How many ?

[Matt24138]

On average when you go out how many bad or wasteful shots to you end up with to get a great shot. As of now I have am averaging a keeper per every 20 shots. I was curious if most go out and nail most of them or end up with some crap.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Haven't got a clue. Sometimes i'll shoot whole rolls and they're all bad. Sometimes i'll fill up cards with pictures that mean nothing.

 

[480sparky67 67]

Depends on how you count them. Does 7 shots for an HDR count as 7 or 1? Do bracketed shots just to CYA in hard-to-meter instances count as 1? What about a shot or two in order to check the histogram?

I spent 3 hours Saturday night, taking 407 shots and ended up with one pano. How do you count that?

FWIW, I really don't care how many shots I take in relationship to the number of keepers. What's important is you get enough keepers.

 

[KmH]

One photographers keeper, could be another photographers cull.

How long have you been doing photography? What you consider a keeper today, you may consider a cull a year from now.

 

[Matt24138]

This wasn't meant to be a very technical question as I go out and take photos of different things I adjust for every shot to where I think I need to be. About one out of 20 shots I am happy with the way the focus white balance and lighting turned out. I was just curious what others get successfully. Also if people are capable of hitting the nail on the head for the photo they intended.

 

[usayit]

Sssshhhhhooooot... Iama happy with just one out of an 8 gigger.

 

[v1c70r]

As many as it takes...

 

[Kerbouchard]

Like the other guys said, it depends on your standards and the type of shooting you are doing...For instance,

"This wasn't meant to be a very technical question as I go out and take photos of different things I adjust for every shot to where I think I need to be. About one out of 20 shots I am happy with the way the focus white balance and lighting turned out."

Since I shoot RAW, I can set white balance later so I will never have a throwaway because of white balance. For lighting, that's kind of a strange one, also, since I might take several test shots to set up my lighting. I will also probably take a shot of a calibration target to help me fine tune things in post processing, so none of those shots are 'keepers'. As far as actually taking shots, I would say 95% of my shots have adequate lighting and good focus(and out of those, it is usually because I didn't let my flash recycle long enough). So, if that is the criteria, my keeper ratio would be quite high.

Unfortunately, I have to count people blinking, being a second late to a 'moment' I wanted, a hand in front of a face, a hand or foot chopped off, etc. So, I probably delete 10-20% of my photos in camera, will probably have at least 4 to 5 of each shot that are similar enough where I will only process one of them, and out of the ones I process, I will post most of them, but may only print a couple...So, out of a 60 photos, I'll probably process 10 of them and maybe print one or two.

 

[Vtec44]

On average, I'd keep about 5-10% of my shots, and I don't do continuous bursts either. Either I'm really picky or I'm just a crappy photographer. lol

 

[Overread36]

Well the answer has really been given and I'm left with little to add save to support the above views.

In my view a Keeper Rate is something that is nice to know and always something want to work to improve; however it should also not be something that starts to dominate your thinking of photography to the point where you end up not shooting to avoid messing up your keeper rate (sometimes those impulsive shots in bad light with the wrong gear can give some very good results).

The key, in my view, is to understand roughly how much you shoot for a given event/scene/situation and to always have more film/memory card space than you need. That way you are free to shoot with your own style without the direct worry of having to miss shots later because you've run out of space. However one often used and very good training tool is to directly head out with very little space or enforce yourself to 10 shots (or any other number) only. A strict learning method that helps to teach both creativity, limitations and also leaning when best to raise the camera to take a shot.

 

[Matt24138]

I could care less if I take crap shots or fill a memory card with them. That's the beauty of digital you can delete and learn from mistakes that cost you nothing but time I spend doing something I enjoy anyway. I was curious how often the settings picked out worked as intended. I would like to think I will get to a point where I can look at a scene and pick the right settings without adjusting 20 times. I was curious if this was a realistic goal. As I said this was not meant to be some technical question. It was just a simple thing to get an idea of what I as a beginner should strive for. If you don't like the question or can't take an educated guess don't answer.

 

[Phranquey]

This wasn't meant to be a very technical question as I go out and take photos of different things I adjust for every shot to where I think I need to be. About one out of 20 shots I am happy with the way the focus white balance and lighting turned out. I was just curious what others get successfully. Also if people are capable of hitting the nail on the head for the photo they intended.

It all depends on the environment & subject matter. In the studio, I have (almost) complete control, so the keeper percentage is usually very high. But, on the other hand, I've been out storm chasing, taken 2000+ images, and tossed every single one. Same thing with birding... most of the time I use high speed burst, shoot many hundreds/thousands of shots, and you still can't get them little bastards. Other days, you'll have one actually sit and pose for you for a few minutes.

 

[Derrel]

Depends on the subject matter and the type of situation, as Phranquey mentioned above. Some situations are exceedingly difficult to capture precisely or artistically or in a pleasing manner, so there are LOADS of culls. Other scenarios are not as difficult, and or the criteria for what constitutes a "keeper" is pretty relaxed. For example, the birthday party of one of your children--you'd probably keep shots that might be little more than a snapshot, and that's okay. There's not "one" single answer.

 

[D-B-J]

I've gone out and spent two hours taking photo's, to throw them all away. A year ago they would have all been keepers. As you try to improve your "keeper-rate," you selectiveness increases. So I may have once kept 5/20, and now i keep 5/20. The difference may be that the second set is an example after a years practice, and over-all better, but the keepers are EVEN better. To me, a keeper-rate is just a fancy number that isn't worth worrying about. The other day i took 10 shots, kept one, and called it a day. A week later, i took 200 shots, kept one, called it a day.

Regards,
Jake

 

[Matt24138]

I am gettin my number from shots of landscape or flowers something that is still and adjusting my settings so that it is lit correctly and not blown out in focus and the colors are the way they should be. It takes me around 20 adjustments from when I look at the scene and think ok I need to use 100 iso aperture f11 and 1/250 shutter speed. Should it take me that long with a motionless object? Not even bringing composition or rule of thirds etc into the equation. I am just getting comfortable in manual moving from aperture and shutter priority mode. I know a photographer who is a good friend and worked for 15 years in a dark room. In the beggining I would call him with my distance and subject matter and describe the time of day and sky and he could tell me over the phone how to set everything to get the shot and woyld be right on the money. Is this an unrealistic expectation for the average photographer? Is ge like the Steven hawking of photos?