I tend to spend many hours at a location and take many photographs.
I may have from 5-50 photographs I end up really liking.
What is an appropriate number to post in a thread?
Thanks.

I mean, if you can take 50 pictures of a cool place that are unique and well composed I would probably like to see them all. My problem is that when I look through my photos, I usually take one or two decent photos and then have like 20 unoriginal hallway shots. Because of this, I like to keep my sets short.

I think 10-15 is enough for a thread, but if you want to share more of a set, you can post a link to the full album at the end.

Posted by DescentOnARope I think 10-15 is enough for a thread, but if you want to share more of a set, you can post a link to the full album at the end.

Bump. Links to see more if the viewer wants is a good idea.
Also consider how you would feel seeing your prized images pirated and being misused by someone like Seph Lawless.

Posted by DescentOnARope I think 10-15 is enough for a thread, but if you want to share more of a set, you can post a link to the full album at the end.

Yep. That's my view of it. If you were to just post all 50 in a thread it would take forever to load (and probably wouldn't for some people) and the scrolling would be ridiculous. Keep it simple and post the best of the best and then provide a link for anyone who liked them enough to want to see more.

As others have already suggested, I usually try and limit myself to 15-20 shots and then link to the full set. Nobody will complain if you've got 25 or 30 pure gold shots, but if they're only "meh" then best to leave em out.

Two shots are too many if they suck but I enjoy good photography and a fine location in ANY amount if it rules!

Case in point: WOLFHEART from Finland. He takes photos of mostly cottages and houses interspersed with the occasional industrial or nature set. No asylums, no schools, no military installations, no skyscrapers. None of that.

But I could look at his photos all fucking day.

That guy could post a hundred fucking shots of an old birdhouse hanging in a dead tree and I'll drool over every fucking shot.

It depends solely on the suckage of the photos. Knock yourself out. The responses to your talent won't be shy here, of that you can be certain.

I'd rather see a dozen crisp clean well composed shots of a location than thirty blurry photos, photos of light switches, fuse boxes and rubbish on the floor.

I have no set number to what I think is necessary, it depends on the location, the amount of decent photos you got and a lot of other factors. Most of my photo threads have between 10 and 20 photos, and over the years I have gotten a lot more selective with the photos I take on explores.

Okay, good info, thanks.
I don't post anywhere else right now, so can't do the link thing.
Assuming you are referring to a site like Flickr? Or, what others would you suggest?
Thanks.

Flickr is good, or buy a shared hosting account which is ridiculously cheap nowadays. It's better to host them elsewhere because the UER gallery thingy does some weird resizing/compression making the photos look not so good.

I can only be honest, I can't freaking select. Maybe I'm just not critical enough or something. I sometimes go over my selection 5 times and still end up with 30 photos. Not something I'm proud of. I admire the people who can get it down to 5. The only way I can end up with 5 is closing my eyes and ctrl+clicking 5 times inside the folder

I'll go up to 25 or probably more if I'm visiting multiple distinct locations, and I have a couple shots at the beginning or end showing the morning setup or day-ending barbecue feast.

One is too many if you publish it on the internet.

total number of photos doesn't really bother me so much as file size and image size

Posted by Gunner Trees One is too many if you publish it on the internet.

well good thing you don't explore. One less thing to worry about right?

Even one HDR photo is too many. Ditto shots that are resized down to credit card dimensions with artifacting and no higher rez available. I'd rather not see a location than only get to witness it via ruined images.

6-12 good solid shots at a viewable size is enough to showcase a location. Links to a fuller gallery with more detail shots are always a plus.

This should be your bar. Theres a shit load of pics in that thread and they're all great.

You can try this interesting application, maybe it helps to choose fewer pictures from 50 you like :
http://memorabilit...du/demo.html#score

Posted by Speed This should be your bar. Theres a shit load of pics in that thread and they're all great.

This is glorious.

Posted by Speed This should be your bar. Theres a shit load of pics in that thread and they're all great.

If I had to match that quality, I'd never get to post again! There are some amazing photographers on this forum. Love it!

[b[i]]Abby[/b][/i]

Posted by serendipitee I tend to spend many hours at a location and take many photographs. I may have from 5-50 photographs I end up really liking. What is an appropriate number to post in a thread? Thanks.

Lots of good suggestions already. If you have way too many pictures, you could split them up into two separate posts. Including "Pic Heavy" in the title can also help folks decide if they want to open your thread on the device they are using. (Maybe they wait till they on their home computer to see your pictures rather than on their cell phone.)


My approach is a bit different though. I try to only post photos that complement the story I'm trying to tell. In other words I'm trying to share the adventure with everyone rather than just show the pictures I took.

Steed is another story teller who always makes me feel like I got to go along on his exploration.

Abby Normal