ecurb1105

When I shot professionally in the 1970s, large format 8x10 architecture, every shot had to be a keeper, so every one was a masterpiece. But we shot six to ten pictures a day at best.

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

I've been shooting for about 12 years now and I have around 5% keepers and only have 6 wall hangers in our house. As I move along shooting sports and landscapes, I find my older pictures fall from favor and are replaced by more resent shots (some of the pictures I look at and say "What was I thinking when I shot that"). Some because I am getting better, and others because they have special meaning. The library is constantly getting bigger and I am trying to keep the size manageable. Haven't had much luck at that. Good luck to you!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

About 80%, sometimes higher. Since I've started shooting medium format film three years ago, I've learned to pay more attention to detail before pressing the shutter button, regardless if I'm using a film or digital camera. I rarely ever shoot in burst mode.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I dunno, “all the shots you take” seems pretty straightforward. If you think 100% are keepers then your definition may be kinda warped.

Bill_de Loc: US

Not all subjects sit still.

---

User ID

.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

100% keepers is not really that far-fetched. It's just a matter of analyzing and learning from your mistakes and taking steps to not repeat them. Of course capturing fast-paced action it isn't always possible to nail every shot, but if all you do is photographing landscapes, still life, etc., then getting it right 100% of the time is obtainable.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

As I got thinking about the question, I confused my self. I expect 90+% is good, but, Keepers and/or "For Sale" as CHD CANON said I may end up with 1%. This just scared me.

User ID

I agree with what you say, yet I do
maintain a 100% success rate. You
stated:
" ..... there is no such thing as
photograhic perfection ..... "

.... and I do agree ! But in any field
of endeavor perfection can never be
the standard for success, unless we
choose to believe that there is just
simply no such thing as success at
all ! So I claim a 100% success rate
but never meant to claim perfection.

.

philo Loc: philo, ca

One of the beauty of digital is that you can keep as many or as few as you wants. Heck it doesn't cost you anything and you can just let them stay in your external hard drive. Who know you may want to go back to that one moment it time and reremember it all over again or send it to a friend as a reminder of your time together. I don't know how many of us do what we do to make a living at this craft; we do it because we can. Heck I can't paint or dance.

Bill_de Loc: US

Based on the original question, "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?", would you claim 100 percent success?

--

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Let's just leave the math to the professors ...

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I would suggest that photography is about much, much more than "getting it right." There is no such thing as one and only one "right" to "get."

The assumption you make here that people who toss a lot of images are making mistakes is false, I think. Those who keep everything often have much lower standards. Most of what I toss are not what could be called "mistakes."

Mike

aellman Loc: Boston MA

"...kinda warped and huuuugely impractical." Give me a break. Difficult to fathom how a simple question or opinion from the OP can turn into this kind of argument. Pointless and a waste of our time. If anyone wants to compute such a ratio, why not? And if some people think it makes no sense, no one is forcing them to do it. Unfortunately this foolish debate is an example of the way it goes here too often. Everyone's an expert.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

In my observation, many point and shoot hobbyists keep everything while the most talented photographers do not.

Many people photograph moving subjects - wild life photographers, sports photographer, etc. Even wedding and event photographers and concert photographers have limited options for composing an image, as do photojournalists.

Working the scene, planning the shot does not mean that there is one and only one approach to any scene and that one would therefore be taking only one shot if they only knew what they were doing, as you suggest. Even in the studio, where one can control all of the variables, one still might have several ideas for how to light the subject and frame the scene. Again, there is no such thing as one and only one way to "get it right."

Then we have people doing focus bracketing. That requires a lot of working the scene, planning and composing, and a lot of skill. Yet many images will be discarded once they are incorporated into the final image. Focus bracketing in the field could mean movement of the subject in just one of 30-50 frames. That means 30-50 images will be discarded and no "keepers."

I think this debate divides people into two camps, as is the case with so many debates about photography - those who see photography as a mechanistic exercise of technical skill and proper equipment, and those who see photography as an art form.

I think that your generalization - that if people's keeper rates are low then they are not spending enough time with composition - applies to very, very few people.

Mike