The image I posted earlier today both here at the blog and on Google+ got me thinking about the various ways that a photograph can “come to life.” This particular image followed a path that several other images that I consider to be among my best followed – namely, it languished in my raw file archive for nearly a year before I rediscovered it recently while going back through the old files. I recognized this pattern some time ago, and I now make it a habit to revisit all of my (thousands and thousands of) raw files about a year after I shoot them.
Why didn’t I “see” this image when I first reviewed raw files right after the shoot? I’m not entirely certain, but several ideas come to mind. Sometimes at the time of the shoot I have a strongly fixed notion of how I want to portray the subject , and as I shoot I’m already categorizing exposures by how well they correspond to this preconception. So when I initially go through the raws I may be mostly looking for what fits my expectations as opposed to looking objectively at what works on its own merits. Coming back a year later allows me to better see the image for what it is, without having my judgment so affected by prior expectations.
Related to this is the sheer number of images and how one deals with them in the post-processing workflow. I may begin with what I think are the most promising couple of images from a shoot and then take them all the way to a print-ready (or actually printed) stage. Once I’ve done that with the first selects from a given subject, I’m more likely to move on to other subjects – and potentially leave other good images in the dust.
There is a lot more to say about this, I think, but I’ll save the longer explication for another blog post in the future. Does anyone else make a practice of doing a full review of raw files at some future date?
I think that Jim’s Best Photos thing may have given me the push, too. Though that takes a bit of a different path as I usually find those images among those that I’ve already worked up – that I’m pretty sure that it was this process that got me to undertake the annual pre-New Years Day trudge through thousands of the year’s raw files.
This year I wasn’t quite as organized, and I only made it through the first half of 2010 during my holiday retrospective. As a consequence, I’m going through the June through December stuff bit by bit now.
Dan
Dan, this later review of photos is a great idea. I hadn’t done that routinely, but got a push from Jim Goldstein’s annual “Best Photos of the Year” blog project at the end of last year, which led me to discover, or rediscover, a few gems.
Dan,
I have not (yet) started doing that as a regular practice, but I have also gone back on occasion and found a gem I missed the first time. I think your analysis is exactly right. If a particular picture does not meet our expectations, we pass it over.
I’ve also noticed that I often revisit a shot and find that it would look better as a black and white, when during initial review, I did not think of it.
Lastly, I find that as my post-processing skills improve (somewhat), some images show more potential now than they did a year or so ago.
Great post. Young Lakes is one of my favorite spots on the planet
Rick
You’re right that this is a big topic. I just read a rather obscure, theoretical book about street photography* that got me thinking the relationship between photography and time. There’s all the stuff that happens before you snap the picture (the long-term and short term preparation, previsualization etc.), the actual time that the shutter is open (which of course makes a big difference), the time portrayed in the image (by for example, freezing action, implying motion, etc.), and all the stuff that happens after the shutter closes (evaluating the raw, post-processing, etc.). The last phase includes not only what you’re talking about (revisiting unprocessed photos), but also (something important to me), reviewing your processed photos to see what worked and what didn’t and why and where you that might lead you in the future. Then there’s the history of the published photograph (whether on the web, a print on a wall, in a book, etc) and what it means to the various viewers over time. Indeed, a big topic!
*The book I mentioned in Street Phtotography by Clive Scott
http://www.amazon.com/Street-Photography-Cartier-Bresson-Clive-Scott/dp/1845112237/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311370415&sr=1-2
Thanks for the comment and the book reference – I’m going to take a look at that.
Another (obvious) element of photography’s relationship to time is that it seems like an attempt (as are many arts) to hold time still for a moment, something that never happens in our real lives. We even reflect this in our language when we speak of “capturing a moment” and so forth.
Dan
Yes, this happens to me a few times a year. I will come back from a shoot then process the raw images that I think I like then move on to something else. I just reviewd my sparse Tioga Pass trip images from this last June and forgot I had some ready to go, so, one will be up (post) this weekend with another the following weekend. I will be going back to Moab this September and I know when I review last years images I will find some hidden gems. Now, what was the question :-)
Love that image, Dan. I’ve had this happen upon occasion when going back to look for stock submission material.