Don't throw your keepers away!


Status
Not open for further replies.

zaren

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 27, 2003
10,964
31
48
#1
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? :p
 

theITguy

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2003
3,142
0
0
In this small world
Visit site
#2
I cannot delete away my keepers as I use an outdated camera with monochrome LCD screen.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? ;p
 

SniperD

Senior Member
#3
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 :D
 

zaren

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 27, 2003
10,964
31
48
#4
SniperD said:
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 :D
which is why the pros are so much better in identifying them.... :rolleyes:
 

zaren

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 27, 2003
10,964
31
48
#6
SniperD said:
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? :think:
 

SniperD

Senior Member
#7
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 :cool:
 

Paul_Yeo

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2004
2,155
0
0
Sengkang
www.boo.sg
#8
hee. i decide myself if it is a keeper. even if it wins big prizes but i dun like, i still delete.
 

eikin

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2004
10,193
0
0
東京 Tokyo
#9
Paul_Yeo said:
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 :)
 

szekiat

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
2,252
0
0
London
Visit site
#10
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.
 

theITguy

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2003
3,142
0
0
In this small world
Visit site
#11
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.
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
31
Changi
www.photo.net
#13
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
 

theITguy

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2003
3,142
0
0
In this small world
Visit site
#14
Stoned said:
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?)
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
31
Changi
www.photo.net
#15
well kinda i guess. well it just goes to show how cheap it is to store all your keepers. So why throw them away
 

cy_j

New Member
Sep 3, 2004
727
0
0
Newton
cyril-jeane.smugmug.com
#16
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.
 

szekiat

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
2,252
0
0
London
Visit site
#17
theITguy said:
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.
 

theITguy

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2003
3,142
0
0
In this small world
Visit site
#18
szekiat said:
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.
 

szekiat

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
2,252
0
0
London
Visit site
#19
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.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#20
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
===
zaren said:
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? :p
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom