Peter Boughton wrote:A smart collection with "Copy Name" set to "is empty" should exclude virtual copies, plus the "File Type" filter to exclude any non-raw imports.
That's still inflated by bracketed images which I'd count as a single photo in multiple files, but that isn't easily filterable.
Thanks, Peter, that is a useful tip. I do not have a preoccupation with the actual number of images other than as an indication of activity. Based on the crude measure of a Lightroom count, 2017 was exceeded only by 2013 when I did my photo-a-day project. Looking at my images, there are two signficant factors which contributed to the increase. One was attending the match at Sarah's hockey club last March where I was shooting short bursts. The other was the birth at the end of 2016 of my first grandchild. Without those two events, 2017 would have been similar to most other years in terms of photos taken.
Whereas I suspect that the majority, if not all, of our Victorian forebears' exposures resulted in a print, only around 1% of my output ever gets further than a quick review in Lightroom. Some end up in my blog and/or become competition images. Others I might incorporate into presentations. Family shots are more often than not shared by social media and rarely result in a print.
The hockey match is a case in point. I took around 1400 images, which is as many as I have ever taken in a single session. It resulted in around 80-90 passable images. I printed one recently for a club competition and thought it would be OK. The judge was singularly unimpressed. It featured two players and he wanted to see three.* Out of everything I took that day, one was a standout. And yes, it did feature three people. I entered it into an external competition and it did tolerably well. Not brilliantly, but was singled out for a commendation. It has also just become one of my acceptances in the colour print section of the SPA Biennial Exhibition. It will make it to the club one day.
If I had been carefully making exposures, would I have got the shot? Possibly. I only started a sequence of shots when something interesting happened and the first was usually the best. The others were insurance in case the action developed into something more interesting. It is also possible that I would have missed it, especially if every shot was at the cost of film and reloading was necessary every 36 shot. So, 1400 exposures for one usable shot? Worth it in my book.
* Judges. You have to love them. Especially when they do not critique the presented photo and say that they want something different.