From start to finish

[Richard Littlewood]

I'd like to know I'm not on my own here. I've just processed and contact printed possibly the last 6 weeks ( or so ) of my photographic output that is my own - ( not for money!). In this batch I had 66 5x4 sheets - there are some 120 and 35mm, but I'm not including them. All in all quite a lot of work, or at least it felt like it - nearly 8 locations, long hikes, lots of snow, etc etc. Looking at the contacts I start to edit out the shots in favour of what seem like the best, and out of the 66 the final count is 10. 10!. I don't want to enter into my own probably over picky selection methods, but does any one out there have such equally low 'pass' rates over what actually makes it to the enlarger? I dont mind this selection process, in fact I think it has to happen, but tell that to someone with a digital camera and they would think you were mad!

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

That sounds about right to me, except the part where you do it all in 6 weeks. That sounds like two years of output for me. I average about 1 in 10 keepers. Sometimes a little better. Sometimes a little worse.

[Gem Singer]

Richard,

You're not on your own, so don't feel like the "Lone Ranger". I'm happy to get one 4X5 negative that will make a good "wall hanger" from an outdoor photo shoot.

[Steve J Murray]

Richard, my experience is that some days I get lucky and produce 2 or 3 "wall hangers" in one outing. Other times I take as many shots and they all look like crap after I get them processed, even though I thought they looked pretty good in the ground glass, and I have had over 30 years of practice. In other words, some days you're "hot" and some days you're not!

[Dan Jolicoeur]

Ditto the Above; One "wall Hanger" per outing would be nice. That is Good composition, exposure, and no DUST spots. I usually get 2 out of 6 that make it to the enlarger. I think you get better as time goes on. Doing 66 in that short of time and then not seeing the end result 6 weeks later is hard to compensate and learn from mistakes. No matter how good of notes you take.

Regards,
Dan

[Joseph Dickerson]

Richard,

Are the "out takes" being trashed for aesthetic or technical reasons? If they are artistic failures I would think that you're doing fine. Part of the process is exploration and we can hardly be expected to know what works without also finding out what doesn't work. If, on the otherhand, they are largely technical failures you need to work on your technique.

Classes, workshops, or reading good technical books/articles can up the success rate considerably. I find that if I toss the disapointing images on my first edit I will frequently overlook something of merit. I file all but the most obvious blunders and after a while I'll come back and do a second, more in depth edit.

You may simply be too critical on your first edit. Not an uncommon problem with creative people.

Joe D.

[paul owen]

Yes but look at the enjoyment you had in taking them! I appreciate this is bordering on herecy but sometimes the actual photograph is simply a by-product of an enjoyable trip and an enjoyable experience?

[Bill_1856]

St. Ansel is quoted as saying that 12 good images in a year is a very good year for him! Sometimes I go a whole year without a single keeper. Other times I may get a dozen good (and occasionally a great) images on one single day (twice, since 1992). I'd say that your success rate is far above average.

[Ellis Vener]

Depends on what your standards for a 'good' image are.

I know a widely acclaimed portrait photographer who uses 4"x5' color negative (Kodak 160VC Readyloads .. though occassionaly he uses 8"x10' or even 4x5 T-max 100 glass plates). He shoots portraits for magazines -- lots of celebrities. He estimates that in a 2 hour portrait session he'll shoot about 60-100 sheets, though he can sometimes get exactly what he wants in as little as 6 sheets in five mnutes. Out of that 60 to 100 or even out of the 6 sheets one or two will be chosen after the editing process. Most of us would probably be satisified with any of the other 98 that don't make the cut.

My point is that once you start editing a few will always be better than most and a very few will really stand out. This is a good thing: it means you are developing or have developed an "eye" for what makes a photograph work. And yes it is frustrating sometimes.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

10 out of 66 sounds like a pretty high success rate to me. I'm lucky if I get one truly decent shot out of 100. I'm not talking merely about "keepers" here- around half of my exposures are well exposed, nicely compsed, etc. But as far as truly decent shots, that I want to go out and have printed immediately, I'd say I get around a half dozen per year.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

but does any one out there have such equally low 'pass' rates over what actually makes it to the enlarger?



Yes.......... As a matter of fact, I feel all my keepers are good, but I have yet to make that one exceptional image......

[Brett Deacon]

Richard, your success rate actually sounds quite good to me. Although my success rate is much better with 4x5 than 35mm, it is still not as good as I thought it would be when I took up LF. I think that my eagerness to use the 4x5 has caused me to take more pictures at times than my surroundings warranted. But as Paul said, sometimes the experience of just being in a beautiful place and working with the 4x5 is rewarding enough. For me, by far the best thing about 4x5 (as opposed to 35mm) is that when I do get a "keeper," the resulting print is absolutely stunning.

[Steve Clark]

Richard, editing needs to be done in a "heartless" moment, so as to avoid a lot of mediocre images. The things that I do that I still enjoy, but aren`t quite what I`d like to hang, go into a book labeled "Work Prints" , that hopefully I will learn from. As others have said, some days are better than others.

[MacGregor Anderson]

I only have a year of experience with 4x5, but it's been a busy year. I just ordered my second set of 100 film sleeves, four sheets to a sleeve. Not all were filled, but I figure it's somewhere around 320 shots or so. Early on I was taking three or four shots of a scene (I shoot landscapes and nature stuff mostly) but as my processing and metering has improved I've got that down to two sheets per image. Not sure if your sheets include dupes of the same scene or not.

Anyhow, I've got maybe 20 images that I really like. I've managed to print most of those by now. Another ten or fifteen that I really like but can't seem to print correctly. Just yesterday I "salvaged" one of these negatives with my first try at flashing paper. Brought out a sky that couldn't be burned in smoothly no matter how hard I tried. A few weeks back I started using split grade printing. Helped me print a couple shots that were never quite right before...no doubt due to poor darkroom technique. Now that I'm burning and dodging with different contrast grades, I'll be able to go back and reprint some shots that were pretty good and get them much closer to what I wanted.

What's my ratio? 20 out of 320? 20 out of 125 or so (if you count scenes rather than negs)? And as I go back through my old negs with my improved printing skills maybe that 20 is now more like 30. In a year maybe another five will become keepers.

I should add that my standards for a shot being a "keeper" are probably not all that strict. Most folks here would probably junk all or nearly all of them. So maybe I'm batting zero for 320.

I went out and shot eight sheets the other day after scrambling over boulders the size of houses, balancing on slick rocks with a freezing cold rushing river below. The light changed on me but I kept shooting. I knew deep down the shots were never going to amount to much. And you know what? They stank. Terrible. Embarassing to look at in private. Tempted to burn the negs. But that happens a little less often now than it did a year ago. And it was fun getting out and practicing.

Mac

[eric mac]

Last year I tried to compile a small book of my favorite photos to give as a gift last year. I shot mostly 35mm and medium format at a rate of about a roll a week . I barely found a dozen photos that I would deem above a snapshot and it was stretch at that. So don't despair at your success rate, it seems to be better than you think.

[John W. Randall]

What Paul Owen said. In very large type.

Best regards,

[Robert Skeoch]

I'd say 10 was pretty good. I'm sure photographers like Avedon and Adams felt they only had a couple keepers in any given year.
Budd Watson mentioned once at a seminar that if he could get one good shot a year... boy he'd be ahead of the crowd after 40 years.
-Rob Skeoch

[Merg Ross]

Richard, you have gotten some very good answers here. I would not be concerned about your ratio of "keepers". However, one obvious way to increase the ratio is by being more selective in the field. That is the place to do your editing. What is your ratio of exposures per field set up? Also, I often find that my best images take the least time to compose.

[Richard Littlewood]

It's so reassuring reading all these responses. We all seem to understand!
Thanks all.

[MIke Sherck]

I forget where I read this, but someone somewhere wrote that the difference between an amateur and a professional is that a pro doesn't show his failures to others.

Actually, your rate of 'keepers' may be a bit high. Go back through them after a month and see what you think. Remember -- others will know you as a photographer by the pictures they see. Are you showing them what you want them to remember you by?

[domenico Foschi]

Keep skimming...
If it is personal work that you are doing, it is very hard to please that critical person inside of yourself .
There is a fine line between an healthy self -criticism and an unhealthy one.
The healthy one can help you to better your craft, the unhealthy will push you in the gutter.
What was the instinct that made you click the shutter?
Hang the images you contact printed with pins in your darkroom, look at them , could they improve with dodging , burning , cropping, toning , etc? Sometime thinking out of the box and doing something radical to the print willopen new horizons.
If you do not see anything , put them in a box and get back to them in a few months: maybe you are not ready for them.
Also beware of a too condescending self-criticism, usually very present in the beginning of a creative career.
Don't you love wasting money in film, paper, gas and not feeling a shred of guilt?

[Donald Qualls]

Be glad you're shooting large format. If it were 35 mm, or even 120, you might still have 10 keepers -- out of 66 *rolls*.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not a bad ratio at all. What counts as a "keeper" will always be a moving target.

[gary bridges]

it also helps to show your work to other photographers & ask for rheir advice & constructive criticism - especially from those whose work you admire

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

Been at it since 1969 and I still wish I had a better ratio. One way I use is, just before I shoot, I look at the glass one more time and ask myself "Will I print this" sometimes it's no, and I tear it down without making any exposures. John

[Graeme Hird]

My keeper ratio is reasonably high (about 40%), but I edit ruthlessly in the field. From 50 exposures, I would expect 20 keepers, but I only ever seem ot print the best three or four before I get distracted by the next batch of trannies to come back from the lab. Those three or four make it onto the walls of the gallery, and if they sell quickly, they'll be reprinted. If not, they either become very limited editions, or they end up at my home.

The other 16 or 17 keepers get filed for that rainy day when I can no longer make it into the field .... (and may that day be 40 years away!)

However, I must say a keeper for me must only be technically perfect (or nearly so) and aesthetically good (though not perfect). I know I can salvage many of my compositions with some thought on how to print the final image, so I'm not prone to throw away the ones that are close but not quite there when I see the tranny. One of my best selling images was produced from a revisited "keeper" that I filed away under "not good - yet".

So, my advice is to never discard a sheet that is technically okay. Your improving printing skills may let you make an entirely unexpected image from your discards at a later time.

Cheers,Graeme

[Gary Lester]

A photographer I greatly respect was so discerning when viewing his images that he claimed an average success rate of 1-3 images per 50-60 rolls of medium format film.
His images are some of the most stunning I have ever seen. Each one of his selections in my view a masterpiece.
I have never been around so many knowledgeable photographers as I have since joining this site. I feel like I am learning something every time I view an image or read a post.
It is my opinion that a great many of the members on this site are successful, highly skilled Photographers whose work I greatly admire.
I for one am very appreciative of those who generously offer time and advisement.
Gary Lester

[Maris Rusis]

Years ago I made a pact with myself that I would not edit. Everything that I shot would go into the enlarger or the contact frame and the best possible fibre based archival photograph would be made. It would not matter how many sheets of film or paper were used, how much time was invested, or how much money spent. The work would go to completion. I still do this.

A valuable outcome of this approach is that I can't just click and hope. The discipline (not as ruthless as it sounds) of being sure, being careful before making the committment implied in exposing a piece of film has actually saved me a lot of money and wasted effort.

As for the photographs, well, they come out pretty exactly the way I wanted them. Are they always good? No! The problem lies not in "getting what I want" but in "wanting the best thing". A bit more talent, imagination, vision, and energy would be useful.

[Ed Richards]

There is a happy medium between taking every exposure to a final print and "click and hope". I do not think one should waste film, but one should also try different angles and approaches to a subject. I think it is important to shoot on a regular basis and to exhaust the subject to really learn what you can do. If you shoot just to relax and commune with nature (like fishing without bait), or if you can do this all day, every day, and just keep going back to the subject, then it really does not matter. But if you can only shoot when you can get away from the day job/other obligations, etc., then I think to get good you need to shoot intensively when you are shooting. That is why I cannot identify with the ULF shooters who take so few shots. How do you square a 1 in 10 is a good keeper rate, and I think it is probably high, with ULF shooting?

[Donald Qualls]

How do you square a 1 in 10 is a good keeper rate, and I think it is probably high, with ULF shooting?

Mostly, I think, you don't.

When the film costs several dollars per sheet, not counting processing and printing, and you can only make a few exposures in an outing because film holders cost as much as an inexpensive lens (not to mention the bulk and weight), you have to aim much higher than one in ten. I'd bet that many ULF photographers keep as many as one exposure in three, and mentally castigate themselves for the other two. The bigger the film, the higher the commitment per frame, the more effort you put into making that one frame count. I spend a lot more time per exposure with my plate cameras than I do with my 35 mm -- and yet I sometimes find myself thinking like a grab shooter when I've got a short lens on my Speed Graphic, shooting hand held -- I have to force myself to slow down and think, because I don't have enough film holders to bang away even if film is cheap.

Bottom line, I think there's a synergy -- ULF makes you shoot at a higher level, and few folks will stay long in ULF if they can't make that leap. In the end, and in very broad strokes, the larger the negative, the better the keeper ratio needs to be, and ultimately is.

[CXC]

My keeper rate for 4x5 is around 1 in 4. A "keeper" being a negative worth printing. And excluding mechanical screw-ups from the 4; I probably ruin 1 in 12 sheets, mostly by pulling the sleeve off the ReadyLoad trying to remove it from the holder.

In my case, the keeper rate seems to be pretty directly related to the speed at which I shoot, which in turn is directly related to how big the camera is. The slower I go, the more opportunity I have to stop myself from wasting film on inferior imagery. A major turning point is learning to resist shooting a mediocre shot just because you have gone through a lot of bother getting there, setting up, making movements, etc. After final focus, I look at the ground glass and ask, "is it conceivable I would ever want this image hanging on my wall?" Often the answer is no, so I tear down and start looking for the next one.

My wall-hanger rate is much lower, maybe 1 in 20 prints, i.e. 1 in 80 shots.