete bad shots right away after importing, but the old stuff is something I'm afraid will stick around for a long time. There are just so many other things I would rather do than clean up my hard disk. It's hard enough to remember to wash dishes and do laundry. Running out of socks is about the only reason I ever bother , and I'm not running out of hdd space any time soon.

 

[The Bad Guy]

This thread has some interesting comments.

Just to offer some counter examples from people who only shot film:

Vivian Maier was unknown during her lifetime. Her work only came to light when over 150k film images were discovered after her death, some undeveloped. She was an amazing street photographer. Also kind of a hoarder.

Garry Winogrand was found to have 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film after his death and 6,500 developed but not proofed images. His archive comprises 20k prints and 100k negatives. All shot with film obviously. You may not care for his work, but hard to argue that he wasn't an influential photographer.

What the **** are all you "purists" whining about?

And ol' Mrs Smith from down the road has over 300,000 images sitting in iPhoto '05 on her white 17" iMac...all of them ******.

Oh and there's nothing 'pure' about me.