Removing bad or repeat photographs - offers the prospect of reducing the size of the collection, thereby reducing the cost of digitisation.
If you are saving a small quantity of photos, filtering them may be less of a concern, so read on, or skip to the next page.
Next page
Results will vary... discarding photographs isn't always easy, particularly when you know that the restoration process can often dramatically improve the image over the original photo.
Your own early photos may not be technically good, but discarding them would probably be regretted.
For personal photographs, each scene may have meaning (the reason why you took the photo in the first place).
Even repeat photos often capture a different essence of a person, or scene.
Add to this, the fact that you probably discarded the very worst photos, at the time you received them...
... and the gains that you hoped to make, often rapidly disintegrate.
The easiest way to find out, is to grab a few packets, check the time, and start filtering.
When complete, check the time and see what you've discarded... the final test is: can you put them in the bin?
It's a good test, because by not saving them, they will be effectively binned.
(Online, dumped photos are not deleted, just moved to a dump album).
Note: In the late 80's and 90's copy print sets were being offered very cheaply... the idea was that you would distribute the copies to friends that were 'there' at the party...
... only, you never did.
Your collection might include a good number of duplicate photos that can easily be removed.
This is the easiest solution.
The first group of photos that you look at... with a click of the mouse, bad or repeat photos can be deleted or moved to a 'dump' album.
...if you have later regrets, you can pull them out of the dump.
In this way, you filter the collection naturally, without the pressure of 'needing to make a decision'.
Should I organise the photos?