Image Management and Categorizing

[xpatUSA]

If you have 50 pictures of a visit to a landmark building, say a castle. Subdivide them into different views. You may have 12 of a distant shot which encompasses all the castle and its grounds, basically from 4 different angles. Without going into detail, which view works best ? Of those 3 pictures which is sharpest; exposed best; least distracting elements? Keep that one , ditch the other two. now do the other three angles work as well as images, or do they just record the fact you were there? If they work well, keep the best from those and ditch the rest. Now you have kept 4 photos from 12.

Do the same with the rest. Keep only pictures that are good photographs. Don't duplicate. When you come back later to look at those photos you will be reviewing your best work, not all your work.

Excellent! I do the same using FastStone Viewer which has a really good comparator - up to 4 images at at time.

Out of the example of 12 images, compare 4, keep 1. Repeat, repeat. Then compare the remaining three, leaving (hopefully) the best.

Sometimes, I'll complicate matters in RawDigger (I only shoot raw), making sure that the raw exposure is satisfactory before proceeding with the above.

[george013]

Catherine,

Be aware there're two items involved: archiving and searching.
Like many others I archive on date in the first place. I rename the pictures with a preset,underscore, date in yyyymmdd, score and then a sequence number. So I can always see back on my pictures name when it was taken. Pictures are stored in a directory structure. The directory is named by date. Sometime that date is divided in more directories when there have been more subjects that day. I try to avoid sub directories. But for vacations I do use sub directories. The vacation is the subject.
But this is archiving. It might be helpful with searching if you search for a special date but will be helpless when you want to look for by example your dog. See it as a book. That starts with a index of the chapters, at the end you might see an index of words. Like most manuals. And like the index of words where selected, you must select the keywords. They give you the possibility to go through your photo archive and select only those pictures that have that keyword(s).
If your shoot only jpg, the keywords are no problem. They will be when you shoot raw as explained before.

Another problem using keywords is keeping track of what you've used, and how you wrote it.

Good luck.

George

[pschlute]

Another problem using keywords is keeping track of what you've used, and how you wrote it.

Catherine will be using LR. All her keywords will be shown in a scrollable list, even misspelled ones

[William W]

Hi Bill,

You are right, I do not need anything like the number of photos I have and the plan is to delete, delete, delete. I thought though, that since I would be wading through all the photos, it be a good time to get some key-wording and/or some collections in place.

I hope not to get myself in this state again. Going forward I will delete and catalogue on import. At least that's the plan. It was really helpful to read how you do this. Thank you.

(Bit worried about scrupulous deleting. What if I end up with only a dozen or so photos? That would be sad. Not sure if that is the hold-up or if it is because it just seems so tedious a task.)

Hi Catherine,

I have been at this for a long time. I am not perfect and I am still learning, yet I am very good at what I do and what I have achieved proves that.

ONLY for the sake of statistics: I have spent a pro-lifetime specializing at photographing people. I have 1500 Weddings under my belt; two Olympic Games; one Commonwealth Games; and an host of Sports Events to National Level (Swimming, Hockey and Rugby).

I have TWO (two only) photos of mine hanging on the wall of our home. That’s the sum total of what I consider ‘worthy’ ‘exceptional’ ‘personal best’.

That’s not to imply that you should follow the same path of severe culling, and also note that I have KEPT many Image Files: rather it is a comment to advise you that there may be great benefit to you if you have a procedure of ‘scrupulous deleting’.

WW

[DanK]

Peronally, I find culling bad images truly tedious--a result of digital, which makes it easy and free to take lots and lots of shots.

I've recently been compiling a portfolio for an exhibit at the end of this month, selecting from perhaps 8 years of photos. This exercise has made it clear to me how badly I culled in the past and how much space I have filled with useless images.

I am leaning toward improving this by adding a step when I import images. Currently, I delete some of the obvious losers, e.g., images that are out of focus, very badly framed, or just plain boring. That doesn't get rid of enough. I think I am going to start using the Lightroom star ratings for this. E.g., perhaps something like this:

--5 stars: the few (if any) that are obviously worth pursuing.

--4 stars: quite possibly worth working on

--3 stars: can't make up my mind, or images that aren't very good but are worth keeping, e.g., for sentimental reasons.

One could expand this to 5 categories, but I am not sure it would help. Then everything without a star rating gets deleted.

[Donald]

Peronally, I find culling bad images truly tedious--a result of digital, which makes it easy and free to take lots and lots of shots.

It is not the digital camera that results in lots and lots of shots, it is the photographer. It is as easy to take as few shots with a digital camera as one did/does with film. Just don't press the shutter so often.

I am fascinated by this argument, which we see even made by professionals, that digital makes us lazy in that we can fire off lots of shots. No, we make us lazy because we allow the technology to dictate how we must use it. We are thinking beings. We can choose not to take lots and lots of shots.

[xpatUSA]

It is not the digital camera that results in lots and lots of shots, it is the photographer. It is as easy to take as few shots with a digital camera as one did/does with film. Just don't press the shutter so often.

I am fascinated by this argument, which we see even made by professionals, that digital makes us lazy in that we can fire off lots of shots. No, we make us lazy because we allow the technology to dictate how we must use it. We are thinking beings. We can choose not to take lots and lots of shots.

Well said!

Back in the day of film snaps and a manual-only camera, I am reminded of being somewhere exotic (Alaska springs to mind) with only a part-used roll in the camera and no fresh film in my pocket.

https://www.apogeephoto.com/the-phot...e-first-place/
.

[pschlute]

Good points all round. Even if just subconsciously we take a bit more time over composition (and less shots) at the time the picture is taken because we know we will have less to cull, this should lead to stronger composition in the first place.

I occasionally go venturing with a film camera and find it a great way to get back the discipline of "getting it right at the time of capture"

[george013]

One of the differences between a consumer camera and a pro camera in film days was the motorized film transport.

George

[Manfred M]

One of the differences between a consumer camera and a pro camera in film days was the motorized film transport.

George

That would have been the case for sports photographers. Those are the only people I knew that used motor drives with film cameras. With a maximum of 36 exposure in a roll of film (a few more if you loaded your own film cassettes), few others used or needed those features. There were a few camera back replacements that took spools of motion picture film, but I never saw anyone actually shot one of those.

The other key differentiator was medium format. Pros shot medium format cameras and with some exceptions (primarily the Leica M and R lines and the Nikon F line), 35mm was not a huge player in the "pro" market. Even there, these 35mm cameras were primarily used by photojournalists.

When it came to the advertising market, view cameras were in use for a lot of that work until about 10 years ago.

I know a few view camera photographers today and they tend to use a hybrid approach when it comes to processing what are mainly "fine art" images. The top end photographers create an intermediate print that has a full dynamic range that is then scanned for digital processing. Burtynsky used that technique to get his large size prints for many years according to some photographers and curators that know him. I understand that he has switched to digital medium format cameras and now uses drones rather than airplanes and helicopters for his shots from the air.

Lower end medium format and view camera shooters just scan their film and digitally process their work now. There are a few folks that are still in the wet darkroom too.

[george013]

That would have been the case for sports photographers. Those are the only people I knew that used motor drives with film cameras. With a maximum of 36 exposure in a roll of film (a few more if you loaded your own film cassettes), few others used or needed those features. There were a few camera back replacements that took spools of motion picture film, but I never saw anyone actually shot one of those.

The other key differentiator was medium format. Pros shot medium format cameras and with some exceptions (primarily the Leica M and R lines and the Nikon F line), 35mm was not a huge player in the "pro" market. Even there, these 35mm cameras were primarily used by photojournalists.

When it came to the advertising market, view cameras were in use for a lot of that work until about 10 years ago.

I know a few view camera photographers today and they tend to use a hybrid approach when it comes to processing what are mainly "fine art" images. The top end photographers create an intermediate print that has a full dynamic range that is then scanned for digital processing. Burtynsky used that technique to get his large size prints for many years according to some photographers and curators that know him. I understand that he has switched to digital medium format cameras and now uses drones rather than airplanes and helicopters for his shots from the air.

Lower end medium format and view camera shooters just scan their film and digitally process their work now. There are a few folks that are still in the wet darkroom too.

Photojournalism is also a profession, with camera. Just as with sport.
I just want to warn for to much generalizing. Donald takes mostly landscapes. He can do a day for just one photo, by example. It's quite static.

George

[DanK]

It is not the digital camera that results in lots and lots of shots, it is the photographer. It is as easy to take as few shots with a digital camera as one did/does with film. Just don't press the shutter so often.

I am fascinated by this argument, which we see even made by professionals, that digital makes us lazy in that we can fire off lots of shots. No, we make us lazy because we allow the technology to dictate how we must use it. We are thinking beings. We can choose not to take lots and lots of shots.

Yes, indeed we can, and I agree that many people take advantage of digital to fire off more shots than is sensible. however, that isn't always the case. In some cases, IMHO, it pays to take lots of shots. I do a lot of candids of kids and macros of bugs. This isn't like landscape; one can't stand there for 10 minutes figuring out how to compose. one has to accept (well, I have to accept, anyway) that many of the shots won't be good. In the old film days, I would have been constrained, and the result would have been missing many good shots.

Here's one example. This native bee was perched on an echinacea that was blowing in the wind. It's hard enough to obtain proper focus at this magnification under the best of circumstances, but it is damned near impossible when the subject's perch is moving around. My recollection is that I took over 40 shots. If I recall, 2 were in focus.



When I do studio macros, I don't have to deal with factors like that. However, each intended image can be as many as 25 individual shots, and it's not uncommon, at least in my work, to find a flaw in one of those series. So when I set out to photograph a given flower, I may end up with 40 or 60 images in a number of different series, many of which will not be worth keeping.

All of this means lots of boring culling.

[Manfred M]

I just want to warn for to much generalizing.

George - your comment about the key difference between consumer and pro cameras in the film days is clearly incorrect. From the 1960s through to the digital era the Nikon F series (F through F6) was the most popular "pro" 35mm camera in the world. Very few of these were fitted with a motor drive. So far as I know, Leica did not produce a motor driver version of any M series film camera. This camera was also aimed at the "pro" market.

I would say that your statement is far more a generalization than mine was. As I have asked before, please check your facts.

Donald takes mostly landscapes. He can do a day for just one photo, by example. It's quite static.

As someone who was primarily a landscape photographer for most of his life, I fully understand that. Like Donald (and others) I do spend hours and in some cases days to get a single image. A number of landscapes that I have posted here at CiC fall into that category.

[george013]

George - your comment about the key difference between consumer and pro cameras in the film days is clearly incorrect. From the 1960s through to the digital era the Nikon F series (F through F6) was the most popular "pro" 35mm camera in the world. Very few of these were fitted with a motor drive. So far as I know, Leica did not produce a motor driver version of any M series film camera. This camera was also aimed at the "pro" market.

I would say that your statement is far more a generalization than mine was. As I have asked before, please check your facts.





As someone who was primarily a landscape photographer for most of his life, I fully understand that. Like Donald (and others) I do spend hours and in some cases days to get a single image. A number of landscapes that I have posted here at CiC fall into that category.

When do you start reading and stop wrong quoting!!!!!!

George

[Donald]

See my post on another thread about people needing to get the last word in.

[Manfred M]

It is not the digital camera that results in lots and lots of shots, it is the photographer. It is as easy to take as few shots with a digital camera as one did/does with film. Just don't press the shutter so often.

I am fascinated by this argument, which we see even made by professionals, that digital makes us lazy in that we can fire off lots of shots. No, we make us lazy because we allow the technology to dictate how we must use it. We are thinking beings. We can choose not to take lots and lots of shots.

Donald - In my heart I find I still think like a film photographer. While there is effectively zero incremental cost of taking an additional image in the digital world, I still try to cut down on the number of shots I take to reduce both the culling and editing time. That being said, I still shoot far too many images....

In landscape work I tend to "work the scene" and move around the camera and tripod and try different focal lengths and different framing. Unfortunately, my brain does not always map a 3-D subject into an 2-image all that well, so I can't tell which are the "keepers" and which are not. Often that reveal itself until I start processing.

The one advantage we share living relatively far from the equator is that "golden hour" and "blue hour" last long enough to try a number of scenarios and sometimes even move to a close by location and get some different shots while the light is good. A bit of wind and moving clouds can make a shot taken without changing anything look quite different.

When it comes to portraiture, the call can be even more challenging. When working with a skilled and experienced model who perfectly nails a new pose every time he or she moves, most of the shots fall into the "good" category so there are virtually none to cull. Work with a less experienced model gets shots where some of the poses don't work, so making a go / no-go call is much easier.

Sometimes I will revisit an archived image I could not get to work a number of years later. I'm not sure if it is that I had been mulling the shot around in my head for a couple of years or that my PP skills have improved to the point where I could unlock its potential, but I do find that I spend more and more time going through my old shots and finding new gems. Had I followed my original instincts and thrown out these "diamonds in the rough", I would have missed out on a lot of real gems. With storage being relatively "cheap", I prefer to give most shots the benefit of the doubt and will archive them. So far, doing so has been the right approach for me.

[Donald]

I don't have any issues with people taking lots of pictures, if what they are doing demands and requires them to do so. It is the statement, that always seemed to be made, that digital makes you/leads you to take more pictures that I take issue with. Digital allows you to take more frames, it doesn't compel you to do so. Sloppy use of language like that just suggests to new photographers that with a digital camera you are obliged to take lots of frames in order to get it right. Get it right in camera and if you only need one frame, only use one frame.