I've got to the point where I won't even bother to process raw files if the scene or my capture of it doesn't inspire me or I think it has little potential. I used to try to "squeeze blood out of a turnip" but rarely anymore. I would guess that for every 50 shots I take I probably only process 1 or 2 to completion and I'm not a prolific shooter either. Usually when out shooting with someone where they might trip the shutter 150-200 times I might come away with only 25-30. I suppose finishing all or most of your shots is a good way to practice your PS skills tho. How selective are you when choosing what to process and what to delete? Maybe I'm missing some hidden gems although I do go through old files occasionally and sometimes find keepers. I guess it comes down to the fact that I really don't enjoy the processing phase that much, if I'm going to spend a few hours at the monitor I have to be excited about the potential of the finished product. Just curious where y'all stand on this.
I don't think you're doing anything out of the ordinary, Bruce. I'm less selective than most photographers, I think, because I really enjoy sharing a view of the world, its wild places and animals that most folks will never get an opportunity to experience. As a result, I've traditionally shared many "non-portfolio quality" images on my site and elsewhere online. That said, the ratio of about 10-20% of "usable" images that you mention sounds about right to me. I imagine there are others here that are really selective and are down in the 1-2% range when it comes to photos processed vs. photos kept. Naturally, I'm not counting the thousands of images that get deleted right off the bat due to lack of sharpness, faulty exposure or other major problems. Not that anyone here ever has a problem with those like I do, I'm sure...
I agree that image processing is pretty boring overall. I find video editing much more fun. However, shooting stills still trumps shooting video for me, so I manage to keep my priorities in order.
"Twelve significant photographs per year is a good crop for any photographer." Ansel Adams
If I am in a place like Yosemite, or the Sierra East Side, a 'busy' three day trip might result in 30 sheets of 4x5 and maybe a few dozen digital camera exposures. Probably less that 10% make the cut for processing and even less make the final cut for a portfolio print. I tend to be highly selective regardless of which camera I am using. Heck, sometimes, I'll just sit on a rock and soak it all in.
I actually enjoy processing images. Years ago I did a significant amount of work in the darkroom--all LF B&W. Now, with Photo Shop I can still explore an image for it's nascent qualities. To me, at least, it's the journey through the entire process of making photographs that resonate. It doesn't matter how many images make the cut: It's the ones that do that inspire me to keep at it, and have fun doing it.
Thanks Max and Preston for taking the time to thoughtfully respond. I'm not losing interest but I'm only 5 yrs into photography and hopefully at a different place in the learning curve so I am more selective. That's a nice quote from Ansel, Preston and "Heck, sometimes, I'll just sit on a rock and soak it all in." that sounds a lot like me........I do as much reflecting as shooting. Hanging out at a beautiful location and occasionally tripping the shutter makes for an excellent day.
Good topic Bruce. I get inspired, like you, during post-processing only when convinced there is potential for a ‘keeper’. I might start and think, “Maybe…”. Then I stop midway and hit the delete button in disgust, “Meh…that stinks…don’t waste more time.” I don’t like processing. Probably 3-5 out of 250 … ever gets beyond first base.
Posted by Roger Clark on August 7, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Perhaps delete before pressing the shutter button? In other words don't take the picture unless it is great in the viewfinder. When teaching, I say to learn when not to take the picture. Large format photographers tend to learn this pretty quickly, as one has only a few sheets. When I did large format, I would typically head out on a hike with 6 holders, 12 shots for a day. Sometimes I would return without doing a single exposure. Try doing that with digital: limit to 12 shots per day, and learn to make those you do acquire count, and if the light and subject is not great, return home with no images.
Of course this is harder with wildlife action, but I still try and limit myself to peak action. I often hear photographers around me firing off dozens of frames (spray and pray), when I do 1 to 3 frames. I feel without the continuous mirror flapping, I'm able to concentrate on the composition better and have a clearer view of when peak action will occur.
Roger
Posted by Mark Seaver on August 7, 2014 at 11:07 PM
Roger's "exercise" of 12 shots per day would be a great experience, but I'm the opposite (once I start shooting after spending some time "eyeballing" the subject and surroundings). Then in processing the first pass is to delete anything with "problems" and make basic adjustments in the RAW processor. I use Lightroom and give 1 star for decent and 2 stars for good. Then I'll go back and take the 2 stars into Photoshop for final processing. I find that a fair number of images that look "okay" out of the RAW processor (good comp., interesting subject) improve significantly with dodging and burning plus other mostly contrast adjustments in PS. Technically, it would seem right to delete (or at least archive) all of the non-starred images, but I have found in going back months or even a year or two later that images that I didn't think much of at first are now looking better. Processing a few percent to completion seems about right.
Im probably in the 5-10% range of processed vs taken shots. As Roger points out it's more important to be selective right off the bat. I never did LF, but before I picked up a DSLR for years I carried a p&s film camera on trips and I didn't like changing film or carrying film, so I limited myself to a couple rolls--that really limited the number of shots I could take so I learned to be very selective. But for wildlife or rapidly changing conditions--the more the better cause one millisecond could make the difference between an average and a great shot.
Posted by Nancy de Flon on August 8, 2014 at 8:08 AM
If I'm shooting in a place that I go to fairly frequently (e.g., the Catskills, maybe 1 1/2 - 2 hours from home depending on exactly where, I find I'm far more selective about pressing that shutter than if I've traveled and am staying away somewhere (e.g., New England), since in the latter cases I want to increase my chance of getting usable images. As far as postprocessing is concerned, again when I'm away I'm a slave to the weather, and if, as has happened on most of my New England trips from April onward this year, it has been unrelentingly bright sun with minimal chances of shots very early or late in the day, then I'm faced with choosing which ones i can process so as to "improve" the light. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Obviously I choose the ones that are well composed. It can happen that I start work on an image only to realize that nothing can salvage it. Other times I have great success, such as with a recent shot of Portsmouth Harbor Lighthouse, taken in really dingy light (you know what I mean: there's overcast and then there's overcast...). By the time I finished processing it, it turned out to be perhaps one of my best lighthouse images! And if I'm indulging in my favorite personal project of old historic buildings and ruins, harsh light doesn't matter; I convert those to monochrome, and if I'm lucky maybe I have my IR camera along.
Posted by John Neukirch on August 8, 2014 at 8:31 AM
Put me in the 2-4% category (of what resides in my LR catalog not what I shoot), I'm trying to be better by doing quick reviews of shots on the camera and deleting the obvious dogs there so as to minimize what I import to LR only to turn around a tag for deletion. Seeing how I sit in front of a computer 40 hours a week for my day job I find it hard to come home and PP for hours in the evening. Most evenings I'm lucky if I process 2 or 3 images. Also as I learn more processing techniques and my skills improve I find that by going back through older images there are some gems that I passed by prior because of a lack of processing ability (both software & skill level).
Hi, Bruce. There's so much good advice here already. I'll just add that it is not uncommon to hit plateaus in your photography -- technically and even in your enjoyment of it. So much of what one shoots, how, when, how many frames, etc., is personal.
When I worked with a noted nature and wildlife professional photog in the film days, gracious, he'd come back from an adventure (near or far) with REAMS of slides! He was cruelly selective in his editing, but still kept up to a dozen "sisters" of many slides in the archives. Talk about hidden gems!
Ones he dismissed at first ( but kept in the archives ) came out of the drawer later, as he discovered things in the image that he hadn't previously. Sometimes it was his photo editors and other assistants that would retrieve images for him to take another look.
All this is to say that even the best of the best have times when they're a little off or their muse is on vacation or something. Often, images don't reach their potential until time passes, a project beckons, or your critical eye relaxes a bit...
Darn it, it's just too easy to get competitive even with your own self. Human nature, i think. Best thing is to stay within yourself and be patient. Let your camera take you outdoors to new places or old, familiar ones-- whether you take a photo or not. Take as many as you want to or take none at all.
In the end, it doesn't matter who does what during a session of photography or in post-processing either. Photography is one of those precious things, where you get to create something in your own way, and where the heart matters more than the brain. That is NOT meant as an insult to photogs who tend to be technically oriented! Another way I could say it, maybe, is that once you're satisfied with whatever the technicalities and "rules" are that suit you, allow yourself to see with the eye of your heart.
Such a thought-provoking post, I'm glad you put it up here for us to think about, retrieve good reminders and suggestions from fellow photogs, and hopefully converse with what's on your mind.
Posted by Bruce King on August 10, 2014 at 5:17 PM
Ones he dismissed at first ( but kept in the archives ) came out of the drawer later, as he discovered things in the image that he hadn't previously...Often, images don't reach their potential until time passes...
I paraphrased Catherine's excellent reply in order to point out this very salient remark. I have had this happen to me many times. Physical sheets of film, and/or scans that lurked in my archive, sometimes for several years, have since been retrieved and either worked anew or reworked because I either saw new things in them or my processing skills have improved.
As Catherine mentioned, "Often, images don't reach their potential until time passes..." Here's a case in point not related to photography, but can easily be seen as relevant. I was having trouble with a rather knotty quantum physics problem. My professor said, "Preston, just give it some 'gurgle time', and the path forward will occur to you." I never forgot this, and over the years it has proved true many times over.
If a photograph appears at first, or even second glance, to not be worthy of further work, let it 'gurgle' for a while. You might be surprised at what comes bubbling up to the surface.
Bruce, this is an excellent topic, and a very valuable one. Thanks for starting the discussion!
I'll often do a cursory conversion of a RAW file, and, maybe, play a bit in PS. Initially, my "keeper" rate was in the 15-20% range. Given more time, I've probably deleted a good number of these, as well. What I struggle with, more than my keeper rate, is whether I take enough images to fully explore a subject. What I find, when exploring my images, is a number of crops that are better, meaning I wasn't looking hard enough while I was there.
Posted by Bruce King on August 12, 2014 at 4:15 PM
that last point you make is an excellent one Stan. I'm definitely guilty of that too.
I edit less than one percent of the files I come home with. Like most I do a quick review and choose the best for processing.
A point already made, and it’s the most important for me, is to always save all the files, almost never delete any. This for the obvious reason of revisiting later, but also so I don’t ever have to think/stress over what files to delete and what to keep.
Storage is affordable these days and photo trips are far and few between, you never know how processing software or skills will evolve or how the photo will be used, so just keep them all.
As it turns out, one of my favorite photos came from the dumpster, this due to improved processing skills.
The DSLR has enabled the masses to shoot a lot. I don’t like to “spray and pray” but I do work the scene. I have found this to be helpful in getting what I was hoping for and also some pleasant surprises.
Posted by gary phillips on August 14, 2014 at 12:03 PM
Great topic, Bruce. Makes a fellow really think. I'm at an accelerated point in the learning curve right now and really enjoy the processing. In the field I may take a series of shots so that I might experiment with a certain technique, or like Preston, I might just sit and enjoy what's happening. I do find that if conditions are right, obviously I try to get as much info as possible. I would rather delete than not have what I need. That being said,I think I'd like to find keepers every time I go out, but it just doesn't happen. I'm over "forcing the action" but live for those days when things unfold before you and you know there is the possibility that something truly special is happening and you're lost in a place that time almost stands still. I'm not aware of how many images I'm taking and don't care. That may happen once or twice a year, if I'm lucky, but that's what keeps me coming back. At the end of the day I'd guess that maybe less than 10% of what I shoot gets processed and maybe 10% of those are every printed.
Discussion
16 repliesI agree that image processing is pretty boring overall. I find video editing much more fun. However, shooting stills still trumps shooting video for me, so I manage to keep my priorities in order.
Max
If I am in a place like Yosemite, or the Sierra East Side, a 'busy' three day trip might result in 30 sheets of 4x5 and maybe a few dozen digital camera exposures. Probably less that 10% make the cut for processing and even less make the final cut for a portfolio print. I tend to be highly selective regardless of which camera I am using. Heck, sometimes, I'll just sit on a rock and soak it all in.
I actually enjoy processing images. Years ago I did a significant amount of work in the darkroom--all LF B&W. Now, with Photo Shop I can still explore an image for it's nascent qualities. To me, at least, it's the journey through the entire process of making photographs that resonate. It doesn't matter how many images make the cut: It's the ones that do that inspire me to keep at it, and have fun doing it.
--P
Of course this is harder with wildlife action, but I still try and limit myself to peak action. I often hear photographers around me firing off dozens of frames (spray and pray), when I do 1 to 3 frames. I feel without the continuous mirror flapping, I'm able to concentrate on the composition better and have a clearer view of when peak action will occur.
Roger
When I worked with a noted nature and wildlife professional photog in the film days, gracious, he'd come back from an adventure (near or far) with REAMS of slides! He was cruelly selective in his editing, but still kept up to a dozen "sisters" of many slides in the archives. Talk about hidden gems!
Ones he dismissed at first ( but kept in the archives ) came out of the drawer later, as he discovered things in the image that he hadn't previously. Sometimes it was his photo editors and other assistants that would retrieve images for him to take another look.
All this is to say that even the best of the best have times when they're a little off or their muse is on vacation or something. Often, images don't reach their potential until time passes, a project beckons, or your critical eye relaxes a bit...
Darn it, it's just too easy to get competitive even with your own self. Human nature, i think. Best thing is to stay within yourself and be patient. Let your camera take you outdoors to new places or old, familiar ones-- whether you take a photo or not. Take as many as you want to or take none at all.
In the end, it doesn't matter who does what during a session of photography or in post-processing either. Photography is one of those precious things, where you get to create something in your own way, and where the heart matters more than the brain. That is NOT meant as an insult to photogs who tend to be technically oriented! Another way I could say it, maybe, is that once you're satisfied with whatever the technicalities and "rules" are that suit you, allow yourself to see with the eye of your heart.
Such a thought-provoking post, I'm glad you put it up here for us to think about, retrieve good reminders and suggestions from fellow photogs, and hopefully converse with what's on your mind.
I paraphrased Catherine's excellent reply in order to point out this very salient remark. I have had this happen to me many times. Physical sheets of film, and/or scans that lurked in my archive, sometimes for several years, have since been retrieved and either worked anew or reworked because I either saw new things in them or my processing skills have improved.
As Catherine mentioned, "Often, images don't reach their potential until time passes..." Here's a case in point not related to photography, but can easily be seen as relevant. I was having trouble with a rather knotty quantum physics problem. My professor said, "Preston, just give it some 'gurgle time', and the path forward will occur to you." I never forgot this, and over the years it has proved true many times over.
If a photograph appears at first, or even second glance, to not be worthy of further work, let it 'gurgle' for a while. You might be surprised at what comes bubbling up to the surface.
Bruce, this is an excellent topic, and a very valuable one. Thanks for starting the discussion!
--P
A point already made, and it’s the most important for me, is to always save all the files, almost never delete any. This for the obvious reason of revisiting later, but also so I don’t ever have to think/stress over what files to delete and what to keep.
Storage is affordable these days and photo trips are far and few between, you never know how processing software or skills will evolve or how the photo will be used, so just keep them all.
As it turns out, one of my favorite photos came from the dumpster, this due to improved processing skills.
The DSLR has enabled the masses to shoot a lot. I don’t like to “spray and pray” but I do work the scene. I have found this to be helpful in getting what I was hoping for and also some pleasant surprises.