Most photographs are junk.  And with digital, I think even more are junk than in the film days since you don’t lose much by clicking.  What you usually don’t see on the web – the sequence that lead up to “the keeper” and the shots that follow “the keeper.”  And even with all that said, deciding what the “keeper” is – that’s just as big a part of photography as actually taking the shot.

Anyway, thought you might find this sequence interesting.  (I was accused a few times of setting it up.  Or photoshopping it.)  Also, it seems to me that certain types of photography (street for example) will give you a much lower percentage of keepers than other types – architectural (?).

[metaslider id=16009]

It’s snowing in the city today, and it made me think of this shot as a good example to use.

A subject for another day is “photoshopping.”  Everything you see on the web has, to some extent been altered.  I don’t care if it began as a film slide, or a digital file.  It is altered in many ways before you see it on your screen.  Maybe I’ll write about that next, unless that’s too obvious a subject.

Published by dave

I've been photographing New York, mostly in black and white, for the last 35 years. In other words, I began in the age of Tri-x and D-76 and eventually moved into the world of pigment ink. Enjoy your stay - Dave

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.