rjalex
9th of September 2007 (Sun), 04:49
Dear friends,
I am sorting through the 2927 shoots of my last vacation :)
I would love to have your suggestions on my approach which I will try to describe hereunder.
I am using Adobe Bridge for all of this which in the CS3 version I use has the following ratings: Reject, and stars from 1 to 5. If you use another SW the same concepts should apply.
The following file I jotted down tries to capture the criterias and actions that are involved in my choice. Thank you for any suggestions, insights especially if based from a first hand experience.
Bob
Criteria (absolutely incomplete)
--------
Focus
out of focus of important features -> reject
sharpening can help -> **
Duplicate
similar to better one -> *
totally identical duplicate -> reject
Exposure
totally blown or black on relevant features -> reject
bad exposure of relevant features not worth further PP -> *
suboptimal exposure of relevant feature -> **
Composition
main feature cropped -> reject
important features misplaced but PP can fix (crop, rotate etc.) -> **
Actions
-------
Keeping -> from *
Backup -> from **
Shown to self -> from **
Shown to friends -> from ***
Shown to anyone -> from ****
Metadata annotated -> from ***
Postprocessed -> from **
A few comments to maybe explain better :)
The "shown to self" is a technically bad photo that nevertheless carries some memory for the shooter and the other people involved in it.
The "shown to friends" is stuff you show to someone and complement the message of the pic with some explanation.
The "shown to all" are the REAL :) pictures. Those that speak for themselves. Those you frame and hang. Those you publish or enter competitions with (with the ***** having the WOW factor).
I spend a lot of time annotating my pics with IPTC data amongst which keywords in order to be able to retrieve them at a later time. Usually do that only from the *** rating because of time constraints, even though since a ** could become an higher rating after some PP corrections, from a strictly logical point of view I should tag those too :(
I feel very weak on the rating of * to otherwise good pics on the basis of being very similar but not as great. I use that to focus any PP on the "best" one, but think this approach might lead to problems.
I am sorting through the 2927 shoots of my last vacation :)
I would love to have your suggestions on my approach which I will try to describe hereunder.
I am using Adobe Bridge for all of this which in the CS3 version I use has the following ratings: Reject, and stars from 1 to 5. If you use another SW the same concepts should apply.
The following file I jotted down tries to capture the criterias and actions that are involved in my choice. Thank you for any suggestions, insights especially if based from a first hand experience.
Bob
Criteria (absolutely incomplete)
--------
Focus
out of focus of important features -> reject
sharpening can help -> **
Duplicate
similar to better one -> *
totally identical duplicate -> reject
Exposure
totally blown or black on relevant features -> reject
bad exposure of relevant features not worth further PP -> *
suboptimal exposure of relevant feature -> **
Composition
main feature cropped -> reject
important features misplaced but PP can fix (crop, rotate etc.) -> **
Actions
-------
Keeping -> from *
Backup -> from **
Shown to self -> from **
Shown to friends -> from ***
Shown to anyone -> from ****
Metadata annotated -> from ***
Postprocessed -> from **
A few comments to maybe explain better :)
The "shown to self" is a technically bad photo that nevertheless carries some memory for the shooter and the other people involved in it.
The "shown to friends" is stuff you show to someone and complement the message of the pic with some explanation.
The "shown to all" are the REAL :) pictures. Those that speak for themselves. Those you frame and hang. Those you publish or enter competitions with (with the ***** having the WOW factor).
I spend a lot of time annotating my pics with IPTC data amongst which keywords in order to be able to retrieve them at a later time. Usually do that only from the *** rating because of time constraints, even though since a ** could become an higher rating after some PP corrections, from a strictly logical point of view I should tag those too :(
I feel very weak on the rating of * to otherwise good pics on the basis of being very similar but not as great. I use that to focus any PP on the "best" one, but think this approach might lead to problems.