Deleting a good photo file to make it better?

[Speck Tater]

I saw some prints in a local gallery recently that left me wondering about what makes a photo good. The thing is, if I had seen any one of those pictures in the back of my camera, or as a thumbnail in lightroom, I probably would have just deleted them and shrugged them off as not worth keeping.

But here's the strange thing. I saw these photos printed large, mounted, matted, signed and framed and hanging on the wall of a serious gallery, which meant rather than shrugging them off as not very good, I was obliged to take them seriously, and look more closely at them.

When I did that, I realized that they were actually very good pictures. And yet I wouldn't have kept any of them if they had been mine. I talked to the photographer and his philosophy is that a picture isn't a picture until it's physically printed, mounted, matted, signed and framed. When he gets a picture that's exceptionally good, he makes one large signed print of it and then deletes the file. Forever. That way that one print is the only copy in existence. It is unique in all the world and can never be duplicated. Or he'll make a limited print run of 10, 12 or 15 signed and numbered prints, and, again, delete the file.

I'm reminded of artists who pulled a limited number of prints from a litho stone, or carved wood block, and then broke the stone, or chopped the wood block in half so that more prints could never be made.

Maybe if a photo is worth keeping, then it's worth printing, mounting, matting, signing, framing, and having its file deleted to insure the uniqueness of the print.

Maybe being able to make more copies at will cheapens the photo somehow.

I haven't decided how I feel about this, but I'm thinking seriously about what my opinion might be.

[Mira]

1. I can maybe add a little to the conversation in your head.

The numbering and limiting of an edition is to my knowledge not unusual for a photographer who makes his living with his work, and who has hopefully established a name in the community or is attempting to.

Making your work available, but only to a limited number of purchasers or people makes each one of course more valuable, if there are no more of those to come, as you get known and more famous.
But, if your name does not have real pull yet, a limited edition does not help make you famous, it only makes your best work unattainable once the few copies are gone and since your best ones will also be popular, the more that are sold and our there the more they help you get known.

Limited editions are more common with screen printers, serigraphs. Because you pull the prints, and you can after that never re-produce the various screens.
Not so for a photograph.

What I'm saying I think, is that it simply depends on what your plan of action and your hope and dreams are for your photographs.

[Speck Tater]

2. Interesting thoughts.

I have no plans, personally. I take photos for fun, and I have no intention of ever being rich or famous. I think if someone ever wanted to buy one of my prints I'd probably be inclined to just give it away.

[Mira]

3. Well, if that is so -

I see no earthly reason to not continue just as you are. Pitch what you don't like and don't want to work on, and keep what you do like for as long as you want.
The only reason I can imagine to destroy an original after either ONE singular copy or a few limited edition copies is if you want to help create a higher value for the ones that have sold (or been given).

If I'm missing something I would be interested in looking at it differently.

[Speck Tater]

6. I think you're right, but...

I'm not interested in creating more monetary value, but the notion of creating more "value" of a non-monetary sort interests me. Don't ask me what I mean by that because I'm not really sure yet. I'm still mulling it.

It's sort of like the difference between two identical fountain pens, one of which you found in a garage sale and the other of which was given to you personally by President Obama. I suppose the presidential pen might have more monetary value to someone who cared about its monetary value, but it has something else that's also "value", but is not "monetary". I'm not sure what to call that.

[Stevenmarc]

4. Interesting

However, I'm seeing two separate issues. One question about you feeling obliged to take a photo more seriously because its hanging on a gallery wall? Personally I've seen some truly mediocre work on some rather serious gallery walls in my days, talent isn't the only factor that gets art on a gallery wall.

The second issue is one of marketing, obviously this photographer feels it important to limit his output to create an aura of value, but his deleting of the file is nothing short of a grandious marketing gesture. Personally I have never met a serious photographer that would ever destroy a negative or a file because they printed the perfect print.

[RC]

5. I never delete any picture in the camera, ever - Until I download them into my computer first.

The view screen is too small to really see what you have.
I always save all my pictures on my computer first. A little cropping, straightening, contrast/brightness adjusting can do wonders for a seemingly ho-hum photo.
The advantage is I can go back years later and still retrieve something. Like pictures of places I have been, for instance. It is a hobby after all. Those I wish to share, I can put put on Smugmug.

The accidental ground shot or blurred shrubbery, or whatever can sometimes be made into works of art using Photoshop, Photoscape, or even Irvanview. Or possibly, if you get lucky, they may be good as is.

I really don't understand those that the delete any pictures, either in the camera or later in the computer, that doesn't grab them as a prize winner on first sight. Those pictures might have a use later.
Like this one, for instance of a homeless man sleeping in a Kansas City park
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021866048#post54

Everyone and their kid brother has a camera of some kind and are out taking pictures of any and everything nowadays. It's not as if you need a covered wagon to carry your equipment around anymore. You have to be really, really good to make living as a photographer.

[Speck Tater]

7. Hmmm. I throw out the vast majority of my pictures.

I might go to the park and shoot 300 pictures and throw away all but 2 or 3 of them. On a rare day I might keep as many 5 or 6 out of 300 or 400 images.

Then I go back a few month later and throw out most of the ones I originally kept.

This does not apply to family snapshots, of course. I keep every precious image of my kids and grandkids, plus assorted other relatives.

[Stevenmarc]

8. I rarely throw out anything.

I usually work in series and when I curate the final images I'm looking for specific things, there are always images that didn't make the cut that I come back to at a later date and rediscover.

[NV Whino]

9. The only reason to so that is to artificially inflate the monetary value

Of course it does make it easier for his (or her) heirs to clean up after he (or she) kicks the bucket.

[Speck Tater]

10. But would viewing the Mona Lisa live be such a thrill if...

...if Leonardo had run off 10,000 perfect copies instead of just one original?

My photos have zero monetary value to begin with, and I could care less if they have any monetary value, but there are other kinds of value beside monetary.

[Mira]

11. Actually - though I was somewhat prepared -

I was SHOCKED at the impact the real Mona Lisa did NOT have on me.
She is little, fenced in, and one can't even step up to examine the brush strokes.

I keep coming back to this interesting thread to see if anyone is showing a reason to only keep one copy, or a limited edition, that has nothing to do with money or fame acquired through other efforts. So far, I don't see it. If one copy of a masterpiece resides in your possession, and you are not famous for it or other reasons, does it make a noise?

Bu the way, I only later in the thread realized you say you delete photos off the camera, in essence "unseen". I never do that. I keep them all, and look on the computer screen before I throw out what will surely never be useful. Since one never knows what my whimsy will look for, or what my cropping may produce, I keep an awful lot of photos. I have an external hard drive I dump them on, and there they live happily all together now.

edited to fix a typo

[Speck Tater]

13. I rarely delete photos in the camera

and then only if they are utter failures. Shooting a bird on the wing with continuous mode and some of the shots don't even have the bird in frame. Shooting a spider on a web when a puff of wind moves the web and spider completely out of focus. The frame where the frog jumped out of view just as the shutter was clicked. Those are obvious clunkers.

[NV Whino]

12. This is difficult to answer

First, we're dealing with apples and oranges by attempting to compare paintings, which by their very nature are singular and photographs, which by their very nature capable of being multiples.

However, there are thousands of copies of Mona Lisa. Does that make the original any less valuable? I don't think so. The original contains brush technique, the artist's interpretation of his subject, the emotion captured by the artist. A copy, a print, a mechanical representation, cannot capture the brush work, the depth or luminosity or texture of the paint, all of which contribute to the emotional impact of the work.

The photograph, again by its very nature, is a mechanical representation of the subject. It, too, can have emotional impact. However, more or fewer copies neither increase nor decrease the emotional impact. (I'm ruling out deliberate manipulation here, and talking only about exact reproductions.) it either has it or it doesn't. So limiting the number of this mechanical representation accomplishes only one thing: increase the monetary value. And even then, there are multiple factors that affect that, the primary one being the reputation of the photographer.

[Stevenmarc]

15. That's not quite how

The business of the art business works. You can't really artificially inflate the value of a photo by tacking on an edition number, well you can try but your work won't be flying off the wall because of it. There's a lot of factors that determine price, sales history, reviews, your CV, the gallery and lets not forget hype but edition size not so much.

[Mz Pip]

14. Interesting thread

I recently began exhibiting in a gallery. I pretty much got sick of art fairs. I have several pieces in the latest show and a bin with some matted prints. THe gallery owner wanted me to consider doing numbered series because collectors like to think they are getting something that is part of a limited edition.

I'm going along with it but I don't really think it will make much difference. I'm not selling these prints for large amounts of money and don't really expect collectors to be lining up to buy #5 of 25 or however many I decide to print. Seems like a lot more record keeping than it's worth for what I do. When people buy my photos or prints they do so because they like the image, not because I'm famous and it might be a good investment.

I rarely delete anything I shoot until after I've taken a good look at it on screen and have seen whether or not it has some potential. I don't think I would ever delete an image after printing it and finding it to be wonderful.

Mz Pip

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I'm a hoarder.

I keep them all unless they're just clearly awful.

[Speck Tater]

17. I'm an un-hoarder. I'm a thrower-outer.

My brother-in-law was talking about still having his first home computer up in his attic. He cringed when I told him that when my Apple II finally was beyond repair I dropped it into the dumpster. (That was several decades ago, before we started recycling old electronics.)

I can't think of a single possession in my house (aside from major furniture items) that is more than a few years old. The people at the Goodwill store donation center know me by name I go there so often. It's not because I'm replacing stuff, it's because after 50 years of being a semi-hoarder, I'm going in the opposite direction and pairing down my possessions to the bare minimum.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. Oh, I don't hoard everything,

just my pictures. . I otherwise don't have a problem with getting rid of things.

[MichaelSoE]

19. A cut and paste from my web site - I do sell prints and I never destroy a negative or file

Photography as an art form has a quality that by it's very nature makes it different from say a painting or a sculpture. In photography the original image is the negative or as is the case these days, the digital file, and the print of the image is the end product. The great American photographer Ansel Adams once observed, ”The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle way” An original musical composition can be performed innumerable times and even have many different arrangements (There are over 2,000 recorded versions of ”Louie Louie”). Likewise the photographer's negative can be reproduced innumerable times and even have many different arrangements.


My images are available in open and limited editions and as well as exclusive prints but that does not mean that the ”negative” (original digital file) is destroyed and never used again. In my opinion that would be unconscionable. It would be as if Mozart wrote a symphony and performed it 10 times, made 100 cds and then burned the score making it impossible for anyone else to enjoy his creativity save the people that possessed the cds. As an artistic photographer I want as many people as possible to enjoy my work. Therefore you will see my images offered in different variations.

The print variable could be something as simple as the size. It could be as subtle as using a paper that is warmer or cooler or with a different texture or finish. But the variation, whether a limited edition or an exclusive print is guaranteed. If an image is available as a 16”” monochromatic sepia print, limited to 10 in the edition, then once those 10 prints are sold the image will not be available as such ever again.