Percentage of keepers/surprise good shots

[Vaughn]

The percentage of 'keepers' can vary by how much I edit before the camera gets set up, how much I wish to experiment and risk some film and time. The experiments by their nature tend to have a lower success rate.

Almost 30 years ago I spent 6 months photographing by bicycle in New Zealand, and a little time in Australia. I took a 4x5. I exposed 75 sheets of film. I had some damaged negatives due to high humidity static discharges, but I ended up with a 20-print portfolio. If I were to reprint images from that trip I think I would end up with a very strong 12 print NZ portfolio...I am more picky now. But this is a high number of 'keepers' -- probably helped by the fact that I was traveling solo with the intent primarily to photograph -- might be due to it being an intense photographic period.

[David_Senesac]

The term isn't appropriate for my narrow purposes.

The keeper term has been used for decades and for many of us meant slides or negatives that were not even worth storing so tossed. A fair percentage of 35mm film people shot much like with digital cameras today, was not always for aesthetic purpose but rather informational. Like taking token shots at some social event or a along the route of a Sunday drive down a highway. So keeper is a non issue for such subjects as long as technical issues were reasonable. Initially with large format view cameras one has to overcome technical and skill issues so many tossers early in the game are about technical flaws as exposure so one tosses for those reasons. Eventually that should become a non-issue or one goes back to simpler systems. Thus the term keeper is more about creative and aesthetic imagery. With cheap small format film one could waste lots of film without any cost to time or money. And with digital cameras machine gunning subjects bears little pain beyond boring oneself cull on a computer. But with larger formats we increasingly neither want to waste time or cost.

As a hobby landscape and nature photographer, did massive shutter clicking a bit on road trips as a twenty-something and was disgusted. So long ago as a 35mm SLR photographer, keep or toss was not enough for my own evaluative purposes so created a 30 point system between 7.0 and 10.0. Anything less than a 7.0 was likely to be tossed as without aesthetic or informational value. So 7.0 to 7.9 were good images, 8.0 to 8.4 fairly strong images but not enough so to make public, 8.5 to 8.9 strong images but maybe less then perfect, and 9.0 and above the kind some seem to be discussing as keepers herein. However as noted I don't toss 7s. And as some have mentioned, it sometimes takes time to better appreciate some images that are initially dismissed.

Over a period of years my skill at both evaluating subjects and resulting camera captured images has considerably evolved and like to think has always gotten better. Thus my rate of success has been generally high for years. I'm so picky that many days have just carried the heavy daypack over miles without taking the Wisner out. And other days am so busy I find its late morning with light getting harsh and I never bothered to eat or even drink any water since waking. With landscapes much depends on subjects.

For example in 2005 I visited Death Valley NP twice in March and April after an exceptionally wet period that produced the wildflower bloom of the century, which made capturing strong images far more likely than usual. Thus at least for L&N once one has acquired the photography and equipment skills, much about success depends on where, when, and conditions. A lot of people on this site have technical skills equal to mine so could come back with strong images IF they were at the same places. Tuesday I returned from a long road trip down to Antelope Valley where wildflowers are peaking, probably with best blooms in at least 8 years. A region I've much experience over many years occasionally visiting and photographing. I spent two days in the best area midweek without hardly seeing any other people much less photographers about and yeah a lot of keepers.

[appletree]

I often wish I was a better photographer. But, alas, that is in my hands, and with hard work and learning, I should only "improve" as time goes on. Although, I would lose a bit of the joy, or perhaps all of it, if I never am happy with the photographer I am right now. Yet, a caveat to this conversation is, everyone's keeper is different. Different views/opinions/preferences/etc. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, sort of thing. Not a single photo I have taken may be a "keeper" to many of you.


I have been shooting for 5ish years since I graduated college, just about. I have 3500 scans in lightroom. For the first two years I scanned every single negative and editted everyone (albeit minor, but still). I now weed things out drastically because I am soooo far behind. Still editing photos from 2012-2014. Probably 20 rolls still left to develop from the past 6 months. If I can tell from the rough preview scan that it "won't make it"...not even online it does not even get scanned. But the negative strips are always kept...even on ruined rolls. I just mark the page ruined in my binder. Then if it is scanned I give it 3, 4, or 5 stars. 3 meaning online (facebook...so far behind, flickr, etc), 4 meaning my website, 5 meaning I want to print it or I am really happy with it. I would say (guesstimate, since I am at work) that I have 30 5-stars...max.

Now this was all 35mm or 6x6 work, but about 1% of that scanned is good to me. And even of those, many are sentimental and not for a portfolio. Only a handful are actually good, in my eyes. That said...I am all self taught. Had a huge learning curve...and still learning. I often bracket shots, use to not even have a light meter until a year ago. So my process was very mysterious. I never knew until I held the neg up to the window or lightbox if I even got an image! This has definitely changed and my quality of images has gone way up. Metering and taking my time/taking notes, etc.


I still don't have a great vision. Often things I think will work, don't look like I thought through the viewfinder or the neg itself. And randomly shots I never expected are gems out of a group of rolls. Since taking notes a year ago, I now take shots on various f-stops and shutter speeds and just trying to learn.


I hope with LF perhaps I will know in a scene what is optimal. What the output will/could be depending on where I position myself, the subject/landscape/person, and camera settings. Add rise/tilt/shift/swings and I feel like I won't get any "keepers" for another many decades. I do wish I was technically more sound and aesthetically understood photography better. I need to implement what I have learned from Bruce Barnbaum's book.

[jp]

I still don't have a great vision. Often things I think will work, don't look like I thought through the viewfinder or the neg itself. And randomly shots I never expected are gems out of a group of rolls. Since taking notes a year ago, I now take shots on various f-stops and shutter speeds and just trying to learn.


I hope with LF perhaps I will know in a scene what is optimal.

To get intuitive about how f stops will affect the photos, shoot ALL your MF (or LF) on one camera & one lens & one film. Sounds crazy, but you get a real feel for how certain scenes will render as time goes on. For me, I come close to obeying that with MF with my old 1950-ish Rolleiflex. It pays off.

For LF, it's good advice I don't follow as I use about 4-5 lenses and three cameras as it's more experimental for me. Photo history is good for learning how other people saw with LF. books covering early modern and pictorialist photographers, etc.. No one author can cover the good vision of photographers past.

[Vaughn]

To get intuitive about how f stops will affect the photos, shoot ALL your MF (or LF) on one camera & one lens & one film. Sounds crazy, but you get a real feel for how certain scenes will render as time goes on. For me, I come close to obeying that with MF with my old 1950-ish Rolleiflex. It pays off....

It worked well for me, and also starting with a 50-ish Rolleiflex 3.5...and for 4x5, 5x7 and the first dozen years with the 8x10. And keeping with an approx normal length lens for each format. But that was me. Any approach will work if enough intensity is applied towards it.

Over the years I have had a few keep'ers that with age and experience have turned into What-was-I-thinking'ers. And some hidden gems, too, found in the piles of negatives. Hidden keepers. Thankfully I am not a high-volume image maker, and that I have only tossed obviously damaged negatives or that are hopelessly focused/exposed.

[Kirk Gittings]

Over the years I have had a few keep'ers that with age and experience have turned into What-was-I-thinking'ers. And some hidden gems, too, found in the piles of negatives. Hidden keepers. Thankfully I am not a high-volume image maker, and that I have only tossed obviously damaged negatives or that are hopelessly focused/exposed.

yep

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't shoot a ton and print even less-only printing for specific projects or shows. So sometimes even really good images get left behind in the files if they don't "fit" into whatever I am working on at a given time. Sometimes I dig through them and find some really good images that are languishing away in the depths of the archives.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't follow baseball. We all know that Babe Ruth cumulatively hit a lot of home runs. But does anyone know how many times he struck out?

[appletree]

Thank you all for the advice. Hopefully I keep practicing for many years, a never ending process/goal.

[Vaughn]

I don't follow baseball. We all know that Babe Ruth cumulatively hit a lot of home runs. But does anyone know how many times he struck out?

Funny...I thought I would look that up and found something called the SLG (Slugging percentage -- guess I do not follow baseball enough, either.) It does not just takes hits into consideration but how many bases per times at bat. A single is 1, double 2, etc. So for a single game, if one is up four times...one single, one double, one homer and a strike out, then that is 7 bases/4 times up = a SLG of 1.750. Babe's highest was .0847, a record finally broken in 2001 by Bonds.

But you can't hit the ones you don't swing at! Go photograph!