What To Do With All These Pixels?


puma

Link Posted 27/07/2013 - 09:47
Just get an External Hard like I have and put them on that I was going to delete some and Jackie stopped me and it is now on sale in a well know shop.
so buy External Hard pop them on and we will talk in a year when they sell.
my web site http://www.swilsonphotography.foliopic.com/
PPG link

Smeggypants

Link Posted 27/07/2013 - 18:41
CMW wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
Quote:


With rare exceptions, I don't think we need worry too greatly about historians' need of our photographs in the future.

Why not?


The problem is, it's that attitude that causes the rarity of photographs in the future simply because for too many people haven't the foresight to see how their mundane badly composed efforts can change into something of enormous historical interest.

This is hyperbole in the digital age (and even in the age of mass-produced film emulsions, come to that), where the problem is one of over-abundance, not of rarity. The shot in Dubai may have an antiquarian interest - no dispute there - but historical interest? I don't think so.

No it's not hyperbole IMO.

No dispute that an over abundance of stuff is being shot and was shot, even on film, but most stuff gets thrown away because the mindset you are exhibiting.

Never mind the digital, Many many millions of images were shot on film and vast majority of them ended up in the landfill.

It's not just for historical reasons, what about those that are of artistic merit as well as being historical? That's why it's such a big deal when film images are recovered like those of Vivian Maier. They could have easily ended up in the trash, and very nearly did so.



Anyway it's up to the individual to do as they please with their own images, it just saddens me when stuff gets thrown away. Doc Orloff obviously wasn't sure whether to dump or keep and I'm just giving my opinion FWIW
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

CMW

Link Posted 28/07/2013 - 10:06
Smeggypants wrote:


No dispute that an over abundance of stuff is being shot and was shot, even on film, but most stuff gets thrown away because the mindset you are exhibiting.

I'm not sure what mindset you see illustrated by my words, nor whether what you say above doesn't get snared in a slight contradiction. My points were straightforward: in my own storage of digital images, I'm becoming more selective. I'm not suggesting everyone (or anyone) should follow suit; I also expressed scepticism (in response to one of your points) that ditching unwanted shots at this stage was likely to leave future historians at a disadvantage.

I don't really see what Vivian Maier's work has to do with it. It is always a risk if you are unrecognised in your own lifetime that survival or not of your work hinges on chance. That is different from a sensible process of selection as you shoot, feasible in the digital age with a facility that was not available earlier.
Regards, Christopher

ChristopherWheelerPhotography

gartmore

Link Posted 28/07/2013 - 10:43
All my commercial work almost everything gets deleted after two years or so. With film I would edit transparencies by literally binning rejects, with negatives I have kept everything and have occasionally found some gems like Ian Callum designer of the Aston Martin DB5 and current head of Design at Jaguar sitting on the bonnet of a Morris Marina when we were students. Some images from the 1970s undoubtedly now will be of interest to social historians.

With the mass of digital images I have I actually don't know where to start with reducing the mass of pixels but I am now being far more selective when uploading to the computer.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

McGregNi

Link Posted 28/07/2013 - 11:18
I've changed my approach as well. Used to robotically copy every shot from the SD card to an external drive, then later use my imatch catalogue program to produce thumbails and then choose a large selection of 'keepers' and copy them over to the laptop for future processing. But still kept everything from the card originals.

But I've amassed thousands on that drive that there will never be time in this life to deal with.

So now I read the SD card from within imatch, see the thumbnails straightaway on the card, then I take a generous approach and copy them over to the laptop. I back up these to DVDs, but then the SD card is re-used when full, so all those I didn't choose are gone for good.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 28/07/2013 - 11:19

cabstar

Link Posted 28/07/2013 - 11:31
Why not just open a couple of flickr accoutns and dump them all on there??? Thats what I do now. Free 1tb with every account so I have a number of accounts in case of account failure
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Mandrake

Link Posted 28/07/2013 - 11:49
I think the discussion of whether to keep photos for the interest of your future self/future generations is not really so significant these days, because the problem is not single shots of a subject you decide you're no longer interested in (like you might have on film), but having loads of shots of the same thing that are very similar. My approach is to be ruthless against the duplicates but try to keep the full spread of subjects that I shot.

I take a fairly brutal approach on importing to Lightroom. I delete all the total crap immediately (out of focus, hugely misexposed etc.) then for each group of similar shots I will generally flag one as a "pick" if it's actually good, maybe keep one or two others if they're nearly as good and delete any remaining hangers-on. The survivors then get the post-processing treatment.

This saves time doing post-processing and means I can open any subject/event folder and only have decent shots to look at, and filtering for picks gives me just the best. The other side effect of spending time culling the similar shots is that it makes me think about what makes one better than another, and that has taught me a lot. In fact I've often said that the best thing you can do to learn how to take better photos is to spend time deleting your crap ones.

Obviously this is all from the point of view of an enthusiastic amateur - professionals no doubt have completely different issues to consider.
Simon

My online scrapbook: http://smxc.co.uk

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 01:21
Mandrake wrote:
The other side effect of spending time culling the similar shots is that it makes me think about what makes one better than another, and that has taught me a lot. In fact I've often said that the best thing you can do to learn how to take better photos is to spend time deleting your crap ones.


I highly agree that appraising your shots is a great way of learning to take more pleasing shots. but you don't actually have to delete the shots that have little artistic merit though. I do it by a star rating process in lightroom with smart collection sets. This way I can access the better shots without being clouded by the dross
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

McGregNi

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 16:46
I sway more towards the keepers side, that's true, and I agree we have to think forwards and offer up future generations a photographic record of our times.

I think for individual amateurs, in the back of our minds, its the practical side of long term archiving and passing down that's a concern ...

Its our hobby, so we place value on the backing up and we might have a file transfer system going on to move stuff to new drives or discs over the years. The big question is what will happen to it when we're gone ? Even close family members may not be able to maintain the same passion to devote the required time and commitment to even keeping it as it is - let alone continuing the renewel process for generations to come

The old shoebox and cardboard carton weren't such a bad idea.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 29/07/2013 - 16:47

tyronet2000

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 17:03
Quote:
The big question is what will happen to it when we're gone ? Even close family members may not be able to maintain the same passion to devote the required time and commitment to even keeping it as it is - let alone continuing the renewel process for generations to come

Assuming there is any family.

I doubt who ever arrives to clear the house will have any interest in anything unsaleable, but Mrs Snap and I will enjoy my photos while we can and it is fun looking for the keepers among the chaff
Regards
Stan

PPG

Mongoose

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 17:17
it is undeniably the case that future generations will find it harder to look though Grandpa's JPGs than we currently do to explorer Grandpa's slides.

Don't forget though, poorly stored and neglected slides have their own problems with fungus etc.

My day job is long term digital preservation software, and I can assure you, what we see as amateur photographers is just the tip of one hell of an iceberg! The longer I work in this field, the less happy I am with my digital photo storage, and the more I lean towards my wifes approach of "pick the ones you'd cry if you lost, have them printed and put them in an album"

Archival grade paper in a decent album is still your best shot at having them easily viewable in 10+ years time.
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

DrOrloff

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 18:05
I'm back after a couple of days sans internet. Nice to see the discussion ticking along nicely and there are some very interesting points raised.

I'm particularly interested in the longevity of digital storage. How to find a permanent storage site (not so easy). Who's to say when Flickr will be no more? Likewise Microsoft or the owners of other storage sites. If you have many images then you require large amounts of space which needs an annual subscription so what happens when you pay no more when you pop your clogs or when dementia takes hold. Have you written links to websites into your will and will you keep them up to date? What file extensions have the best long term archival potential.

I have a bag full of family photographs from up to at least 100 years ago. I wonder how to if my images will be around in 100 years. Unless I print them on archive quality paper and add them to the bag then I rather think not.

In the meantime I am deleting like mad. Most of my photos are really of no more interest to me so I can't see how they would interest anyone. Most of them do not speak of time or place and they are hampering me going forward. I spend too much time faffing around reorganising old stuff that I can now do much better, so I am getting rid of it and looking forward. Rather than relying on something that is 'ok' I can delete it and use it as a spur to go and do better.

I'm also thinking about how best to display my images digitally and how to tailor my approach to that. Again there seems no obvious long term best solution.

The more I think about it the more I reckon Kris (Wombat) has the right idea with his film cameras.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined

woodworm

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 18:10
I don't hoard my photo's for the next generation, I don't plan on children.

But I don't delete images unless they are really out of focus, etc.

Just as an example of one that I'm pleased to have kept ...

My wife started her own business last year (she is a vet) and one of my pictures of Fidget, one of our cats has become 'the face' of the practice, she's going to be blown up to be put on the back of buses* in the next few weeks - I don't think it's a bad picture, I just think it's a nothing picture.

edit - hard disks are cheap so there really is no reason to delete images


* what is the plural of 'bus' - google / word spell check didn't give me a definitive answer
Last Edited by woodworm on 29/07/2013 - 18:13

johnriley

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 18:25
Buses.
Best regards, John

DrOrloff

Link Posted 29/07/2013 - 18:34
My reason for deleting images is not because of lack of storage, it is for other reasons. Basically I believe less is more and I really should stick to my principles.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.