via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

In another post on online portfolios someone indicated that if you have 100 photos to put online that you think are really good then you are not critical enough of your work. I'm pretty sure I could get to 50 and maybe up to 100 as I have processed over 10,000 photos in LR. I could easily find photos that exhibit good craftsmanship and sound photographic practices, but most likely not Nat-Geo quality. Yes, I like my work and I am most likely not critical enough, but I think most of it is visually sound work although certainly not always in the great category and I keep working to improve. I have to believe that most photographers who take thousands of photos over time could find the same thing in their work.

Could you find 50 or 100 photos in your body of work to post in an online portfolio that you believe viewers would find to be attractive and enjoyable for viewing?

Bill_de Loc: US

I would guess that I averaged 1 a years for the past 50 years. Would I take the time to go back through everything ... Nah.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Only 1 a year? You don't think you have more than that, really?

Bill_de Loc: US

An average of 1 a year takes into account that 50 years ago I might have had none that would meet my criteria today. I think I do OK today, but many of my photos that I print and are hanging in homes of friends and relatives would not make it into that portfolio you are speaking of. In reality I consider myself an advanced snap shooter.

--

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Which would be a better presentation of your work? The 20 truly best or a 100-image presentation that includes those 20 images randomly intermingled with 80 more that aren't? If you're in competition for a role where someone else presented only their 20 best, do you think you'd win with your 80 also rans? You're only as good as your weakest image ...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I manage to get about 3-5 outstanding (IMNSHO) images a year. Sometimes the year is lost and I get zero. But at the same time I continue to raise the bar on my own work. It is not unsual that something that I was amazed by in 2000 fails all tests for portfolio inclusion in 2017.

So yes, I totally agree - 20 amazing shots on their own will have considerably more WOW factor than 100 images with the same 20 interspersed in the mix.

“Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” - Ansel Adams. Words to live by.

As a teacher I often had the task of reading term papers - the students thought (incorrectly) that volume was important to show how hard they worked. Trust me, the 30 pagers were never as clear and crisp as the 8 pagers. And they received corresponding grades.

Designdweeb Loc: Metro NYC & East Stroudsburg, PA

Portfolios larger than 20 or so images are liable to create viewer fatigue, I've been taught.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I have seven prints on my wall right now, taken in 2017, that I'm very pleased with. I had about 10 in 2016. But how do you translate self-satisfaction to "viewers would find to be attractive and enjoyable for viewing?"

When I look at landscapes on 500px.com or fredmiranda.com, I see super-high quality technical work (gear + pp) but very few compositions or subjects that cause an emotional response. Most seem very generic: long exposure ocean scenes at sunset? Just how many of those do we need?

Sorry, probably not exactly on-topic, but how does one decide what would be enjoyable for others? "Others" surely don't all have the same opinions.

btw, Connie, I found a bunch on your flickr site that are super-attractive and enjoyable to me

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Linda, thank you so much for saying that. I keep on trying to get good shots and sometimes I seem to but not always sure about it.

JPL

If at least 10% of your work is not good enough to use in online portfolio then you should not have a online portfolio or try to work as a pro. Because when working as a pro you will not keep your customers happy if less than 50 out of 500 photos are portfolio worth.
If you are only in photography for your self the ratio of good photos does not matter.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Once again you hit the bullseye,
The object of a portfolio is to show to a wide audience your standard of work - which is likely to be geared to particular target groups not necessarily to your own satisfaction. A hobbyist panders to their own satisfaction and that can be as diverse but not to everyone's taste.
A great image is a somewhat vague subjective notion.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thank you for expanding on my thoughts And JPL mentions keeping customers happy. I might have mis-understood the OP's intent; if to become a pro or expand business further, then seems you will display what is currently popular (proven to sell), and also will depend on if you're wanting to break into a specific market such as commercial product photography.

But if this topic is more about personal satisfaction and growth, then yeah I can find twenty, but maybe not 50 and most definitely not 100

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

My intent was not to see if someone is a "pro" but instead to find out if people are taking photographs that they think meet the mark of a quality photograph. What is "quality" might be subjective, but my intent in using quality is a photograph that is compositionally correct, technically correct, and solicits some kind of emotional reaction, even if marginal so as to say "that is really nice," but something when the viewer sees it; it stops the viewer for a moment and they might linger there to really look at the image. Remember that when we post photos online or print them in a portfolio binder then we are saying "look at my photos" so we then must think that viewers will find them of benefit in some way. People who don't care about viewers would, of course, not post or print photos (maybe they print to keep them on their shelf) at all and the discussion would not be relevant to them. I think, even if not a pro, the "ratio of good photographs" should matter if our intent is to be a competent photographer. I find it hard to believe that some photographers believe they only take 1 to 10 good shots in a year?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Good photography exhibits a few common traits, such as a compelling subject, killer light or high impact!
Most of my Best of Show shots are pretty good but to find 25 I thought were REALLY good might be hard but I've only been shooting for 50 years.
Most could post 100 of the same old tired snapshots, but would anybody look at them regardless of how good the photographer thinks they are.
I think the average amateurs all think the same, that their work is better than it is, that's why you see Page after page after page on Flickr of bald eagles, Yosemite and sunsets!!
SS

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I personally enjoy many of my photos---but a portfolio? No.
I am still striving to make that one great image.