E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

BE NICE WITH YOUR ADVICE!

I never heard the "monkey" remark as being an OLD adage? It's just NASTY!

I feel it is unkind to imply or infer that anyone is lacking in knowledge of their camera operation, lighting or composition if there SHOOTING RATIO is high.

The term "shooting ratio" stems for the cinematography word and it is a comparison of the footage actually shot as compared to what ends up in the final product. Many directors, directors of photography, and cinematographers vary greatly in this area but of course, the final result is what counts. iT TAKES AS MAN TAKES AS IT TAKES! IF the work is excellent at the end of the production the produces don't care-perhaps the accountants do.

I apply this to still photography as well and again each photographer has their own ratios and common sense dictates that different specialties will intrinsically require higher ratios. Even in studio work under calm and controlled conditions, a portrait of an active child, a baby or a pet may require far more shooting that a session of an adult. Even so, one adult may be more posed in front of the camera than another- some folks are ill at ease, fidgety or overly self-conscious and may require more shots. Obviously, sports, wildlife, certain kids of photojournalism may require an enormous ratio even with an experienced shooter at the camera.

Anyway, who's keeping score! Besides, in digital photography, the costs are significantly less. I am certainly not advocating sloppy shooting or "machine gunning" away with no regard for technique. If, however, someone is complaining about disappointing results, I prefer to diagnose the fault and help the photographer overcome the difficulty as opposed as assuming their incompetence and making a blanket derogatory statement.

I prefer to advise folks to shoot more than less, especially if they are on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation or trip or shooting something or someplace that they are not likely to revisit or find again. It's better to have the memorable images they were trying to capture then to depend on shooting perfectly the first time. The can always scrutinize the shots they do not like and use them as a learning experience and seek advice, after the face, but at least, they have some "keepers" under their belt!

I am not a big fan of comparing photography to firearms usage or marksmanship although I do use the photo-slang like "shoot" when I should say "photograph". Like I "photograph" kids" I don't "shoot" them. Regrettably, (for me) I am a combat veteran and in certain unfortunate circumstances we did "spray and pray" and precise marksmanship has nothing to do with it. We shot thigs (folks) up, blew things up, burned things down with very little precision. It was not target practice or an Olympic sport. Automatic weapons and shotguns have their place, but not in my life anymore.

Analogies aside, there is a time and a place in photography where rapid-sequences shooting is certainly appropriate. I am old enough to remember shooting spots, mostly boxing, with a 4x5 press camera and anticipating the action and shooting with precise timing was essential. Nowadays, however, the editors and clients do not care about "discipline" he or she just wants the knockout shot so if you gotta "spray" go right ahead. Believe me, you can shoot at many frames per second and still miss the best shot- it happens!

Speaking of age- I am 75 years old and still working in photography full-time! I am thankful that I can still hack it and although I can not do all the all-nighters anymore or move with the same agility as back in the day, I don't have any health issues that can impair my work. I have many veteran friends who are not quite as fortunate. I lived with my grandmother and aunt as a teenager, who both suffered for Parkinson's disease so I can certainly understand all about neuromuscular disorders and sympathize with anyone who suffers from these horrible issues. If there is anything I can do or suggest to help folks with these or any other impairment to continue on with their photography, I am up for it. Every day, when I get up in the morning and the old bones are still movin' around and the ticker is still ticking, I consider it a gift and a blessing. Be nice to each other- it's good for your health too!

Abo

I had a look at your "Easter morning moon - Still Blue Moon?" I know I would have binned it... I sure
as heck would not post it on a photography website... unless I needed to show a good example of
a poor photo.

The moral of this is; if your standards are low enough your keeper rate will be higher.
you could say, "your keeper rate is inversely proportional to your standards."

Anyway here's a photo that was rejected (amongst thousands) by Eddie Steichen/Conde Nast:

hj Loc: Florida

Sorry I did not represent my "Easter Morning Moon-Still Blue Moon" as a good photo. I was simply asking if it would still be considered the blue moon for that date. I agree it was not a good pic and I had ditched it also. I have taken better of the moon but don't profess to have "great" photos. I am an amateur but enjoy shooting and had only suggested that one in ten seemed to be a low keeper rate. Of course the keeper rate is directly related to one's standards. I am attaching a moon photo I did keep but still might not be acceptable to others, especially you with your impeccable standard.

(Download)

Abo

I like this one... my standards aren't that impeccable it seems. ROFL

Having said that, saying that 1/10 is not a good keeper rate is totally out of order HJ.
For example, millions of dollars have been spent making a set of photos just to keep
a dozen or so images (for advertising).

That photo of Winston Churchill was never published and found with about 2000 other images
by Edward Steichen. Edward Steichen was amongst the first men and a founding member
of a movement that transformed photography from a form of documentry to Art.

He's also one of the greatest fashion photographers of all time imho.
Some of his landscapes are emotive, haunting, and unforgettable.

His work is well worth studying.

(Download)


(Download)

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

Amen, Brother.

hj Loc: Florida

ABO, I think we are talking about two different things. You are referencing professionals for advertising, publication etc and I agree that hundreds of shots might be taken to get the money shot. When I said one in ten is not a very good keeper rate I'm referring to the average family-man photographer for casual use. That was my response to the OP who was lamenting on his 95% blurry photos.

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

What did Ansel Adams say about photography? "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop." Sounds like sage advice from one of the best known photographers.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

I would love to have a defective camera just to take apart and see the inter workings. And maybe put back together. Lol

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

The way I do things, I'd have at least two or six pieces left when i had it together.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

But the real question is did it work. Lol

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

Probably no! I love taking things apart to see their inner workings but very frequently they do not function properly when I get them re-assembled. Good reason why I never became a surgeon.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I'm sure that the OP's question has been answered and he is on his way to better enjoyment of his photography. The question, however, has to lead to a number of good conversation with certain aspects of successful and satisfying photography to explore.

When someone, who is sincerely interested in improving their photography is dissatisfied with a high percentage of their results, in attempting to help them it is important to first categorize the causes of their issues. I usually start off with two basic categories, basic technique, and finer points.

Basic techniques have to do with the essentials of camera operation; Exposure, settings, programs, modes, focus and essential camera handling methodologies such as steadying the camera and selecting t that basic parameters of each manual or automated mode. Obviously, it is of the utmost importance for the photographer to understand all the basic functions and controls of his or her equipment before concerning themselves with art, philosophy, and aesthetics.

The finer points are those of the artistic aspects of the craft such as composition, dimension, rendition of textures, tonality, expression. mood, key and much more. Much of this entail the principles of light and lighting.

The mastery happens when the two essential skill sets merge and become interrelated in the photographer's mind that is deciding on the aesthetics of the final image and being able to apply the techniques to achieve them.

The first category requires the application or RULES which can be problematic in many cases in that many folks insist that there are no "rules' in art. This is a serious misconception especially when this art is closely intertwined with digital technology, basic optics, and computer savviness and a good number of mechanical inclinations. One needn't be a scientist, engineer or a master technologist, but a good grounding in the practical applications is necessary. Basically, LEARN YOU TOOLS!

The artistic and aesthetics fascists are perhaps somewhat more complex. Some folks have a natural propensity and talent for many of the principles. Others may not realize they MAY have these talents and others may find that there are certain dynamics and fundamentals that can be learned, emulated and developed.

As for the "RULES", it is best to learn the time-honored methodologies and once these are mastered, individuality, creativity, uniqueness, breaking of the rules, radical changes and revision will set in naturally if the talent is there.

With problems, questions, complaints of dissatisfaction are posted in posts, most logical folks need definitive answers. Many explain their issues, however, accompanying images work TYhe the problems need to be categorized and addressed. be helpful- I would like to say "mandatory", for obvious reasons.

Personally, speaking, what I find extremely frustrating is when folks say things like "practice, practice, and more practice". My response is "practice what? Probably, the questioner will continue to practice thigs the wrong way and just keep floundering around the issue with no positive results. This just reinforces "bad habits" where new "good habits" should begin to be formed. "If at first, you don't succeed, try try again" ...try what? That's where the definitive answers should kick in. Don't be afraid to propose some "rules". If the rule works, the questioner will be encouraged. Rules won't stymie creativity in naturally creative folks. This applies to technical and aesthetic issues. Give folks a good head- start and let them take it from there.

Philosophy: I am old enough to remember when many of the iconic and famous photographers were still alive and practicing. Steichen as the curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, my old home town. Is famous collaborator Stieglitz was still around. At photography school, we studied both of there works as well as many of their contemporaries. I was fortunate enough to take in a workshop with Adams. I took in lectures by Yousef KarshPeter Gowland, Phillippe Hallman, Richard Avedon and a raft of other prominent working commercial and portrait photographers. All of this was inspiring and instructive and there was much to learn that a young photography student could apply to his or her own work. There is still much to learn and research. Most of these icons, however, were working in another era. In many cases, God only knows what their shooting-ratios were like. One can only guess. After all, many were work with large format equipment which was an intrinsically slower working, required more discipline and more precise methods.

Many folks on this site assume that professional and commercial photographers, especially in the advertising industry make unlimited exposure and variation at every assignment. That is not necessarily the cases. I know- I do that for a living. There are some shots that take all day to set up and only a relatively few exposures are made at the end of the day. Sometimes we do overkill a bit on redundancy, bracketing, variations and so forth as a matter of economy. You don't want a re-shoot on an all-day project that involves assistant's model's, stylists and other overhead fees, so you make an abundance of backup shots.

Of course, there is lots of folklore and myth out there. Seem that when Heffner was at the helm of Playboy Magazine, he insisted that the centerfold was tantamount to major movie production. There were elaborate sets, a large crew, unlimited lighting gear and upwards of 1,000 8x10(chromes) transparencies were scrutinized by the boss to arrive at the monthly selection. Years ago, at a shoujo in Montreal, I met a photographer name Chan who worked there he, more or less verified that legend. we did, however, agree, that this was more of a "fetish" that a necessary working method.

All I can tell you about all the iconic folks I have encountered or studied and all of the successful working pros I currently know, they all "know their onions". They have all mastered their technical prowess and their styles and output is a matter of choice, taste, and specialization. I don't know any of them who worry about "keepers' and rejects" tye do what they need to do they get what the need and that' all that is the concern at the end of the process.

There was once a photograph of Jay Maisel, an extremely prominent New York photographer for may decades, published on the cover of one of the now-defunct photography magazines. The shot was taken in his famous New York studio of him, posed behind several barrels, garbage cans, filled to the brim with Kodachrome slides. Theoe were is outtakes and he was no slouch photographer- Google him!

Abo

You make far too much sense for an internet forum. ;-D

Abo

So there can be no confusion over what we are discussing, it's this post you made:

"Sorry to say, if you are only getting 10% keeper rate with your D850 you are doing something wrong. One out of 10 is not good."

And that is the most stupid comment I've read for some time... whether you are referring to the "average family-man" or Anne Geddes.

Furthermore, the "average family man" to which you say you are referring to, takes photos with a cell phone, not a D850... and post on an internet forum dedicated to photography you bloody drop kick.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

I was under the impression that the low “keeper rate” was due to focusing issues, I personally might print 5-10% of the photos I take. For me there is no keeper rate, there are photographs worth printing or there are none