How do I sort my photos to keep only the best?
- Lo Kee
- 11 mars
- 4 min de lecture
When I return from a photo outing, a shoot, or a trip, I often find myself with hundreds of images. Each photograph captures a moment, a light, a detail that, at the time, made me press the shutter. But not all of these captures are necessarily worth sharing or printing. I therefore need to make a selection.
The first pass: rating each image
The first step is to import all my photos and review them. This helps me get an initial overall sense of the material. I process them using my own technique and assign each image a rating from 0 to 5:
0 = trash
5 = gem
The number of photos I actually discard is quite small. It is not that everything I do is successful, but rather that I keep many images that I consider imperfect. Even an “average” image can contain something interesting. I actually explained why in a previous article.
An interesting theory about quality
A brief aside here to mention a theory a photographer friend once shared with me. According to him, a photographer is not judged by their best images, but by the quality of their weakest ones.
It was a reversal of perspective that I found particularly compelling. Producing one excellent photograph is within reach for almost anyone: a happy accident or a moment of brilliance can always occur.
By contrast, in the work of an amateur, the worst often sits next to the best. With an experienced photographer, however, time and practice tend to create a narrowing effect: the weakest images are generally of higher quality, and a kind of qualitative floor begins to emerge.
I very often produce photographs that are simply correct. If I were to describe my rating system more precisely, it would look something like this:
1 star = a photograph that holds no real interest for me; it may be lacking technically, emotionally, or both.
2 stars = a functional photograph that nevertheless leaves me indifferent; one of the essential criteria is missing.
3 stars = the category I fill most frequently: well-exposed, well-composed photographs in which something is happening. In other words, nothing to criticize. These images often work very well on social media.
4 and 5 stars = photographs that stand out and deserve closer attention; these are the ones I select for fine art prints.
To be completely transparent, I currently have 76,518 unique photographs in my archives, distributed as follows:
11,388 photographs with 1 star, or about 15%,
17,788 photographs with 2 stars, or 23%,
28,141 photographs with 3 stars, or 37%,
5,976 photographs with 4 stars, or 8%,
56 photographs with 5 stars, or 0.1% of my production.
For the more attentive readers who might have tried to do the math: the total, both in percentage and in absolute numbers, does not reach 100%. This is due to the presence of a few photographs rated 0 stars, some personal images that do not belong to my professional classification system, and a number of photographs that are still awaiting evaluation.
A matter of consistency
First observation: you may have noticed that I very rarely give 5 stars to a photograph.
Second observation: if one were to draw a profile representing my production in terms of quality, it would resemble a spinning top, with the bulk of my images concentrated in the middle.
If we return to the example of the amateur photographer, their diagram might look more like a pyramid, with a large base of weak images. By contrast, an excellent photographer would have most of their production concentrated in the upper levels.
Having seen the contact sheets of several renowned artists, only Josef Koudelka seemed capable, on a roll of 36 exposures, of producing a masterpiece with every shutter release. A true master of consistency and quality. Apart from rare geniuses like him, imagining a completely inverted pyramid profile feels almost unrealistic.
Finally, one last observation: by selecting only 4 and 5-star images for my printed works, what you actually see represents less than 10% of my total production.
The second level of sorting; choosing between near-duplicates
Once each image has been rated, I can navigate only among those that truly matter; this is where the second stage of sorting comes in; selecting a single image from a series of very similar photographs.
I am not a fan of burst mode; I tend to be rather sparing with my clicks. On the other hand, I like to vary my framing and orientation (portrait / landscape). Faced with the same subject, I can easily end up with four, five, or even six very similar images; all showing the same tree, for instance.
In my early years, I often sent several photographs with these variations to my clients, thinking it would be appreciated; in reality, it made the choice more complicated. Too many images; even good ones; create hesitation. Today, I try to show only one photograph per scene; or two if the second is truly different.
This choice can sometimes be frustrating; some excellent images will never be seen, simply because they were too close to another that I preferred. But it is by being highly critical that one moves from a hundred photographs to fifteen; or even ten.
Example; a short trip to the Swabian Jura
Recently, I returned from a short trip to the Swabian Jura with a large hundred or so photographs. After the first sorting;
3 images with 1 star,
23 images with 2 stars,
69 images with 3 stars,
23 images with 4 stars,
0 images with 5 stars.
But my final selection, the one I will actually show, will include only ten to twelve images; among these, only one or two will be printed and potentially offered for sale.
This sorting is not just a matter of technique or aesthetics; it is an artistic act in itself; it transforms a stream of raw images into distinct, coherent, and readable works. Each chosen image carries intention, perspective, and tells a story.
This is how my photographs move beyond the capture format to become true works of art; ready to be shared, exhibited, or framed.