Re: Re Taking lots of photos

[Joel.Alpers@xxxxxxxxxxx]

George T. writes (quoting Elliott):

#
#>Most photos should be immediately destroyed...
#
#Definitely!  I cannot understand why some people express surprise when
#I say that I only keep 10 pictures from a 30 picture roll on the average.
#If I did not have a family to document, I would be keeping even less.
#
#Sometimes I force myself to get rid of pictures.  After our recent trip to
#Greece, I came back with 500+ stereo pictures.  I put a goal to myself
#to only keep 100.  I am still at 150.  I have not mounted them permanently
#yet. Every time I go through them I throw away a dozen or so.
#
#IMO, there is nothing wrong with taking many pictures and keeping only
#the very best if you don't mind the expense.
#

Nature/wildlife great John Shaw writes (paraphrased) "Edit ruthlessly. I
keep a large garbage can next to my light table, and after a tyipcal editing
session it is almost full".   

Art Wolfe once wrote that, when taking photos of an animal he comes
across, he'll shoot perhaps 4-5 rolls of film before he feels the
animal has become accustomed to his presence enought to behave
naturally. He says he often doesn't find any "keepers" in the first
5 rolls, and is suprised when a nature photographer will leave after
taking only a roll of an animal - he says his best work usually 
is in the later rolls!

I know this is slanted towards nature photography, but the implication
is clear - if even the well known pros are willing to throw a large
percentage of their photos out, we should be even more so.

Joel.


------------------------------