Percentage of quality shots
May 19, 2019 08:04:58 #
Over the last 20 years while I've been shooting digital, the keeper rate was actually something I could monitor. 20 years ago it was probably 1%. About 15 years ago it went to about 10% and has been pretty constant since then. Of course that's a long term average. Daily keeper rate has been 0 on occasion.
And there's a difference between the keeper rate and what I want to display on a wall. The wall rate is probably around 0.01%. The "display on computer screensaver" rate is probably around 0.1%. The "photos kept in my iPhone" rate is a bit larger than the wall rate, but probably only about 0.02%. All the above numbers are estimates and are not backed up by rigorous investigation.
And I should also note that the "percentage of quality shots" is not the same as the keeper rate. Depending on just how you define quality, my rate is extremely low.
And there's a difference between the keeper rate and what I want to display on a wall. The wall rate is probably around 0.01%. The "display on computer screensaver" rate is probably around 0.1%. The "photos kept in my iPhone" rate is a bit larger than the wall rate, but probably only about 0.02%. All the above numbers are estimates and are not backed up by rigorous investigation.
And I should also note that the "percentage of quality shots" is not the same as the keeper rate. Depending on just how you define quality, my rate is extremely low.
May 19, 2019 08:05:33 #
R.G. wrote:
What's the point in counting? One week it may be 30%, the next week it could be 3%. Find places or subjects that give you a higher success rate.
I "keep" 99% of my shots. If they are not worthy of printing, they simply become a record of the outing.
I never think about my "worthy of printing rate". I really don't care as it's NOT important to me, and I'm not in a contest.
May 19, 2019 08:18:15 #
[quote=tshift][quote=Tino]My question for everyone on here is this. Out of all the shots you take what is the percentage that you would consider displaying on a wall in your home for anyone to see? Not that I take a lot of pictures but out of what I have taken, I find very few that would be worthy of displaying. My girlfriend thinks a number of my shots are beautiful but I disagree. Then again, I am a very harsh critic of my photography and can always find something wrong.[/quot
Good question. Welcome to the HOG. This is the place to be. There is so much knowledge here and very friendly people that are more than willing to help out us that need it. I have been shooting probably 8 years now and I learn something new on here everyday. So Have fun on here and practice,practice,practice.
Tom[/quote]
Sad we have so many pathetic shooters here that can only get .005% good shots with their 10's of thousands of dollars worth of 100 score equipment.
I bet Ansel Adams and other truly good photographers got a much higher percentage of keepers. In fact they are such keepers that people still pay good money for them to this day and study them.
That reminds me of the spray and pray shooting where thousands of rounds are expended for one hit vs a skilled shooter scoring one shot one hit rule by using skill and real talent and thought.
Good question. Welcome to the HOG. This is the place to be. There is so much knowledge here and very friendly people that are more than willing to help out us that need it. I have been shooting probably 8 years now and I learn something new on here everyday. So Have fun on here and practice,practice,practice.
Tom[/quote]
Sad we have so many pathetic shooters here that can only get .005% good shots with their 10's of thousands of dollars worth of 100 score equipment.
I bet Ansel Adams and other truly good photographers got a much higher percentage of keepers. In fact they are such keepers that people still pay good money for them to this day and study them.
That reminds me of the spray and pray shooting where thousands of rounds are expended for one hit vs a skilled shooter scoring one shot one hit rule by using skill and real talent and thought.
May 19, 2019 08:20:38 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
My keeper rate is around 3% based on editing / culling this week from an original count of nearly 2500 images. Willing to actually print and frame any of these is probably half this amount. I only keep what is good and unique, so it takes some fortitude to delete otherwise good images that are too similar to other images taken of the same subject. Rather than printing, get a digital frame and just keep adding your good stuff onto the SD card and let it run 24x7.
Exactly!!!
I too have three 15" picture frames running, each having thousands of "keepers".
It is amazing how when you see a particular picture of a person or place how it can put a smile on your face.
Also, for the memories and feelings that come flooding back.
I gave up "framing and hanging" years ago, except when requested by or for others.
Get a digital picture frame and you will see what I mean.
https://smile.amazon.com/NIX-Advance-Digital-Motion-Sensor/dp/B00Z9ZYXF4/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3FMEKOTJOZBE2&keywords=15+digital+photo+frame&qid=1558268241&s=gateway&sprefix=15+digital+photo+frame%2Caps%2C126&sr=8-3
Smile,
JimmyT Sends
May 19, 2019 08:22:26 #
May 19, 2019 08:25:30 #
Tino wrote:
My question for everyone on here is this. Out of all the shots you take what is the percentage that you would consider displaying on a wall in your home for anyone to see? Not that I take a lot of pictures but out of what I have taken, I find very few that would be worthy of displaying. My girlfriend thinks a number of my shots are beautiful but I disagree. Then again, I am a very harsh critic of my photography and can always find something wrong.
May 19, 2019 08:32:22 #
The REAL question is not how many images you capture, but how many times you point your camera at a subject, consider what you’re looking at and then press the shutter. It you are a “spray and play” photographer, your keeper rate will be low. But if you are skilled image creator and only capture worthy images, your keeper rate will be higher. Other factors to consider are the subject matter: for instance action shots or birds in flight will be captured using burst mode and thus there will be very few that will be acceptable. Don’t fuss about the percentages. Just make every shot “count”.
May 19, 2019 08:39:43 #
Tino wrote:
My question for everyone on here is this. Out of all the shots you take what is the percentage that you would consider displaying on a wall in your home for anyone to see? Not that I take a lot of pictures but out of what I have taken, I find very few that would be worthy of displaying. My girlfriend thinks a number of my shots are beautiful but I disagree. Then again, I am a very harsh critic of my photography and can always find something wrong.
I never counted but thinking back for the last eight or ten years: I would have professionally printed four photos per year which I entered in a charity display (two each session) and wound up with about four or five sold over a five year period. When I had a display of twenty at the local library four sold as displayed and one was redone on canvas for another person. Counting those I have given as gifts and those hanging on my wall, all told maybe twenty or thirty out of 50,000+ over the past ten years. But, even though they are not wall hangers doesn’t mean the other shots weren’t important. When shooting a soccer game or a curling bonspiel it is the action that is of interest, not the artistry.
Bud
May 19, 2019 08:39:58 #
Tino wrote:
My question for everyone on here is this. Out of all the shots you take what is the percentage that you would consider displaying on a wall in your home for anyone to see? Not that I take a lot of pictures but out of what I have taken, I find very few that would be worthy of displaying. My girlfriend thinks a number of my shots are beautiful but I disagree. Then again, I am a very harsh critic of my photography and can always find something wrong.
In today's digital world, I would guess that 80% or more of my shots are "keepers" from a technical standpoint. I have a good cameras (DSLR's) that focuse accurately. My exposure is usually dead on unless I am shooting in difficult lighting (backlit, mostly white or mostly black subject, etc), but I do quickly review most of my shots in the little view that pops up after the shot and blinks over or under exposure. If there are no blinkers (or they occur in non-significant areas of the frame), I am confident that my exposure is acceptable, especially given that I can fine tune via post processing.
Now, of course, being technically correct does not a keeper or "wall hanger" make. These days I never print photos, but would guess that if I shoot 200 shots of my family or of landscapes taken during a bike ride, boating, etc., 10 or 20 I might post online to share with my family/friends. Most of the rest are lacking in some respect (composition, distracting elements that I missed when taking the shot, etc.).
Over the years when film was the only medium, I would concede that my real keeper rate was about the same. There were occasions when what would have been a keeper was spoiled due to poor exposure. I still shoot plenty of film, but my digital experience has taught me things that I never discovered when shooting film. My flash technique was horrible when shooting film (straight-on, harsh shadows, and the occasional flat-out miss because I incorrectly calculated distance and/or aperture). These days, from reading about using flash (so much information available on fora such as this one) and testing out the tips on my digital camera, I would almost never resort to straight-on flash, and I have found good success in using multiple flashes. I have applied all those tips/techniques on my film shots, and, lo and behold, they work, duh.
Often, some post processing can make a keeper for me of shots that I would normally reject, and this also holds true in many cases on my film shots (even those that I took 30 years ago). I often will go back and remove harsh shadows from those old shots (I kept all my negatives), or dust spots. I can lighten around eyes, etc. The digital age has breathed new life into my old film collection.
. . . and I do agree that photos improve with age, especially if the subject matter involves family/friends.
I apologize for the lengthy post, but enjoyed reading the other posts in this thread.
Caruso
May 19, 2019 08:41:29 #
May 19, 2019 08:46:21 #
Deanie1113 wrote:
Hi! I would LOVE to get a digital frame and just let it run ... that is a fantastic suggestion! Do you have any recommendations for me, like what brand and what size? Thanks so much!
Hey Deanie, I've had three frames now over the last 8ish years. If you spend some time reading the reviews, it will seem like this technology is not ready for primetime. Each time, the frame has just gone dead on me, but after years of running 24x7 without ever a slightest problem. The current model is a NIX Advance 15 Inch Digital Photo Frame X15D. Even if I like that model that died, each time I return to the digital frame market, all the vendors and models are completely different and I can't find what I had purchased before.
There's some 'tricks' to getting the best performance: 1) only select landscape oriented images so the frame doesn't resize to fit. 2) Only put on JPEGs, skip video or anything exciting the frame claims to support. 3) Resize your images to fit the resolution / long-side of the frame. I do this with an LR export. Other software can do the same in batch. 4) Let the frame run 24x7. In the comments of this NIX model I found a discussion of the lights-out feature that causes the frame to restart after the first 100ish images, over and over, even if you have 8000 image files on the SD card.
May 19, 2019 08:48:27 #
May 19, 2019 08:50:12 #
martinfisherphoto wrote:
Lets assume the longer you shot the better you get. That said the less keepers you acquire means less wall hangers. If I get a 10 or so Great shots a year I'd be happy. I keep maybe 10% of the shots I take. It has to be at least as good as my last shots or hopefully better for anyone specific subject. Then I always go back and delete as I add to my collection of photographs.
I totally agree with this. In the beginning I kept a few fuzzy shots if they were unique enough. As I’ve added to my keeps I’ve let almost all of the older stuff go. But as far as framing, very few make the cut. Maybe 1%.
May 19, 2019 08:56:07 #
LFingar wrote:
You think you may be too hard on yourself, but, it could be worse. There's a fellow named Joel Sartore who has been shooting for Nat Geo for over 20 yrs. In one of his videos he mentions that the magazine uses one shot out of about every thousand he takes!
May 19, 2019 08:59:30 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.