Allowing Photos to 'sit' a bit. . .

[GBarrington]

<p>Over the years, I have learned to never toss a photo because it isn't 'good enough'. I find that editing or making irrevocable decisions about a photo right after capture is the worst time for me. I hate everything I've shot and I have no idea what is 'good' or 'bad'.</p>

<p>I have discoered that allowing myself to gain a little emotional distance regarding a photo refreshes my photographic insight, makes a rational decision about a photo much easier. <br /><br />I once let the photos from a shoot sit (accidentally!) 2 years before I attempted to edit them. When I shot them, I thought they were awful. So I put them aside and literally forgot them! Going through my older stuff recently, I found them and thought they were pretty good, and unlike 2 years ago, I knew exactly what to do with them. <br /><br />Anyone else have similar pracices?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Yes, this has happened to me as well.</p>

<p>I call it adaptation and expectation. Adaptation has more to do with optics where as expectation is emotional. Mood may also play a part in this.</p>

<p>In another thread about finding subjects to shoot, it was mentioned a photographer should have a passion for the subject they're shooting rather than blindly shooting at anything.</p>

<p>I'ld suggest you find the passion in the image that compelled you to trip the shutter lead you in deciding whether to trash an image or not.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Yes, it happens all the time. In fact, I've gotten to where I do it on purpose. After I've worked on a shot for a while, I'll lay it aside and avoid looking at it for a week or so. It seems to enhance the process of doing the final editing work...</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>I have discoered that allowing myself to gain a little emotional distance regarding a photo refreshes my photographic insight, makes a rational decision about a photo much easier. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. but for me it is usually a matter of whether I still think a photo was as strong as my initial judgement of it lead me to believe.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

It's a given if you are shooting transparency film and have to send it out for processing.

[DickArnold]

I make prints and I have a big poster board where I post them and let them sit a month or so before I make a large or final print just to season the image in my consciousness.

[azlatic]

<p>Yep. Figured this out about myself years ago. I have about a two-week lag period, typically, between shooting and finally thinking they're acceptable. Most of the time now, I don't even try to process anything immediately unless it's time sensitive. Portraits are the exception. I can review those right away and know whether I've got it, what I've got, and what to do with it. Everything else needs to marinate!</p>

[john_a5]

<p>There are a lot of factors at work in such cases. I am one of those that never likes anything I did when I first look at it and then when I go back, am fine with some of it at least.</p>

<p>But there is also the fact that, if you are working seriously and pushing yourself, you may at times shoot beyond where you are consciously. I have one series of images that developed when I rediscovered a negative I had shot 4 years earlier. Just recently, I was reviewing work from almost 30 years ago and it now makes sense with a series of work I am just beginning.</p>

<p>I never throw anything away except "brackets" when I have determined the optimal exposure and that is only with my digital files. With film, it is easier to keep it all in most cases, unless I shot 4x5--but then I rarely bracket.</p>

<p>I also think that sitting on personal work would probably keep down that which is posted. Sometimes the moments excitement seems to out weigh the quality of the actual work....</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>A couple of thoughts that might be relevant: 1) Yes, I do like some of my older work, but the more I've learned, the better I can print them. 2) Try putting together a photo exhibit around a theme. Put it up somewhere, or make a book out of it, and set a stake in the ground and see what you have done up to that point. An exhibit is a great way to reflect on your past and see what you need to do from here on out. It could be at a coffee shop or a gallery.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>Happens to me all the time, both ways. Pictures I think are great, suck 6 months later, and pics I pased over catch my attention, sometimes years later. Recently printed 2 "found " negatives from years ago that I like alot. Also destoyed some prints that I came to the conclusion i didn't want anyone to see. I shoot film. I used to make work prints and look at them for 6 months to a year before deciding to make an exhibition print. Now I don't have the time or energy to do that, so i try to wait 6 months after contact printing to make decisions. In the last 2 weeks I developed and contact printed 132 rolls of film(35mm) shot in the last 9 months. There were 10 pics that I was absolutely positive about and i printed exhibition prints immediately. Thats less than 1 shot per 10 rolls. My standard for printing an image is whether I would hang it in a show on a gallery wall. Waiting is a valuable asset in deciding whether a pic is worth showing.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I absolutely agree. When editing, I only discard the obviously bad shots. I always live with ones I print and put in an album for a few days or more. Then I go back over the shots I didn't print or that I printed but didn't put in an album. Some I'll reprint differently and some I'll decide I like better than the ones I put in the album. I'll live them and then I may come back to the whole days shoot months later or even years later and evaluate them again.</p>

<p>Another thing I do is I do very little chimping. I only delete unsharp or badly exposed (too bad to save) photos. The rest get evaluated on the computer.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>I've found the "waiting period" that many of you are discussing doesn't usually have any bearing on my opinion as to whether a particular shot is a "keeper"...or not. In other words, if I liked the shot the first time I viewed it on a monitor...I'll probably like it two weeks, or two years later. But...I've found that my vision for post processing that photograph may have changed dramatically over time. Obviously the picture hasn't changed...but how I see it <em>has. </em>This reminds me of times that I've gone back and read research papers I wrote in college...and often, I not only don't recall writing them...but can't imagine having written them with the particular style or structure that is before my eyes. I know it's not the case...but it's a though someone else wrote them and I'm seeing them for the first time. It's almost the same for me with photographs. If I've taken a break from shooting for a time, and I find myself sitting around, bored and watching Law and Order reruns...I'll pull up some old photos on my laptop, open a RAW file, and do some post processing...and then compare it to how I treated it the first time around. Quite often...you'd think two different people had done the work. At times this is attributable to the fact that I've learned a few new PS techniques...but more often, I think it's simply that over time... my way of "seeing" has changed. Does this make sense?</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I think that photographs are like wine - they need to rest a while to achieve their full flavour. Sometimes, like wine, they just turn to vinegar (several of my early photographs are now embarrassing) but sometimes they become vintage. </p>

[acedigital]

<p>An interesting exercise is having a friend/non-photographer review your work. They often have a unique or "uncluttered" view of whats good or appealing, as opposed to ME/YOU who have stared at a photo for some time. I sell landscape work through a corporate art company sometimes, and often they will select images that I don't necessarily feel are the best ones from the slide show I have given to them, everyone has their own tastes! I am culling through 5 years and 20k+ images now to get it down to a manageable number and I am very careful before I hit DELETE for good!</p>

[gary_meader]

<p>Usually, I start with a fairly correct full-frame image. Then I put some cropping 'L's on it to crop to what I think I like. There it sits and I walk by it for a week or more. If something bugs me about the image, I make a mental/visual note of it. Then when I think I'm ready, I quickly pull the 'L's away. Did the image get stronger or weaker by including more? It's usually the latter. That really seems to help. Then I go for final tonal adjustments and color.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>In my oversimplifying way, I tend to mentally assign each of my images into two categories, those images that others would likely enjoy without knowing anything about, or having no connection to the subject, and those, even if of poor technical quality, poor composition, etc., that would likely be enjoyed by family, friends and people having some relation to the subject of the image. Occasionally, an image can be assigned to both categories. </p>

<p>Over time, I tend to cull more and more images out of the 1st category, but relax the criteria and include more of my images in the 2nd category. Because of my very predictable behavior, when I first review a new batch of images, I tend to hit "delete" a lot less for images in the 2nd category. I probably am an extreme case of "letting them sit", as I still periodically look over images I took 30 or 40 years ago, and adjust my rating of each.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>