How many percent of your images are you deleting when you come home and start examine your work after a day of shooting?
Are you doing it as a two step procedure - first the obvious OOF /bad composition images, then you need to use more time examining and pixel beeping the best of several similar copies to decide witch one to keep?
You may also need to look at the images after a while – and then deleting all images that are not interesting or give you anything?
Perhaps you use the on camera LCD and delete a major part of the images in the field?
It depends on what I'm shooting, can't give you one simple answer.
If it's for instance panning and motorsports and I go for long shutter times I may throw away almost everything, if it's flower macros maybe only a few.
How I work with sorting pictures depends on how much time I have. If it's a sports event I want pictures on my web site quickly so I mark good pictures first, batch process them and deal with the rejects later. If I have more time I mark obvious bad ones along with good ones in a first round, then delete the bad ones. Then I may take a second look at those I didn't mark to see if I missed something useful, and then I dump those that didn't get a "good" mark.
I never completely delete anything on the computer, always keeping all the original files. However I take a copy of those original files and work with that, deleting anything up to 95% of them.
I dont delete nearly enough of them.
I'm trying to get myself in LR2 to delete the obvious crap (OOF etc) and then go thru them looking at the best 25% of any shoot. They are starred to keep and the rest are then left for a couple of days. then I revisit them and see if I really want to keep any, those that I do are rated as such and the others are marked for delete.
Well thats the theory any way.
While HDD space is ever increaseing you do have to ask yourself will you ever view an image again or will someone else view it? if not what is the point of keeping it. HDD space may be cheap but what is going thru 30000 less than good images going to cost you in time
Deleting images, and deciding which ones to delete, is too time-consuming. Instead, I select the ones I want to use, and just leave the rest on a removable drive. The cost of new drives is only a few 10's $ a year.
RichWood wrote:
I never completely delete anything on the computer, always keeping all the original files. However I take a copy of those original files and work with that, deleting anything up to 95% of them.
+1
This has been quite a costly exercise for me though, because RAW+JPG for 5D Mark II works out to be 30-50mb per photo. I've spent more than $1500 on storage I think. Whoever said memory is cheap is making gross generalisations imo...they are welcome to buy me a "cheap" HDD any day.
This has been quite a costly exercise for me though, because RAW+JPG for 5D Mark II works out to be 30-50mb per photo. I've spent more than $1500 on storage I think. Whoever said memory is cheap is making gross generalisations imo...they are welcome to buy me a "cheap" HDD any day.
It's certainly not free if you are as productive as you are
But then again, the time to delete all those images would cost even more, if you count your time as valuable?
This is my strategy to keep storage cost down:
1) Don't buy hard drives that are supposed to fill your needs for the future. There is a range of drive sizes where the cost / GB reaches a minimum. Buy in the lower end of that range. When you need a new drive, the cost / GB is even lower.
2) Use standard 3,5" drives in an external SATA cabinet, and replace the drive only.
Difficult light and/or difficult targets.......most of the images might get deleted. Not only that I am looking for a well taken picture, I seek something in it that I haven't caught before. Always trying to get a new angle so to speak, even on an old target I've shot thousands of times before.
For simpler static scenes such as landscapes the keeper rate is typically much higher, although different kinds of bracketing can add to a number of throwaways during the file review.
Therefore, the keeper rate as a universal measure of anything is meaningless.
RichWood wrote:
I never completely delete anything on the computer, always keeping all the original files. However I take a copy of those original files and work with that, deleting anything up to 95% of them.
+1
I have about 4.5TB online, 2TB internal and 2.5TB external. Everything that comes in the door gets copied to both internal and external archive disks. Files I'm working on are transferred to a different internal disk, and then finished work is copied to the internal and external archive disks. At about $100 per TB, the cost of mass storage is the least of my worries.
I delete ~70% of what's shot around home, and absolutely nothing when I go somewhere where I am unlikely to go again (Antarctica, the Shuttle launch pad), because when deleting sometimes I have deleted the wrong thing by accident, and I don't want to suffer an accidental loss.
I delete less than 10%, as those are usually way over/under exposed and I have nothing to learn from them, except maybe to pay attention.
I'm in the same boat as RichWood and Jcolwell. Hard Drive space is cheap, so there's no reason for me to delete pics that I don't want or need. I can always go back to them and see if they're good for something else.
For wildlife/birding stuff I tend to wipe out anywhere up to 100% (when doing BIF I often return with no keepers, and hardly ever more than a handful).
I ask a few simple questions as I look through a shoot:
1. Would I print this?
2. Would I put it on the web, or use it in a slideshow, or even as a casual snapshot?
3. Does it have an angle or aspect worthy of further investigation: usually something not intended in the original exposure, but that can be brought out though cropping and other PP?
If the answer is no to these three questions, I generally delete. There is simply no other point in keeping the image.
I probably delete about 50% of a shoot on first pass. I suspect I end up with around 20% of the images in one of the three categories, with less than 5% that really are pleasing.
This morning I had a shoot at a movie premier. A morning premier. Yes - don't ask. Pretty typical of it's kind. A tight shot list, careful maneuvering around video, sound and lighting teams (and a few egos). Ended up with 200 exposures, although I did delete another 30-40 during a break - something I rarely do.
The images will be used for publicity, online and off. I will give them my picks, and there will probably be 30-40.
With landscapes my keeper rate is higher, while with street shooting it is lower.
Bottom line - I really don't see the need to keep images I will never use. For me it's not about the cost of storage, it's more about not needing them.
I would say though, that storage is not as cheap as some suppose. It only appears cheap because of the rapid fall in prices over the past few years. I think we need to consider not just the up-front cost, but the cost of maintenance as drives wear out. Sure, keep on replacing them, to store images you will never use or look at. Meanwhile, that cash could add up and be used for a nice photo trip, gear, paying down debt etc.
Come home, put all of the files on the computer. Don't look at any. Burn then to DVD(s). Label DVD "XXX_XXX_XXX Raw .cr2 (if I ever switch systems I need to know).
I start working on them from there, saving the images as TIFF files after editing has been done, and keeping them at their normal resolution. These are burnt to DVDs that say XXX_XXX_XXX Tiff.
If I'm shooting an MMA event, and I have a guy in full mount on an opponent raining down blows, and have 100 frames of the same thing, I'll pick out the best and only present them.
If I'm shooting a portrait session, I take 4-6 shots of each pose. I'll pick the best one and present it.
So while they aren't deleted from the archive, they are deleted from the library...don't know if that makes sense. Like they are off the computer, but backed up on an on-site and off-site storage media for later use.
When I'm deleting pictures, I delete, out of focus shots, when someone is blinking, and things like that. I can "work" with semi-poor composition (cropping) but sometimes, it's just ready for the can.
This has been quite a costly exercise for me though, because RAW+JPG for 5D Mark II works out to be 30-50mb per photo. I've spent more than $1500 on storage I think. Whoever said memory is cheap is making gross generalisations imo...they are welcome to buy me a "cheap" HDD any day.
You know what's going to suck, I shoot raw with my original 5D and when I convert the files to Tiff they come out to like 30Mb...what's going to happen when I get an mk2?!
If we apply the ultimate keeper criterion, i.e., images published and/or sold, or having a reasonable potential of becoming such, then I suspect most of us amateurs would be counting our keepers in the range of 0.001% or less.
You know what's going to suck, I shoot raw with my original 5D and when I convert the files to Tiff they come out to like 30Mb...what's going to happen when I get an mk2?!
Is there a particular reason you prefer TIFF? I used to use it, but no longer do so. I changed because there were no advantages for my type of work, but changing had the added benefit of reducing file size considerably.
Now that I use LR I simply use the original RAW, or convert to DNG.
If we apply the ultimate keeper criterion, i.e., images published and/or sold, or having a reasonable potential of becoming such, then I suspect most of us amateurs would be counting our keepers in the range of 0.001% or less.
You get that many keepers!? Whoa, you're good dude...
