Number Of Decent Photos?

casp3r

casp3r

Suspended / Banned
Messages
77
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Recently took photos at our schools sports day. Just walking around taking snaps Now out of the 250 I took I can honestly say that there were only 2 or 3 that I really liked. The rest were ok or simply a series of shots captured with my finger on the button :)
So I was just wondering what others 'like' to 'just ok' (or poor) ratio is?
 
My success rate isn't very good at all tbh. On average, I export(to my portfolio folder) about 2-3% of a days shots. Having said that, its just how I prefer working; Taking loads of shots and really narrowing it down, rather than taking ages over each shot to make sure its perfect each time.
 
Depends a lot on what you're shooting I find. For example, my macro keeper rate is probably about 5%, but for landscapes its closer to 50%. Depends whether its the kind of shot you can set up for properly or not. The 95% of macro shots I discard are normally for technical reasons, whereas the 50% of landscapes is generally for aesthetic reasons.

It also depends on your shooting style - some people take lots of shots of the same subject then pick the best one or two, others will spend more time on getting those one or two right the first time and then move on.
 
It's something I've been thinking about as well lately. On a busy day I might take 2500 shots. From that there will be about a dozen I'll like, have something a bit different, and then a lot of technically fine but bland stuff.
 
"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

— Ansel Adams
 
As others have said, it depends on your subject - particularly if your subject is some sort of moving action.

I am pretty rubbish but tend to come away from a day's motorsport with about 700-1000 shots and from those I generally narrow it down to about 20-30 that are worth keeping. The rest are technically poor or just dull composition.
 
When I was working, every shot had to count. Artistic merit wasn't an issue, but exposure focus, and sharpness were. I considered every single shot for many seconds, and double checked all my settings. I didn't bracket, as film was expensive.:eek:

I still had the occasional duffer which wasn't perfect, but it would be useable.

With digital, it's much easier, and cheaper. I would say at best, 10% of my images make me happy.

I'm doing school photographs on friday, so I'll bracket each shot, and get the lighting spot on in advance. They all have to be keepers.
 
Great thread! Keep talking as this is making me feel a lot better :D
I guess as has already been said with digital its easier ( read cheaper) to fire off a lot of shots and bin the majority BUT what would the puriest make of all this ?:thinking:
 
Somewhere someone once said to me that a "pro" looks to get a 10% hit rate and that at amateur level you can expect 5%.

So shoot more to improve the actual number of keepers :D
 
Thanks for all the replies. It's nice to see that I'm not on my own :) But I suppose the next question has to be - What defines a 'keeper'? Is it one you like for no particular reason other than it's 'pretty', the client (or relative/friend) likes it or you view it as being technically correct?
 
casp3r said:
Thanks for all the replies. It's nice to see that I'm not on my own :) But I suppose the next question has to be - What defines a 'keeper'? Is it one you like for no particular reason other than it's 'pretty', the client (or relative/friend) likes it or you view it as being technically correct?
Click to expand...

Other peoples critque if of coarse useful and can help to point you back on track if you sway off but you should define what you consider is a good or bad photo by your own artistic judgement. Most of the time a technically bad photograph is usually a bad photo but on occasion you will find you will still like it and that should also be defined as a keeper.

So simply put. Do you like it? Do you think it's good enough for your own standards?....if yes then it's a keeper regardless of what others may say. How else will you define your own stlye and uniqueness ;)
 
Since im doing Photography purely as a hobby at the moment, I have no client to consider. The way I get my 'keepers' is as follows;

1.I take loads of pictures.
2.I then upload them all to the computer via Lightroom
3.I then go trough them all very quickly and delete any that are technically wrong(Under or over exposed, blurred, the focus wrong etc)
4. The remaining ones are all given 1 star.
5. I go trough them all fairly quickly and give any good ones 2 stars.
6. I then go through all the ones given two star and give any that stand out of that lot 3 stars.
7. I then repeat that process, giving the really good ones 4 stars. These are the ones that are considered as 'keepers'. I will also try and only take one example from each shoot as well. So say in the day I shot 4 different types of bird, I will try and limit it to 4 4stars, unless there is a few that deffinately warrant making the grade.
8. Very occasionally I will give a 4 star one 5 stars(Has only happened 3 times so far) These are ones I would be proud to show in an exhibition.


My choices of which ones make the grade is entirely down to what I think is aesthetically pleasing. Technical aspects certainly come into it, but if a picture isn't technically good but I like it for some reason then it certainly can still make it into my keepers folder. I believe this should always be the case, otherwise photography would stop being an art, and would become pure science.
 
I always fire off loads of shots knowing there will be only a handful i'll consider good enough.
 
Nah, it just means they were poorer. Afterall, they had to pay for their sh*t shots ;)
 
Messiah Khan that looks a good idea, now I've got new kit I may start to rate my images.

Out of the 4500 I've take in the last 11 months I can say about a dozen or so are what I would say are very good photos.
 
My ambition is to achieve one good shot per year. One day it will happen!

Have to admit to being lazy and just firing shots off without properly thinking them through because I can too. I get very disappointed when I come home with too may shots as I know it means I was not selective with the ones I took.

Though I suppose that is the benefit of digital, that you can just shoot and worry about what works after rather than before.

Michael.
 
I took 4K of the DTMs this weekend (not including support races) I generally delate the ones i dont like from the camera between races.

I then sort them into folders of the same cars and delete the ones that look the same keeping the best versions. From that 4K i have 1,900 saved to my hard drive for keeps. however i have only uploaded around 50, otherwise you get lots of shots looking simular just a diferent car.

So depends on what you call decent? i have around 5K from from a total of 11K this weekend including the support races like this.


Hosted on Fotki
 
I've noticed lately that I have got a lot more selective with when I press the shutter release. If I'm out and about shooting landscapes rather than action I really stop to think when I compose and if it doesn't measure up now I'm more likely to walk away than I used to be. I still get the exposure etc wrong on numerous occasions, but I do come away with less pictures and still usually about the same hit rate of stuff to keep.

When I'm working at speedway it's a totally different scenario - the pressure is on from the start as I have to get one good shot of each rider plus a few multi-rider shots. Not knowing at the start of proceedings who is likely to have a good night and thus be featured in the programme the following week means I have to make sure I've got something to cover all bases!
 
I am gooing to sound like a typical eliteist. When I shot film, I only pressed the shutter button if knew the shot I was taking was going to be a keeper. Otherwise I would simply wait for another day.

On digital I try the same process. However slightly relaxed as scope for editing free of cost has lured me into the realm of image manipulation. But over the last couple of months I have adopted the film ways. Now I only really press the button if I know it is going to be a keeper. Otherwise its a waste of space and the time consumed in going through hundreds of photographs sifting the bad from good is rediculous.

Capture carefully, just becasue there is a delete doesnt always mean snap happy. One day your shutter will die.

King.
 
Before I started my college course which is film based, I would take as many photos as possible before finally achieving the right setting. After working in film for a year, I can now get the right setting before hand most of the time, so the number of shots I take is very little.

If you base your digital photography over film, then you will have a much higher keeper rate.

P.S I also delete all the nasties straight after taking the photo if I'm not happy with it and I have time to reshoot it.
 
whiteflyer said:
At that rate the shutter on your 30D is only going to last 10 days shooting :eek: :eek: :eek: :lol:
Click to expand...

need an escuse to upgrade to a 1d something lol

tbh, i normal only around 4K over a 3 day bsb event, and 2K over a 2day BTCC event, Nomal hit hit would be around 80% of what on the card are kept. I was just tring a few things this weekend, as it was the first time out with the primes wanted to really test them before next weekend BTCC, which is a field i want to take very seriuosly, ideally aiming to get media acredation for the BTCC, and/or BSB.

King_Buro not sure what you mean there?
 
When I worked with film I would dissapointed if I didn't get a marketable shot 1 out of 3 times.
It had to be that high because I couldn't afford the processing costs etc. on a higher ratio.
It took a year to attain this level of very intense effort and investment. Don't know how other ex-pros view this, but to me the hit rate varies hugely with your experience of the situation and how much control over it you have. It was far harder to maintain (hit rate) when shooting off the cuff at a function or show than in my portable studio for instance, so you learn damned quick what works.
Changing to digital was a positive thing for my business (costs) but I forced myself to try and maintain the hit rate simply as a way of keeping sharp and ahead of the up 'n' coming machine gunners. Somehow the customers seemed to equate many rapid shots as a negative and constantly were asking to see the screen on the camera (from observing others at work). Being still able to be confident in my own mind that I had 'the' shot meant that I could say so without 'chimping' which really helped keep my customers confidence in me high. Of course the occasional C U was enevetable but a smile and a quick re-do usually solved that.
Working for a magazine or on a commision things are differant and the final result is ALL. Damn the hit rate. Do enough and more to get the shot.
For myself now retired 1 in a 100 maybe is pretty good.
 
Just wondering if anyone, and in particular anyone who has never used film, has just taken a shot knowing that it mighten be perfect but 'hell, I can fix it up in Photoshop'. Has 'laziness' crept into digital photography? Ok it might not have for Pros but for the casual photographer, like myself, has even taking 'snapshots' resulted in a trigger finger?
 
casp3r said:
Just wondering if anyone, and in particular anyone who has never used film, has just taken a shot knowing that it mighten be perfect but 'hell, I can fix it up in Photoshop'. Has 'laziness' crept into digital photography?
Click to expand...

Depends if you call technology something that just makes us lazy.

Lifts, automatic doors, automatic cars and TV remotes are just that, but is it a bad thing?
 
If I can get at least one shot I'm happy with from every time I go out to take photos then I'm happy.
 
casp3r said:
Just wondering if anyone, and in particular anyone who has never used film, has just taken a shot knowing that it mighten be perfect but 'hell, I can fix it up in Photoshop'. Has 'laziness' crept into digital photography? Ok it might not have for Pros but for the casual photographer, like myself, has even taking 'snapshots' resulted in a trigger finger?
Click to expand...

I have never used film(Although its something id like to try eventually, especially medium format etc). I don't think im lazy as such with my shots, but I do often relax my perfection of certain elements in order to concentrate on other things because I know they can be fixed in Photoshop. For example i'll sometimes be a bit sloppy with my framing, knowing I can crop it, or straighten it later in order for me to completely concentrate on say the dof and focal point(This is especially true when doing macro stuff).
 
I find it varies a lot on my mood. At times I might go to a rally and come back with 40 shots with every single one being a keeper, other days were im not feeling as artistic and not as much in the mood to really try on the picture front (increasingly more often) then I might shoot 200-300 and get 50-100 keepers.
 
i find i am more controlled with the shutter than i was when i started a year ago meaning I probably shoot 300+ pics in a day out like Biggin Hill or A1 Grand Prix rather than the 900+ i took at Biggin Hill a year ago, I would say i still had the same amount of shots i would keep around 20ish and of those there are maybe 3 to 6 I am really pleased with.

However, with fast moving objects like planes and cars it is better sometimes just to keep snapping as they are harder to get a decent shot of anyway.
 
Ultimately if i walk away with one shot i am chuffed with that makes the day worth it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top