Don't Delete That Image!

There's been a bit of chatter about archiving and one thing I never do is delete images. Not a single one is discarded.

The reason is that the value of something may not be apparent until much later. In a creative sense, if an image suddenly is in need of a blurred layer, do we have one? Maybe we do, if it's not been scrapped.

In a practical sense, the picture of a tiny Aunty Alice in front of some old shopping street will take on a new significance after the street is demolished. It's now a picture of the street as was and Aunty Alice is no longer the main subject.

I have had the first option many times, when an image that would be a discard on its own merits was useful for part of something else.

The second option recently arose when I was asked if I had any images of where I was raised. See my EPZ Blog, but in essence I did have images. badly exposed, badly composed black and white enprints from When I Was Very Young, so to speak, and now they actually show something we want to see.

Photographically, they should have all been thrown away.

I completely agree, more so for photographs that may have real historical significance further down the line. There are likely countless occaisions where, had history been shot with digital rather than film (and edited by the photographer on the run, in the rain etc.), many significant shots wouldn't have survived to tell a story.

Good point, John!! The photo of the Red Road flats in my portfolio here took on a new significance yesterday when one of the multistorey blocks was blown up.

Likewise 'dodgy' images might be your only record of eg a wonderful holiday. It means something to you (only).

regards
Bernard

Unless it's an obvious mis exposure like a whiteout or ridiculously OOF I never delete anything

Great opportunity for before and after pics.

If I get the opportunity, I'm gonna try to get a shot as each block bites the dust. There's another long block to come down, as well as anoth 5 single structures - it'll be a sort of "time-lapse" I think.

If you take say 8 to 10 shots of the same object do you keep them all or just the best one?

I don't know who you're asking, or maybe you're asking us all, but for me I keep the lot. No point messing about for a few JPEGs, they may as well stay put in case needed.

I do my best to delete the duffers in-camera, it's a good way of killing time when you get a moment to yourself. Makes editing and sorting easier later, storage issues aside. Unless the shot's a total disaster I will keep jpegs as a record though (I shoot RAW+ mostly).

Agree with what you all have said.
I keep the RAW files rather than the JPEGs, which if not needed at the time, I will delete. If I shoot multiple images of the same subject then I usually keep the best one only.

I keep everything too.Even blured pics of my grandchildren. Not just with raw files my hoarding spills out into everyday life hate to throw anything away just in case.

I keep them all.

I don't think I'd take 8 or 10 shots of the same object from the same position though

Speaking as someone who will never need another image to use as a blurred background, I delete just about everything that's out of focus or the exposure is way off, or the composition didn't work etc etc.

For me photography is about capturing the moment, not creating it later in photoshop, so if the image isn't worth a slight tweaking out of camera then it goes in the recycle bin!

Digital photography has made a lot of togs very lazy, I think it's time we strived to get one decent shot out of 36 frames again instead of rattling off a 4gb cards worth and hoping we can rescue something

You've opened up a can of worms and a separate discussion now

But I'll bite:

If I'm lazy, or more accurately have less energy, I take less photos not more.

I can take hundreds if not thousands of shots on a shoot. not becuase I machine gun with the hope of 'rescuing' something but because I see a lot of things to shoot and take those things from several different perspectives. I tend to shoot events or scenes that are dynamic. I.e shows, gigs, streets, etc. With these events the scene is forever changing.

You haven't got time to sit and deliberate with yourself over the best perspective and set things up for that oen magical shot like you might have with a static scene like a landscape or architecture. The moment comes and the moment goes. Those who hesitate miss the moment. You have a split second to see something cool and snap it. if it's something fast moving then you have to snap it lots of times

besides what's the difference between looking at something 'in the feild' and deciding whether or not to press the shutter button or looking at something on the computer monitor and deciding whether or not to recompose it or press delete. ( delete being the equivalent of not pressing the shutter button in the field?

I think it's good practise for fast moving events to give yourself time to deliberate on the moment when you get home when you can 'freeze frame'

But then that's what works for me. Surely you should do what works for you and not worry about what might work for other people? You genre of photography and personal choice of working might suit an approach that strives to get one good shot out of 36, but other's may have other equally valid approaches.

The end justifies the means IMO






.