How many photos do you take before you get a keeper?

Raymond Lin said:
The number of photos that see the light of day / number of clicks.
Click to expand...

As I said, not so simple. I take many photos for the sole purpose of checking the histogram and doing ETTR (and I should really get off my arse and do proper UniWB tricks). These shutter releases are never intended to be photos but are simply a tool to measure exposure properly).

Actual failure rate of straight delete due to technical errors of photos that aren't used to check histograms are about 0-10%, whether anyone other than me or my family sees them is different to the numbers seen by clients or sold commercially.


So I guess technically my keeper rate is 90%, photos I actually am extremely proud of are about 1 in 4,000, but in taking those 4000 photos i will have generate hundred that are perfectly respectable and are making me money.
 
Ksanti said:
Nope for the most part. If you're consciously slowing yourself down, you're much more likely to think about what you're doing and get it right. For example if you've set the ISO at 6400 with no need to, you can shoot all you like but until you slow down and think about it, none of the shots will be as usable as had you just slowed down and thought everything through. Machine gunning the shutter doesn't really work, even in action where you might think it would. If you become a lot more deliberate in your shooting, your shots will get better, trust me :)
Click to expand...

I agree, and this is why shutter speed is not as important as AF accuracy and reliability. I would rather have 4FPS and extremely dependable AF and use care and attention to predict when the shutter button should be depressed, than 12FPS and hope to be lucky.

If you rely luck you will get very few keepers ever, you need to maximize your chances of getting a keeper, and that tends to means thinking, planning, adjusting settings, changing lenses, changing positions, waiting to the next morning's sunrise,waiting to spring/summer/Winter/autumn time.....
 
D.P. said:
As I said, not so simple. I take many photos for the sole purpose of checking the histogram and doing ETTR (and I should really get off my arse and do proper UniWB tricks). These shutter releases are never intended to be photos but are simply a tool to measure exposure properly).

Actual failure rate of straight delete due to technical errors of photos that aren't used to check histograms are about 0-10%, whether anyone other than me or my family sees them is different to the numbers seen by clients or sold commercially.


So I guess technically my keeper rate is 90%, photos I actually am extremely proud of are about 1 in 4,000, but in taking those 4000 photos i will have generate hundred that are perfectly respectable and are making me money.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this, take all your reasons out the window, using my equation, what number do you get?

I am trying to make it simple. If I use your reasoning, I can argue my keep rate is like 99%! As one could argue that you get to a point with experience when you look at a scene with your naked eye you can tell what shutter speed/aperture and ISO to get it right with 1 shot...or use a light meter.

I can't do that for what I shoot, what I can do, that I have learn from experience is when I look at a subject, depending where I am, in relation to where he is, where the main light source is, I can on the fly know how much roughly I need to over expose/ under expose to get that shot. All in the space of a split second using my thumb on the wheel at the back of the camera. This skill is invaluable as get it wrong you get a silhouette, take too long (checking histogram!) you will miss the moment.

Photos that see the light of day / number of clicks
 
Last edited:
Gaffer said:
I notice a recurring pattern:

The FIRST one is a keeper. I then continue clicking in a vain hope for a better one...

BIF is particularly bad in this respect. One frame of the bird coming towards you. Three of it passing. Then a few more in the bizare belief that if you take enough shots, then somehow a sharp picture of the bird's tail will make up for the fact that you wish you had reacted and found focus faster...

Andrew
Click to expand...

I have a recent photo of an osprey chasing an bald eagle mid flight, but I had been shooting in bad light and the lens was wide open. So when I heard the squeaking and looked up to see this magnificent pair I just managed to click away, helping the AF with some MF. For some reason the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 with a 1.4TC is sometimes slow to change focus form near to far but is very fast when focus is approximate.

Ever since then I have been praying for the same opportunity , I have a few reasonable photos of the osprey (it lives 0.25 miles form my house...) and i see the bald eagle every few weeks but not together.


It looks like I am catching the BiF bug and will have to rethink my camera setup.I've not needed lightning AF before, doing mostly landscape, architecture and large wildlife. BiF is really challenging on equipment.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Let me ask you this, take all your reasons out the window, using my equation, what number do you get?

I am trying to make it simple. If I use your reasoning, I can argue my keep rate is like 99%!

Photos that see the light of day / number of clicks
Click to expand...

As I said, it still depends on a definition if keeper. If I say a keeper is every photo I don't delete then is will be 75-90%, might be a bit lower as I sometimes delete in camera without keeping track. HD space is cheap so I don't delete anything that is not a technical failure, even if I never see the photo ever again. My line of photos means I do a lot of thinking and planning before even picking up a camera, for weddings (2 assists and 3 primary but not for the 40 minute service just everything else) I am at about 20-30% of photos given to the client, bearing in mind one was of my sister's wedding and she wanted pretty much every photo and was happy to process her myself- her memories and she didn't mind some slight composition or marginal focus failures.
 
D.P. said:
As I said, it still depends on a definition if keeper. If I say a keeper is every photo I don't delete then is will be 75-90%, might be a bit lower as I sometimes delete in camera without keeping track. HD space is cheap so I don't delete anything that is not a technical failure, even if I never see the photo ever again. My line of photos means I do a lot of thinking and planning before even picking up a camera, for weddings (2 assists and 3 primary but not for the 40 minute service just everything else) I am at about 20-30% of photos given to the client, bearing in mind one was of my sister's wedding and she wanted pretty much every photo and was happy to process her myself- her memories and she didn't mind some slight composition or marginal focus failures.
Click to expand...

Lol. You are complicating things, just very simple.

Number of photos that see the light of day / number of clicks.

I am not asking how many you delete...the formula doesn't say that. I haven't said the word delete once until now.

When you come home from a shoot, there is x number of shots on the memory card, how many of that generally get seen by people other than yourself. Don't qualify it with "my sister wants to see more photos" lol

I am trying to remove the variable, this is just a fun exercise, why are you making it so complicated? Lol
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Lol. You are complicating things, just very simple.

Number of photos that see the light of day / number of clicks.

I am not asking how many you delete...the formula doesn't say that. I haven't said the word delete once until now.

When you come home from a shoot, there is x number of shots on the memory card, how many of that generally get seen by people other than yourself. Don't qualify it with "my sister wants to see more photos" lol

I am trying to remove the variable, this is just a fun exercise, why are you making it so complicated? Lol
Click to expand...

I think the distinction he's trying to make is that, despite the fact that you shared a blurry underexposed shot of you and your girlfriend in a bar in Mexico on FB, doesn't mean it's a "keeper" in the sense that it's being discussed here.

I get what you're saying, but "sees light of day" is a bit vague unless you mean it's printed and literally sees light of day. I'd consider that a keeper alright :p I also understand your definition being "I'm using it, therefore it must be fit for purpose", which is fair enough. Unless I've misread?
 
See the light of day = good enough to let people see

The photo is either make it, or don't. Whether it makes it into your best of your life shot or just make it as one of the 100's your sister's wedding it make no difference.

Adding all kinds of qualifying criteria is just unnecessary for the purpose of this exercise.

p.s. I don't delete any photos, I merely press reject. Actually, I don't press reject anymore, takes too long, I pick instead.

There, I have 100% keep rate. Do I win? :D

Hence, any photos that "see the light of day"
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
See the light of day = good enough to let people see

The photo is either make it, or don't. Whether it makes it into your best of your life shot or just make it as one of the 100's your sister's wedding it make no difference.

Adding all kinds of qualifying criteria is just unnecessary for the purpose of this exercise.

p.s. I don't delete any photos, I merely press reject. Actually, I don't press reject anymore, takes too long, I pick instead.

There, I have 100% keep rate. Do I win? :D

Hence, any photos that "see the light of day"
Click to expand...

Which people though? You might put up an awful shot of you and the missus on facebook just because it was the only one you took at a certain event for instance, but you wouldn't put it on your website. For it to be a real "keeper" to me it has to be good enough for anybody to see and judge my ability from. I share lots of photos that don't meet that criteria, but mainly just to share holiday moments, not as artistic work. Perhaps that's the distinction I'm trying to make.
 
Devrij said:
Which people though? You might put up an awful shot of you and the missus on facebook just because it was the only one you took at a certain event for instance, but you wouldn't put it on your website. For it to be a real "keeper" to me it has to be good enough for anybody to see and judge my ability from. I share lots of photos that don't meet that criteria, but mainly just to share holiday moments, not as artistic work. Perhaps that's the distinction I'm trying to make.
Click to expand...

ANY PEOPLE. Anyone at all.

I don't even let anyone see my Lightroom library when they come over. I shot the wedding for one of my sister's colleague, she didn't attend the wedding as she had a prior engagement. She wanted to see what her friend look like in her wedding dress. I told her (sister) she can't see it until I am done with it.

It's not about online, its anyone, anywhere.
 
So if I don't share any of my photos with anyone then I some how have 0% keeper rate? E.g., I have hundreds of photos of all my belongings for insurance purposes, no one will ever see these unless my house burns down..., let alone the shutter releases that were not intended for viewing but for a more accurate exposure evaluation across 3 different colour channels.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, it is just stupid to talk about a keeper rate and over simplifying something which for most people is not a binary process. Yes, it is very easy if you go out and shoot a wedding, come back with 1200 photos, select and process 400 to give to the clients. For most people photography is not like that at all.


FUrthermore, it is just an irrelevant number which means nothing. BIF and you are lucky to get 10%, photo journalist paparazzi might get 0.1%, large format landscape photographers will get 50-60%, Ken Rockwell 110%. Actually, I've create multiple images from a single exposure before and have profited from the sale of both, so getting over 100% keeper rate is possible....
 
Last edited:
If i'm shooting film probably 90%+.

Using a medium format camera with a waist level finder makes everything so much easier to compose and get right.

I use the same sort of ethos when shooting in digital now albeit being a little harder with such a puny viewfinder.
 
Ksanti said:
Nope for the most part. If you're consciously slowing yourself down, you're much more likely to think about what you're doing and get it right. For example if you've set the ISO at 6400 with no need to, you can shoot all you like but until you slow down and think about it, none of the shots will be as usable as had you just slowed down and thought everything through. Machine gunning the shutter doesn't really work, even in action where you might think it would. If you become a lot more deliberate in your shooting, your shots will get better, trust me :)
Click to expand...


This would completely depend on the type of photographer you are, trust me :p
 
D.P.

You are making this pointlessy complicated, I'm out.

Sorry I didn't read that because I know i am not going to get a straight answer out of you.
 
It depends what I'm doing. If I'm out and about (which is very rare recently, annoyingly) I'll try to have a type of shot in mind and set up prior to that. Then hope nothing that's out of my control changes at the last second. In doing that, I normally take 3 photos of something, then get all anal over which shot I prefer.

If I'm just messing around trying for an odd look for a photo, I can take loads and some times decide it was a rubbish idea, and delete the lot!
 
D.P. said:
So if I don't share any of my photos with anyone then I some how have 0% keeper rate? E.g., I have hundreds of photos of all my belongings for insurance purposes, no one will ever see these unless my house burns down..., let alone the shutter releases that were not intended for viewing but for a more accurate exposure evaluation across 3 different colour channels.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, it is just stupid to talk about a keeper rate and over simplifying something which for most people is not a binary process. Yes, it is very easy if you go out and shoot a wedding, come back with 1200 photos, select and process 400 to give to the clients. For most people photography is not like that at all.


FUrthermore, it is just an irrelevant number which means nothing. BIF and you are lucky to get 10%, photo journalist paparazzi might get 0.1%, large format landscape photographers will get 50-60%, Ken Rockwell 110%. Actually, I've create multiple images from a single exposure before and have profited from the sale of both, so getting over 100% keeper rate is possible....
Click to expand...

Any image that you keep that if someone was looking over your shoulder while you were flicking through your lightroom, that you'd be comfortable with them seeing. Happy? Don't be so difficult, it's just a friendly question and it's a perfectly valid question as most of us don't specialise quite so much in what we shoot, so an increasing keeper rate usually means we're thinking more about what we're shooting and usually getting better as a result.
 
I'm glad I take a more relaxed approach to photography, if I'm taking family related shots then it's probably a keeper rate of 75% or more for personal\family use. Of these I may post 5% up to Flickr.

When I was shooting Rugby it was probably around 25%.

The motorsports I've been shooting recently is around 35% (panning is a killer to keeper rates!).

Weddings I've only shot a couple as a second shooter, I have no idea how many he keeps (although he has said he is happy with the work), so probably not a high keeper rate as I mainly shoot the candid stuff and alternate angles of the more important stuff. I'd be surprised if the keeper rate there is greater than 10%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom