Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do people backup only keepers or also those that aren't quite right?  (Read 2018 times)
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1282


« on: May 26, 2013, 10:07:55 AM »
ReplyReply

When Adobe changed their Lightroom processing with LR4, it did wonders for a lot of photos that I'd been tempted to delete because of potentially blown highlights. It also had me going back into some of the backups that I'd done with photos that I'd thought were "too far gone" and pulled them back to have another go (this was a bit hit and miss.)

Having seen what Adobe's labs have done with being able to correct for motion, I'm again thinking "Do I backup photos that are too far gone?" (from blur due to motion) or just delete them from my "active catalogue" and keep them in backup for the day when the technology to correct that blur exists and the photo can be saved.

What do other people do?

Do you delete and not backup photos that are blurred/blown because current technology can't provide any help or do you keep them around because there's reason to believe that one day, they'll be saved?
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1040



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2013, 10:20:49 AM »
ReplyReply

"Do I backup photos that are too far gone?" (from blur due to motion) or just delete them from my "active catalogue" and keep them in backup for the day when the technology to correct that blur exists and the photo can be saved.

Interesting idea. Cryonics for images, huh?

I never thought of doing it. I can only imagine wanting to do it for a very special image or two. Usually, after a few years, I've moved on and don't have much interest in working on old stuff unless I get a print order.

Jim
Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2013, 03:04:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I bin the really bad ones, but any are are just a bit off I tend to keep and play with, and with improvments who knows what will come in the future?
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2013, 03:40:23 AM »
ReplyReply

This is somewhat of a philosophical issue.

Some individuals never delete an image, ever.
No matter how bad they keep it.
It can be argued that the cost of HD space is dropping all the time so why delete images.

Other individuals are ruthless, deleting any image that they do not like often the same day that they shot those images.

I have to say that my personal philosophy is somewhat 'middle of the road'.
Technical errors are deleted early, sometimes in camera but otherwise on import.
Otherwise they are imported, keyworded, and metadata updated.
I come back to images regularly over weeks, months, and sometimes years.
Some images never make the grade and will eventually be deleted.
Any image that I am ambivalent about, I keep.

In general I tend to look at technical issues early on and then later on, once all the technical rubbish has been discarded, I look at the aesthetic issues and so a technically proficient image will be discarded if ultimately it doesn't work aesthetically.

In my photographic journey I recently reviewed all the images I shot in the early days (2007-2009).
I was a little taken aback and disappointed that so many images, 9 out of 10, in fact, did not make the grade - most of them failing on technical grounds like critical focus.
However, as I progressed closer and closer to the present less and less images were binned for technical failure but rather for aesthetic reasons.
I had grown in wisdom though so many the aesthetic 'failures' were in situations where I had shot the same subject in many ways looking for the best composition and light angles so, most of the time anyway, I usually have a good result that is kept.

I fully appreciate that many of the readers of this thread will be 'old salts' to whom none of this is new, however, at least some readers may be in a position that I was a few years ago looking to transition their photography to a new level.
One of the key things in that process is learning to critique one's own work, dare I say it, objectively (or perhaps dispassionately) which is why taking one's time is important to allow any emotional attachment to recently captured images to dissipate.

Tony Jay
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 04:13:54 AM by Tony Jay » Logged
BigBadWolfie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2013, 06:52:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Count me in as someone who never deletes everything, although I am thinking of deleting photos I probably won't use (e.g. blurry shots).  One problem is that I'll probably need to spend some time doing it.  I convert my raws to dng. So even if I remove the dngs from disc I still have to go and remove the raws.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2013, 07:13:37 AM »
ReplyReply

If a photo is way-gone, I delete it when I am reviewing after import. Otherwise I keep and backup everything. This is not because I think I might be able to make a decent print at some future point, but because storage is cheap and it would take a lot of time to go through my photos and cull them.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2013, 02:20:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I never delete any file on the camera; cards are cheap, and I just make sure to have enough space in advance.

At home, I download all files to two locations simultaneously. One is the "work" copy, where I delete files generously; the other one is the "just in case" copy, where files are deleted after a certain time. After editing and processing, files from the "work" folder go to the "storage" location; I keep numerous backup copies of that location.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2013, 03:06:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I have never deleted a raw file on purpose.

Now I have also decided not to catalog my images in LR although I used it sometimes as a raw converter.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2877


« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2013, 06:07:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The problem about not deleting is that you have to wade through all of the "dross" that you have created a long time ago to find some hidden "gem". The more "dross" there is the harder to find something. With regards to Bernard's above post I only import what I think is "good" and convert. There isn't a concise answer to this and at the end of the day it is up to the individual. I shudder at the thought of what some members do when the say that they import and tag every image they take. Life's too short for that.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1282


« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2013, 07:04:51 AM »
ReplyReply

The problem about not deleting is that you have to wade through all of the "dross" that you have created a long time ago to find some hidden "gem". The more "dross" there is the harder to find something.

Yes, I agree. But on the other hand...

(1) sometimes the picture is good except that you moved slightly and there is a small blur...

Or

(2)  that the highlights show up as clipped in a place where they matter...

I've found at least two instances of (2) in my catalogue that I'd just not gotten around to deleting that have been restored through LR4 (it treats highlights differently than LR3.) To put this another way, I've successfully used cryonics with two images now Smiley

So now I'm wondering about (1) and what this all means for deleting photos that are great photos but flawed in some what not to do with composition (out of focus, motion blur from the camera, highlight clipping.) The point about (1) is something that I'm acutely mindful of given the demonstration video that was floating around for a while where Adobe had some lab folks show what they'd been able to do.
Logged
Eric Brody
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2013, 04:07:20 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the best photographers I know downloads his images to Lightroom after a shoot and then "rejects" all of them. He then goes back one by one and decides what to keep. This seems to be an eminently rational way to avoid keeping "junk." Of course if he were to then "unreject" all of them, he's defeated the basic purpose of the maneuver in the first place. It is a fine judgement call, of course, but the starting assumption is that most are rejects. This particular photographer has published many books, leads workshops all over the world, and is a great teacher, so I think at least I have something to learn from him, critical editing.
Logged
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2013, 08:44:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I trash the real bad shots. I keep tryong to delete the so-so shots as I work on them. I have 8 to 10 back ups of my final portfolio work on DVD, HD, computers and master prints for scanning if all elese would fail. (And keep a set off site too!)
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2980


« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2013, 12:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem about not deleting is that you have to wade through all of the "dross" that you have created a long time ago to find some hidden "gem".
...
So now I'm wondering about (1) and what this all means for deleting photos that are great photos but flawed in some what not to do with composition (out of focus, motion blur from the camera, highlight clipping.)

What I like about stamper's comment is the reminder that our time and attention are going to be critical resources.

What I like about your follow-up is that it gives us something that's sort-of do-able -- throw out the dross but keep the flawed gems.

As my time and attention is limited, I err in throwing out what I currently consider duplicates (but may in future wish I had as alternatives).
Logged
mvsoske
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2013, 12:56:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I tend to keep most of my shots with the exception of those suffering very noticeable and significant technical issues. Over the years I have gone back and re-evaluated a few shots and with fresh eyes and new tools, I've been able to turn them into valuable images.  Yes, storage has become cheaper and therefore I do retain most. You just never know....

Mark
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 839


« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2013, 10:40:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I also never intentionally delete anything.  With USB3 drives now at $100 for 3TB, I don't see any reason to delete RAW files on the grounds of space.  In point of fact, I have a love/hate relationship with all my work, and over the years, have come to appreciate images that I previously treated as bad.  I'm still learning about myself, and how much (at times) is really happening in my head when I press the shutter release.  Sometimes it takes a while for the significance of an instantaneous decision to intimate itself.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad