Success rate for images, what do you think is good?

G

Gsrai

Suspended / Banned
Messages
664
Name
Gobind
Edit My Images
Yes
i have a Fuji XE2 with various lenses and I'm quite disappointed with my success rate for images.

As an example I took c.300 pictures at a bike show at the weekend all indoors and I got about 6 pictures I actually like. Admittedly I don't have the best technique and am quite new to moving picture photography,

What I'd like to understand so I can improve my technique is what do you deem to be a good success rate I.e. In focus, complete subject etc. and what factors come into play for you :)
 
When I got back into photography a few years ago my x100 was all the camera I ever needed but now I'm trying to take pics of more moving stuff I kinda want to stick with Fuji and improve my technique and I don't want swap brands if my expectations are too high, hope that makes sense.
 
Bit of a bug bear for me this one.. I always advise people to forget all about the ones you bin.. its the ones you keep that count.. its seriously of little use to you to know what a good keeper rate is as it varies for each person... I can end up binning lots of absoloutly perfect shots... because either they are part of a burst and I picked the best one.. or they may be of a player and i already ahve a simmilar shot of him.. thus some pin sharp perfect photos get binned..

seriosuly.. dont worry about the shots in the bin.... it doesnt matter if your getting 1 in ten or 9 out of ten.... the only person in the world fixating on the ones in the bin is you :)
 
Gsrai said:
i have a Fuji XE2 with various lenses and I'm quite disappointed with my success rate for images.

As an example I took c.300 pictures at a bike show at the weekend all indoors and I got about 6 pictures I actually like. Admittedly I don't have the best technique and am quite new to moving picture photography,

What I'd like to understand so I can improve my technique is what do you deem to be a good success rate I.e. In focus, complete subject etc. and what factors come into play for you :)
Click to expand...

So many factors involved it's impossible to make any sensible comparatives.
 
KIPAX said:
Bit of a bug bear for me this one.. I always advise people to forget all about the ones you bin.. its the ones you keep that count.. its seriously of little use to you to know what a good keeper rate is as it varies for each person... I can end up binning lots of absoloutly perfect shots... because either they are part of a burst and I picked the best one.. or they may be of a player and i already ahve a simmilar shot of him.. thus some pin sharp perfect photos get binned..

seriosuly.. dont worry about the shots in the bin.... it doesnt matter if your getting 1 in ten or 9 out of ten.... the only person in the world fixating on the ones in the bin is you :)
Click to expand...
That's a great way to look at it :)

Tbh I guess I look at the number of images I take now and think back to film cameras my father had, I would have bankrupted him with my error rate if I had used his camera LOL

Also I don't believe I get many perfect shots, it would be nice to be able to choose from a sequence of perfect shots.
 
1 in 100 used to be my aim for photos I liked (far from perfect).

I think more now before I take a shot and do more filtering before pressing the shutter, so I'm probably at around 1 in 30 maybe a bit better. If it's action shots though that number drops again.

I have some shots I'm planning to take, I hope of the 5 or so I have in my head 2 will make nice photos. But each will probably be several photos to get the best timings.
 
Steve Smith said:
If I use a roll of 120 film with 12 exposures, probably about four.

If I use a roll of 35mm film with 36 exposures, probably about four.

If I use digital with around 2,000 exposures, probably about four.


Steve.
Click to expand...
I'm being thick but don't understand that - are you saying that you're more considered with film than digital or have I completely missed the joke???
 
EdinDevon said:
1 in 100 used to be my aim for photos I liked (far from perfect).

I think more now before I take a shot and do more filtering before pressing the shutter, so I'm probably at around 1 in 30 maybe a bit better. If it's action shots though that number drops again.

I have some shots I'm planning to take, I hope of the 5 or so I have in my head 2 will make nice photos. But each will probably be several photos to get the best timings.
Click to expand...
I can relate to this post and from this I'm taking away that I need to think more about what I want and then figure out how to do it.

Now I reflect on the bike show I recall dithering a lot about the type of pics I wanted and I got my favourite pic only when I moved location.

Thank you for the input folks it's helping me work out what I'm doing wrong :)
 
Steve Smith said:
If I use a roll of 120 film with 12 exposures, probably about four.

If I use a roll of 35mm film with 36 exposures, probably about four.

If I use digital with around 2,000 exposures, probably about four.


Steve.
Click to expand...

there's a cure for that - shoot 5x4 but only take 2 double darkslides out with you.. 100% success rate :):thumbs:
 
For me, basically my "keeper rate" completely depends on what I'm shooting.

For my still life stuff, I'd say I get probably 1:3 keepers... though that's after spending anything up to a week or more building the set, selecting the props, faffing about and tweaking the lighting, and painstakingly arranging the composition using "liveview" in the camera, shooting tethered and a computer monitor echoing the liveview while I move around the props or lights to get exactly the right composition before I even THINK of pressing the button on the camera to release the shutter. Even then, I don't get it perfect every time, because I'm a bit of a beginner with studio flash and despite getting what I think is the right settings using my flashmeter, I sometimes mess up, and need to go up or down half a stop here or there.

For Landscapes, either on film or digital, i'm probably at the same level as @Steve Smith - i.e. four shots from a session - be it on 6x12, 6x6x, 6x4.5, 35mm or digital and a 32gb card... For me it's not particularly that I am more considered shooting digital than film - I think it's just that I'm SO considered that I either lose the light, or I "burn out my attention span" after getting a few frames I'm happy with - OR, in some cases, I just see a few shots that I am happy with, and think "that's fine - I'm happy now, if I carry on and try and get anything else, I'll only get frustrated and irritated with myself."

For People Shooting - well - last couple of times I've been forced into shooting people, it's been weddings, and, on digital, I probably took around 1500 frames, culled down to 300, delivered 200-ish, and was truly happy with 1 or 2.

And for sports - well - Last couple of sporting events I've shot have been cycle races - I think I shot around 140 frames with 11 keepers on one race, and 400 frames with 25 keepers on the second...

But, ultimately, as @KIPAX says - what goes in the bin doesn't really matter to anyone but you - its just a little more wear and tear on the shutter these days, and a little time wasted in culling the shots - its not as if you're shooting on film where every frame had a very definite cost.
 
When shooting professional football I'm after about 20 pics from a match minimum (that's about the amount I'm going to send to the paper) - I'll usually get about 40-60 I'm happy with and occasionally I get a pic I love. Percentage wise - not got a clue

For pics that matter (action shots of goals being scored at my end) I get about a 70%-80% success rate

Like Kippax said the shots that you don't keep don't matter
 
•
I don't know what is good but, for me, 90% if out of the studio.
 
I feel a lot better about the world now as I was genuinely of the belief that you guys had virtually every shot as a keeper - when I look at some of the threads here the pics are stunning!

So I've gained a new way at looking at the numbers, if I get a decent number of shots I like from a shoot (this is the operative thing) then I should stop worrying so much.

I also need to think more about what I want from a pic (I'm not very good at this which is why I was thinking about getting more megapixels to compensate for my cockups).

Genuinely, thanks very much everyone - now all I've got to figure out is will the XT1 allow me to make better compositions than the XE2 or should I just wait for the new firmware.
 
TheBigYin said:
there's a cure for that - shoot 5x4 but only take 2 double darkslides out with you.. 100% success rate :)(y)
Click to expand...

I did that with the first 5x4 camera I made. I only owned two film hlders at the time.

Gsrai said:
I'm being thick but don't understand that - are you saying that you're more considered with film than digital or have I completely missed the joke???
Click to expand...

With digital, you can continuously shoot and hope you get something. With 35mm, you still have 36 shots to play with. With 120, you have 16, 12, 8 or 4 depending on format.

The fewer frames you have available, the less likely you are to shoot something. Therefore, you will tend to think more before pressing the shutter.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I was recently in Paris and shot around 150 frames on the Leica i just got, was still learning the camera, so wasn't expecting much to come of it, but managed to get around 10 shots that i was pretty happy with.

Having said that, i was out with my friends in London a few weeks ago with a 6D and 17-40, took probably 800 shots and only used around 5 of them, i was shooting burst though.
 
Steve Smith said:
The fewer frames you have available, the less likely you are to shoot something. Therefore, you will tend to think more before pressing the shutter....
Click to expand...

(this being the Sports Forum)... and therefore far more likely to miss the absolute key points of the action. You might get close to it, but in perfect timing terms, that would come down to luck.
 
Steve Smith said:
Therefore, you will tend to think more before pressing the shutter.


Steve.
Click to expand...
This comment Steve is probably the pertinent one for me - I need to think more before I hit the button.

As a confession I've started blaming the tool, my XE2, for not getting the shot I want but thinking more will help a lot more.
 
if im using the digital camera for work (weddings) about 30-40%, with film at least 60% for the simple reason with film I take my time and tend to wait on the right moment etc etc when you look through the view finder before you press the shutter ask yourself if what you see would you hang on your wall or would it be a keeper if the answer is no then dont press the button.
 
stumac said:
if im using the digital camera for work (weddings) about 30-40%, with film at least 60% for the simple reason with film I take my time and tend to wait on the right moment etc etc when you look through the view finder before you press the shutter ask yourself if what you see would you hang on your wall or would it be a keeper if the answer is no then dont press the button.
Click to expand...
I think that's the connection I haven't made, cheers :)

I'll try that next time and try not to rely on the tech.
 
I think you'll enjoy more when you get more involved, I know I do
 
That's the thing, when I'd just bought the X100 I was in awe at the simplicity and quality I suppose I've just got more demanding of the XE2 and am now trying to photograph tricker stuff.

Thanks for all the comments everyone :)
 
KIPAX said:
Bit of a bug bear for me this one.. I always advise people to forget all about the ones you bin.. its the ones you keep that count.. its seriously of little use to you to know what a good keeper rate is as it varies for each person... I can end up binning lots of absoloutly perfect shots... because either they are part of a burst and I picked the best one.. or they may be of a player and i already ahve a simmilar shot of him.. thus some pin sharp perfect photos get binned..

seriosuly.. dont worry about the shots in the bin.... it doesnt matter if your getting 1 in ten or 9 out of ten.... the only person in the world fixating on the ones in the bin is you :)
Click to expand...
Do you not think though if your keeper rate increases over time that that is a sign of improvement? I know that the reasons you gave or in your line of photography that may not apply but generally speaking, I for one strive to increase my keeper rate along with decrease the number of images shot and that is how I judge myself.
 
About a couple of years ago i would have expected just about every shot to be usable. Now even with anti shake and a daily pill some will be spoilt by my essential tremor.
I now take just about every shot as a burst of three. So my hit rate has reduced to one in three.
. On a recent day shooting my actual keeper rate was nearer 40%. So I must have shot a lot of singles or doubles.
I would expect nearly every shot to be infocus and well exposed.

What I have noticed recently is that when you shoot in threes, that there is always an obvious choice between
them. Even if it is only a slight alignment of something in the background, and ony a third of a second or less apart.
 
Gsrai said:
This comment Steve is probably the pertinent one for me - I need to think more before I hit the button.

As a confession I've started blaming the tool, my XE2, for not getting the shot I want but thinking more will help a lot more.
Click to expand...

But as Demilion has pointed out, this is the sports forum. You don't always have that moment or two to think about it. Otherwise you have missed that jump or a goal or a celebration from the right angle.

You don't need to take a spray and pray approach and be machine gunning all the time but a keeper rate isn't a must do thing. Maybe think more about positioning and angles and finding the right spot but thinking more before you hit that button is the difference between the guy next to you getting published and you walking away with nothing
 
Spray and pray.. machine gunning... people use these terms in a derogatory way .... Why has my top end pro camera got such a good burst mode on it.. is it really for an amatuer that doesnt know what he is doing? or it it an important tool?

How about a simple shot.. a player running towards you.. one of the easiest shots to get.. but you need it as its a player making his debut... Your using a 400 lens because he is a defender so hes the other side of the pitch...... I would use burst mode.. because if you have all the knowledge, experience and know how in the world.. how are you going to feel when you get home after taking one easy shot and his eyes are closed mid blink.. and the guy next to you got the same shot with eyes open and both feet off the ground..... .. Such a simple easy shot player running towards you.. yet burst mode is best..

thats before we get onto headers.. goals celebrations.. sliding tackles....

cricket... when do you take one shot? as the player hits the ball with his bat? what if a nano second later the ball is wrecking the stumps.. fantastic shot but missed because you only took one..

burst mode is an important tool for sports photographers..its not cheating.. its not spray and pray.. its on your camera as a tool not a crutch..
 
KIPAX said:
Spray and pray.. machine gunning... people use these terms in a derogatory way .... Why has my top end pro camera got such a good burst mode on it.. is it really for an amatuer that doesnt know what he is doing? or it it an important tool?

How about a simple shot.. a player running towards you.. one of the easiest shots to get.. but you need it as its a player making his debut... Your using a 400 lens because he is a defender so hes the other side of the pitch...... I would use burst mode.. because if you have all the knowledge, experience and know how in the world.. how are you going to feel when you get home after taking one easy shot and his eyes are closed mid blink.. and the guy next to you got the same shot with eyes open and both feet off the ground..... .. Such a simple easy shot player running towards you.. yet burst mode is best..

thats before we get onto headers.. goals celebrations.. sliding tackles....

cricket... when do you take one shot? as the player hits the ball with his bat? what if a nano second later the ball is wrecking the stumps.. fantastic shot but missed because you only took one..

burst mode is an important tool for sports photographers..its not cheating.. its not spray and pray.. its on your camera as a tool not a crutch..
Click to expand...

100% with Kippax on this sports photography has very little in common with landscapes/portraits/still life in my opinion and keeper rate matters not a jot
 
What no one has mentioned so far, apart from obliquely, is the kit.

The AF on most Fuji systems simply isn't up to 85% of sports action coverage at the moment.
 
I had a thought, when should I worry about PDAF sensors helping the AF.

As an example, a football pitch is green so if the kit is white or red is my camera going to focus better if I use the Central PDAF focus points or can I use high burst mode as PDAF doesn't help???

I'm turning toward the argument that error rate doesn't matter with sports so I can chill out :)
 
When I say spray and pray, and machine gunning, I mean through the entire match. If I'd have been referring to burst for an action, I would have said that
 
DemiLion said:
What no one has mentioned so far, apart from obliquely, is the kit.

The AF on most Fuji systems simply isn't up to 85% of sports action coverage at the moment.
Click to expand...
I keep reading this in a lot of places but can you explain specifically what it is the fujis don't do as well as say an equivalent mirror less or say a Nikon d5500 please.
 
The fact that it took 36 posts to hit the gear subject was interesting.

I think we will all end up basing our keeper rate on equipment capabilities, skill level, what we are shooting and our own expectations of what is a keeper.

There are some people who have exceptional skill and top end gear who will still have low keeper rates. This might be down to still wanting the best shots. They could be throwing away shots most of us could only dream of. Also sports has no plan you cannot control the action just try to get in the best position for the best shot.

My keeper rate can vary a great deal. I did team shots the other evening with a 3 flash set up. It took about 10 shots to set up the right angles and power levels with a helper then just 2-3 shots per player say 10secs each and 95% keepers with all players done and dusted in less than 10 minutes.
Then stick them on a pitch in poor light and 1 in 10 it good The next week with better light 20% but my expectation was much higher.
 
PINNACLE said:
The fact that it took 36 posts to hit the gear subject was interesting.

I think we will all end up basing our keeper rate on equipment capabilities, skill level, what we are shooting and our own expectations of what is a keeper.
Click to expand...

People forget that the most imnportant thing about getting an interesting image is pointing the camera at something interesting.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
People forget that the most imnportant thing about getting an interesting image is pointing the camera at something interesting.


Steve.
Click to expand...

That is not altogether true.

What is interesting???

Two people could be given a dull unpainted pencil. One person puts it on a table and takes one picture of the dull pencil with a 100% keeper rate. The other turns the light down, gets out a Speedlight, a macro lens they then take 10 shots to get the shadow and depth of field they want. Then in post imagine them converting it to a mono masterpiece of five pencils standing on their tips. Same pencil but no longer a dull photo (but only a 10% keeper rate). I bet that person will also think they could do better next time.

Also what might be interesting for one person could be dull as dishwater for the other. I know my wife would hate to go to a football match even if our son is playing yet when they are going to a horse event she is up at the crack of dawn polishing bits and ironing cloths whilst begging me to come and take pictures and miss F1 on telly. Watching horses trot round a ring is like watching paint dry to me, but trying to get a good photo of one in a big dark shed is a challenge and interesting.

Put it another way if you go out and take 100 pictures of the most interesting thing in the world you will still have a proportion of photos better or worse than the others if they are all the same then that is dull. Better or worse depends on how critical you are on each photo and that will depend on your skill level and what you expect from yourself. To some extent this also depends on what equipment is used and how you use it. Out of the your 100 photos there will be one or more, more interesting than the others they are your keepers. There will also be at least one or more which are not so interesting yet it is still a photo of the most interesting thing in the world.

Getting back to the OP question.
In sports photography there are extra dimensions like not knowing what will happen next, or too some extent where, changing conditions, where you can shoot from to name a few. So you might end up taking a lot more shots before you guess or learn to know to predict better and set up your gear correctly for the conditions or sport. I have stood next to people who rattle off 20 shots on a passing race car at Brands and I might take 2 or 3, the difference is they will go home with 10x as many shots and possibly more keepers but you really only need so many. If I come home with 1500 photos after a days racing I know I will only be looking for 10 -15 real stand out shots, if I took 3000 I would still be looking for 10-15. To be honest if I get three that make we go wow I am happy. For my under 11's football I need to get 50 worth showing to the club so it is very hard. The difference is they were used to point and shoot photos so there expectations are lower but are going up even after only 5 games.

The good thing about digital is it does not cost to delete a photo
 
PINNACLE said:
That is not altogether true.

Getting back to the OP question.
In sports photography there are extra dimensions like not knowing what will happen next, or too some extent where, changing conditions, where you can shoot from to name a few. So you might end up taking a lot more shots before you guess or learn to know to predict better and set up your gear correctly for the conditions or sport. I have stood next to people who rattle off 20 shots on a passing race car at Brands and I might take 2 or 3, the difference is they will go home with 10x as many shots and possibly more keepers but you really only need so many. If I come home with 1500 photos after a days racing I know I will only be looking for 10 -15 real stand out shots, if I took 3000 I would still be looking for 10-15. To be honest if I get three that make we go wow I am happy. For my under 11's football I need to get 50 worth showing to the club so it is very hard. The difference is they were used to point and shoot photos so there expectations are lower but are going up even after only 5 games.

The good thing about digital is it does not cost to delete a photo
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info, this helps me set a benchmark in my mind and it's good to know that I'm being unreasonable with my demands and it's not the kit, saves me a fortune in the long run :)

I spent too long in hifi trying to get the perfect sound and not enjoying the music so I've no wish to do that again, I'd rather persevere with the kit and learn to get the best out of it.
 
Last edited:
I have another question - when people refer to low light performance I think they refer to autofocus hunting but let's say at iso3200 how would an image on a Nikon d5500/7200 compare to a Fuji xe2/xt1?

im tempted to try the Nikon solution but the lens isn't as fast as the Fuji 55-200 so I'm already a stop down before I start (almost sound like I know what I'm talking about LOL).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top