Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Don't throw your keepers away!

  1. #1

    Default Don't throw your keepers away!

    I was quite intrigued by an article in a photography magazine in which four amateur photogs went on a shooting assignment with a pro and were each asked to submit what they considered their three best photos for review at the end of the day. Interestingly, the five best photos of the day (according to the pro) were not submitted by any of the four photogs.

    Are you throwing your keepers away without even realising it?
    you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    I cannot delete away my keepers as I use an outdated camera with monochrome LCD screen. Can anyone help me solve the problem of not able to delete my pictures?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    it's really dependant of the maturity of the photographic sense to determine what is a keeper and what is not

    a very simple example: a motion blurred picture that dun show anything but just motion blur BUT if it can be appreciated on the artistic sense, it can be a keeper. If not, usually people will regard it as a technical fault and get rid of it. Hence, sharp pictures may not be as well recieved as blurry pictures that appeal to the senses
    Last edited by SniperD; 8th May 2005 at 02:32 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SniperD
    it's really dependant of the maturity of the photographic sense to determine what is a keeper and what is not

    a very simple example: a motion blurred picture that dun show anything but just motion blur BUT if it can be appreciated on the artistic sense, it can be a keeper. If not, usually people will regard it as a technical fault and get rid of it. Hence, sharp pictures may not be as well recieved as blurry pictures that appeal to the senses
    which is why the pros are so much better in identifying them....
    you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zaren
    which is why the pros are so much better in identifying them....
    it's all about the amount of exposure to Art. Pros or Non-pros.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SniperD
    it's all about the amount of exposure to Art. Pros or Non-pros.
    so how much exposure to art is required? how many photogs here in CS for example are exposed sufficiently to art?
    you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    Part one to your Qn:
    I dunno. My personal view is that there should never be a quota or a measuring stick to measure the requirement for there is no such requirement. You decide what is enough

    Part two to your Qn:
    I seriously dunno coz my answer is tied to the 1st part of my answer. I for one, am still scraping only the surface

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    hee. i decide myself if it is a keeper. even if it wins big prizes but i dun like, i still delete.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo
    hee. i decide myself if it is a keeper. even if it wins big prizes but i dun like, i still delete.
    if it wins big prizes and you don't like it ... maybe it's better to start learning what others are seeing that you are not

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    An established advertising photographer once told me this, which i think its quite true:
    "A good photo is one in which the layman can appreciate. If you are able to get the message across to any tom dick or harry along the street, then that is a keeper. Its no point that the photo is only able to appeal to a select community (fine arts, photogs, etc). Any photo will always appeal to a select group of people simply because of their tastes, but the good photo is the one that appeals to the most people" Obviously all this was in the context that the photo was a medium of communication.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    That is in the context of advertising photography, which is narrow minded IMO. A good photo must be able to communicate the intended message with its target audience well.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    why throw away pictures in the first place? I kept almost all my photos and archive them.

  13. #13

    Default

    I kinda agree with Mpenza. Why not spend $300 on a 100GB HDD? Archives MANY MANY photos. When you're out of space, get another one
    My Personal Folio (of random events and things)

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoned
    I kinda agree with Mpenza. Why not spend $300 on a 100GB HDD? Archives MANY MANY photos. When you're out of space, get another one

    I would rather get a $120 DVD writer (good quality one) and spend the rest on DVD-Rs, probably this way I can get another 150x4.3GB of pictures (650GB?)

  15. #15

    Default

    well kinda i guess. well it just goes to show how cheap it is to store all your keepers. So why throw them away
    My Personal Folio (of random events and things)

  16. #16

    Default

    I guess the term "keeper" is a carry-over from film days, where you have to physically hoard film and prints. Now bits and bytes (and everything nice) can be squeezed in a ridiculously thin wafer of circular plastic, I personally don't feel like deleting anything.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theITguy
    That is in the context of advertising photography, which is narrow minded IMO. A good photo must be able to communicate the intended message with its target audience well.
    You have misunderstood me. This is exactly what i meant, that a keeper is one that gets the message across. In the context of advertising, this would be the general public. Unless you think that your photos are only targeted at photogs, then i guess your target is rather narrow. But nevermind, to each his own.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by szekiat
    You have misunderstood me. This is exactly what i meant, that a keeper is one that gets the message across. In the context of advertising, this would be the general public. Unless you think that your photos are only targeted at photogs, then i guess your target is rather narrow. But nevermind, to each his own.

    Why should I target photogs? I do not even care what others think about my photo. I just enjoy seeing and taking a scene.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    At the risk of becoming personal, you mentioned earlier that "A good photo must be able to communicate the intended message with its target audience well." While it is not my intention to doubt your reasons behind photography, it makes me wonder what your "target audience" is? Or is it just yourself? If this is the case, then obviously the argument is moot since you will obviously like the photo or u'd not have taken it/picked it.

  20. #20

    Default ...

    What happened in the mag article only they can explain.

    I feel that what is a "keeper" to someone else is not necessarily a keeper to me. This is not about me being superior or others being smarter, we just have different tastes.

    With digital, the mentality is to shoot and shoot and shoot and delete on the spot, which leads to a machine gun mentality that tends to quantity rather than quality, and an unhealthy obssession with the last shot rather than the next shot. With film, the process is more deliberate, and I find that I have a lot more "keepers" (ie acceptable shots) and less wasted shots, although the no of "stunners" (great shots) still depends on luck (ie getting the decisive moment, etc).

    Wai Leong
    ===
    Quote Originally Posted by zaren
    I was quite intrigued by an article in a photography magazine in which four amateur photogs went on a shooting assignment with a pro and were each asked to submit what they considered their three best photos for review at the end of the day. Interestingly, the five best photos of the day (according to the pro) were not submitted by any of the four photogs.

    Are you throwing your keepers away without even realising it?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •