How many keepers in a year?

[Shen45]

By keepers I mean -- how many images so grab you that you actually frame or present them in some formal [ish] way for others to see. Computer does not count.

I would have to say my output is very low at probably no more than 6 per year. Any comments on why you achieve the number you do or don't may be interesting to consider for others. Maybe even post an example of a real keeper and explain why you chose it as such.

[Toyon]

six is pretty good. I think Ansel Adams said that he expected about 2 per year.

[Lucas M]

5-20 for me. Of course I am not very experienced yet and thus my standards aren't super high. I've only done this for just over a year now and I think I have around six too that I personally really like. Add other people to the mix and I am over 20 with all these opinions. But about framing them... I've only gotten two framed because of cost.

[eric black]

my guess is about 5 per year of which 2-3 might be images I continue to promote for several years into the future. These are typically obtained from about 150-200 actual captures. More often than not on the 2-3 keepers, I vist the same location and shoot several takes of the shot until I am happy.

[Shen45]

six is pretty good. I think Ansel Adams said that he expected about 2 per year.

I thought AA said 12 but that may have been a particular project.

After posting the original question I averaged over a longer period my "keepers" and would be more honest to say maximum 2 per year :)

I'm in my darkroom now and I'm intending to revisit some older negs to see what I have missed. Probably nothing!

[Kirk Gittings]

Most great photographers are really known for about 20 memorable images from a whole career. So 2 or 3 is very good production.

[Toyon]

I thought AA said 12 but that may have been a particular project.

After posting the original question I averaged over a longer period my "keepers" and would be more honest to say maximum 2 per year :)

I'm in my darkroom now and I'm intending to revisit some older negs to see what I have missed. Probably nothing!

That raises the question: when one works on a project of say 10 photographs, only a couple of them will be really good, the rest, hopefully, reasonably good. So when galleries stress a project orientation in a show, they are getting work that is, on average, less good than are more eclectic selection of the best images one has to offer.

Of course, the keepers are the ones I mount on the wall and that continue to grow and resonate with me. They are not necessarily the ones most popular with others.

[IanMazursky]

10-20 depending on the subject.
If i have a project that im shooting or a goal, i will probably print more.
Frames are really expensive but when AI Friedman has a sale, i jump on it.

[KenM]

In a year, I get usually between 10-20 images that I consider really good, and would consider showing. Of those, perhaps 1-2 are exceptional.

I generally shoot between 150-200 sheets of film a year. Most of those sheets are used up on trips, where I shoot lots of doubles, so I'm probably looking at about 100-125 unique images.

[Wayne]

none

[Mattg]

On average about 5 per year, like Eric I often have to reshoot to get the quality of light or composition right.

[Mick Fagan]

Going back the last 19 years, which is the life of my current darkroom, I have 7 stunners, one of which was shot last year.

Four are colour negative and normal colour prints, the other three are B&W negative and normal B&W prints.

Five are 35mm, one is 6x6 and one is 4x5.

Mick.

[Vaughn]

If you can't sell them or give them away, they all are keepers...;)

My output varies...having triplet boys is a challenge...not to mention the job, wife, house and a tendency towards procrastination. Five to ten, probably, with this past year being on the low side. Even if I don't photograph for a couple years, I have some negatives I can to work on to keep me very busy..

Vaughn

[Patrik Roseen]

Not many...
Considering the few percentage of 'keepers', why is it so hard to scrap any 'non-keeper'-negs?

[Peter Lewin]

If we define "keeper" as images we like enough to print, matte, and hang on our wall, about 15 in a good year. But of course I like my own work, so what I enjoy looking at, another person may look at and say "oh well...". But then I have one acquaintance who has published three books of his work, so his number of keepers must be much higher (although perhaps not as a percentage of sheets exposed).

[Bruce Barlow]

OK, time to quibble. And it's a minor quibble, at best.

Kirk, I think it's unfair for us (me) to compare ourselves(myself) to the masters. I ain't them, and my pix won't outlive me, to be sure. To compare myself to Weston and Strand only flushes me into the vortex of despair. Instead, I need hope.

So, to keep hope alive, I ask: What's the best I can do right now? Am I getting better? Am I stretching and learning? A friend is a multiple-Grammy winner, and his concerts are exciting to attend because I'm asking beforehand: "What's he going to try this time?" He always stretches and tries something new, and he's growing as an artist. He's in his 50's, at the time when many could sit back on their accomplishments. Not him. That's inspirational to me in my photography.

I think absolute numbers-per-year is the wrong measure. I prefer "hit rate" out of 100 negatives. How many out of 100 are worth printing at all? I'm so consistemtly at 5 out 100 over the years that it's almost laughable. Well, yeah, it is laughable. And every time I think I've improved the hit rate, time (the aging of proofs, like wine, turns many pictures to vinegar) teaches me otherwise. But if I print it, it's worth showing to someone, thereby earning "keeper" status.

The evil truth becomes: the number per year is dependent on the number of negatives. The more I photograph, the more keepers I get. Duh! Not to mention that the keepers seem to get better and better. I've decided this year to schedule photographic retreats into my life, because alternately it just wasn't happening. An October, 2007 trip to Maine was fantastic, and I've decided I need three to four of those a year, plus additional time around my highly-photogenic local environs.

So, is it the best I can do today? Am I getting better? Am I photographing enough? If the answer to each of these is yes, then 5 out of 100 feels pretty good.

[Frank Petronio]

Fifty, but I shot a lot

[Peter Lewin]

I think absolute numbers-per-year is the wrong measure. I prefer "hit rate" out of 100 negatives. How many out of 100 are worth printing at all? I'm so consistemtly at 5 out 100 over the years that it's almost laughable. Well, yeah, it is laughable. And every time I think I've improved the hit rate, time (the aging of proofs, like wine, turns many pictures to vinegar) teaches me otherwise. But if I print it, it's worth showing to someone, thereby earning "keeper" status.
Bruce, permit to "pick on you" (since I remember a much younger you from the Picker days, and you run workshops): I'm curious about the very low hit rates in your (and many other posts). I expose around 200 sheets per year, and using your criteria, would only print about 10 images. My problem is that with such a low amount of printing, I would probably lose my (however marginal!) printing skills. Are you exposing huge numbers of negatives, or how do you keep your printing skills current?

[Brian K]

With 16-20 weeks of photography dedicated travel a year, on average 10 a year will go into my portfolio.

[Ted Harris]

Peter, I think you have it backwards. In my case I print and print and tack 'e on the walls and then print again and then throw 'em away. My printing skills improve more with those that almost become keepers and eventually get trashed. I learn a lot from why they aren't keepers.

I think the 2-5 number is right on. For my last show I had to produce 12-15 pictures. I started thinking it would be mostly new work and finally came up with work that spanned the past 10 years (plus one from 30 years ago but newly printed); only two were from 2007.

[Colin Graham]

Very true. I'm just now starting to do justice to some pretty old negatives that I never would have considered keepers at one point, and there are other 'masterpeices' I cant bear to look at anymore. It's all relative, and it all changes constantly.

[kev curry]

Steve thanks for such a good thread. It seems to me that theres a lot of honesty here...very refreshing! I've been using LF for a little over a year and in that time shot exactly 125 sheets of film with 'only' 3 keepers. Reading through all the posts has really helped put things into perspective and at the same time help me challenge some of my negative thinking towards my own meager successes. Feeling fairly comfortable that I can produce a technically decent negative, I'm hoping, if I keep working, learning and growing that I might, given the time, discover the seeing eye of the artist and then maybe, just maybe persuade him to emerge with a handful of handsome keepers .
Where to find those elusive seeing eyes!!
Best regards
kev

[Bruce Barlow]

Bruce, permit to "pick on you" (since I remember a much younger you from the Picker days, and you run workshops): I'm curious about the very low hit rates in your (and many other posts). I expose around 200 sheets per year, and using your criteria, would only print about 10 images. My problem is that with such a low amount of printing, I would probably lose my (however marginal!) printing skills. Are you exposing huge numbers of negatives, or how do you keep your printing skills current?

It's not picking at all - it's a really good question.

A couple ideas. I keep "reference prints" next to my sink viewing stand. They're good prints by other folks, and I can compare mine directly to see if I'm off-target. I also don't just print the ten. I recently did LF portraits of a mom and daughter (wow, two lovely, nice women. What fun!) to give to Dad for Christmas. They got printed. I printed 42 35mm pix from a recent trip to Maine, of which about 15 (out of 300 negs...do the math) will survive.

Figure out how to make more pictures. Our best exercise is the "One-A-Day" exercise, which I try to do with (gasp!) 35mm because it's convenient and therefore more likely to get done. 365 more negs might give you...uh...18 more keepers.

Finally, remember that most of us are in this for fun. If you want to print more, then by all means do so as long as you enjoy it. Your skill and eye will improve. That said, have an end-of-the-year bonfire and toss those that, in all honesty, aren't the best you can do. Well, a figurative bonfire maybe. The tougher you are on yourself, the better you'll get.

Yeah, the Picker days. I was skinnier then, too.

[Shen45]

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread.

A friend taught me a great lesson with printing. Have a frame with a standard mat that you can put a print in and hang it somewhere that you can live with it and see it regularly for a few days. Make it a good print technically but also so you can appreciate if the cropping feels right etc,etc,etc -----

Often a print will grow on you or -- it won't.

In a frame it moves, for me at least, to a more important commitment piece of work and for some reason I can then isolate it and recognise its good and bad points.

[N Dhananjay]

I'd like to present an alternative point of view. I think counting out the number of memorable images you have is pointless, and downright destructive. The memorability of an image is an emergent property - you just have to do the work and let time and life determine which are memorable (or whatever criterion you use to judge the worth of each individual photograph). The problem I have with getting out to make memorable photographs is twofold. One, it encourages a sort of close-mindedness - you're looking to make a certain kind of picture and not really seeing. If you know it is a memorable photograph at the time you make it, why make it? There is nothing for you to learn as an artist. Second, I think progress is not linear but a more organic kind of process - growth happens in different areas and in spurts. So, the point of photographs that you make is often only recognizable in hindsight. Let me put this differently. If you have 5 memorable images out of hundred (or 5 in a year or whatever), I'd like to submit that you cannot have made those 5 without making much of the remaining 95. To a large extent, the remaining 95 are where you are working out visual concerns (maybe out of range of your conscious awareness). And sometimes, in hindsight, you shift which 5 were the best. This, of course, has nothing to do with what sells etc but has to do with your growth as an artist.

Cheers, DJ

[Toyon]

I'd like to present an alternative point of view. I think counting out the number of memorable images you have is pointless, and downright destructive. The memorability of an image is an emergent property - you just have to do the work and let time and life determine which are memorable (or whatever criterion you use to judge the worth of each individual photograph). The problem I have with getting out to make memorable photographs is twofold. One, it encourages a sort of close-mindedness - you're looking to make a certain kind of picture and not really seeing. If you know it is a memorable photograph at the time you make it, why make it? There is nothing for you to learn as an artist. Second, I think progress is not linear but a more organic kind of process - growth happens in different areas and in spurts. So, the point of photographs that you make is often only recognizable in hindsight. Let me put this differently. If you have 5 memorable images out of hundred (or 5 in a year or whatever), I'd like to submit that you cannot have made those 5 without making much of the remaining 95. To a large extent, the remaining 95 are where you are working out visual concerns (maybe out of range of your conscious awareness). And sometimes, in hindsight, you shift which 5 were the best. This, of course, has nothing to do with what sells etc but has to do with your growth as an artist.

Cheers, DJ

I really like Dhananjay's point. I don't ever want to see myself not take risks and experiment just because the chance of a dud is over 95%. Those dud's do lead to better images in the long run. The funny thing is that even though I often go back to a site, the initial series of shots is almost always the best. Maybe that fresh, first take is an essential part of the process - for me.

[Dick Hilker]

"Maybe that fresh, first take is an essential part of the process - for me."

I've found the same thing -- reworking a picture sometimes leads me to forget what it was that stimulated me to capture it in the first place.

[Bill_1856]

Steve, I have you to thank for rescueing this image.
After reading your Thread I checked all my mages made in 2007, and found this previously unnoticed one. (It looks to me like a Walker Evans/David Plowden knockoff.)

[Peter Lewin]

Ted, Bruce (and all): Thanks for the comments. Happily what I actually do is more in line with what you both explained in response to my question, rather than my first impression from the posts, which was that you only print the few "keepers" each year.

I did a quick glance through my negatives & contact sheets (which like a good squirrel I store & keep forever...) for some statistics:
(1) Of the 50 4x5 sheets I exposed on this summer's family vacation to France & Spain, I actually printed 11, and of those 5 seemed worth hanging on my wall (I use Nielsen frames, so I rotate out older, less interesting work, and replace it with newer. Those that survive multiple rotations are the best, at least to me).
(2) From 148 35mm images taken in Israel in December, I weeded out 13 which might be worth printing, and so far have actually selected & printed 2.

Of these, only viewing time will tell which will stand out as worth showing (i.e. hanging outside my own home) and which are good but not great. Bottom line, it becomes definitional what we mean by "keepers" but like all of you, I print many more images than the "keeper" count may suggest. That also agrees with the recent posts by Dhananjay and Toyon, which point out that most of us try a lot of things to get the few which stand out. Counting keepers doesn't imply an unwillingness to experiment.

Last comment, before bowing out, I also agree with the "reference print" idea. On that same wall with my own work I have prints by Sally Mann, Linda Conners, Bill Abranowicz (once Tice's assistant, who taught me how to print), and Stu Levy. As long as the differences between their work and mine isn't glaringly obvious, I figure I'm printing ok. And, yes Bruce, thank goodness I'm only doing this for fun and nothing more!

[Jiri Vasina]

Dhananjay made a very good point. Just recently while going over my old pictures, I revitalized several pictures I previously considered unworthy.

The concept of keepers has recently become more fluid or dynamic to me. It may be because I have not yet made a truly wonderful and astounding picture and therefore choose the ones I like at the moment...

[Michael Wynd]

Hi Steve,
as you know I used to have a tendency to take a lot of pictures of things, but since moving to 8x10 I have found that I am more selective about what I photograph. It's not just the fact that film and processing costs more, I thinks it's more because I see things better on the big screen. So my number of images that I take is shrinking but I am happier with what I have taken and more likely to at least try a print. Last year, I think I printed and framed 2 prints that I took with the 8x10 out of the fifty that I shot.
Mike

[Shen45]

Steve, I have you to thank for rescueing this image.
After reading your Thread I checked all my mages made in 2007, and found this previously unnoticed one. (It looks to me like a Walker Evans/David Plowden knockoff.)

That is a very interesting image. I love the relationship between the long straight road, the fence and the church in the left of the frame.

Have you tried looking at it in a frame?

[Shen45]

Hi Steve,
as you know I used to have a tendency to take a lot of pictures of things, but since moving to 8x10 I have found that I am more selective about what I photograph. It's not just the fact that film and processing costs more, I thinks it's more because I see things better on the big screen. So my number of images that I take is shrinking but I am happier with what I have taken and more likely to at least try a print. Last year, I think I printed and framed 2 prints that I took with the 8x10 out of the fifty that I shot.
Mike

I have to agree with you Mike. I shoot 5x4 but vvvverrrryyyyy slowly. I am always looking to get the best out of every moment I have my camera set up but what strikes me on the day of the shoot and the reality of the darkroom or framed print is very often different. I'm finding I may only shoot 2 sheets [or none] but still have a sensational day because I have acquired a new understanding of light, subject and sometimes even myself.

[Jim Galli]

This year so far.....zed. I need to get busy. Funny about the ones we pass over. Behind me here at work I have a vertical 7X11 made with the 18" Verito that I mounted long ago, lost under a pile a couple of years ago, found again a month ago and stood up on top of a book shelf. I like it better every day. I need to print that one of you (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Campbells/SteveS.jpg) leaning on the old car at Campbells and mail it off to oz one of these days. It's a keeper.

[Shen45]

I would be most honoured Jim.

I will have to find an "Oz" image or two and post to you. A bit like the Nevada desert only more so :) No snow though.

Steve

[Gene McCluney]

I am a commercial photographer. I have to get a "keeper" for every shot I do. I kinda treat my personal work like my professional work, hence I get an image that meets my preset requirements for every subject I shoot, however some are more visually interesting than others. If (in my personal project) I go out to shoot 12 antique bridges in a day, I get good images of all, but depending on specific weather and lighting conditions I may get outstanding images of some. So, in effect I get hundreds of "keeper" images a year, several hundred, but they are keepers by my definition of "keepers".

[David_Senesac]

Since we just went into the new year of 2008, your question prompted me to find out my shooting totals for 2007. Looks like I have 79 hanging file poly folders at 4 to a sheet. So about 310 each 4x5 Provia slides that I kept. That is comparable to what I shot in 2003, about 30% less than I shot in 2006, and 100% less than in 2005. Note I almost never bracket and am very picky about subjects. Of course as one gets older, one becomes increasingly more selective, and that is especially so with LF. As a landscape photographer here in California that has not worked a real 9-5 job since July 2003, and can pretty much go wherever I want in the state whenever, I went on 8 backpacking trips over 30 days total, and 30 day hiking road trips with 50 days total. So was out in the field a total of 38 trips over 80 days. Since I see only 26 groups of hanging sheets for 2007, that meant about a dozen times I went out and just carried my 4x5 for fun and exercise. Actually in the spring I did a lot of closeup wildflower work with my Coolpix and just carried the 4x5 gear along in case something surprised me.

By keepers I imagine you are not referring to the amount of film one does not throw away but rather just the exceptional images one will further process and for we with a business, will market. For me that is rather expensive given my large print product. Means about $80 for a drum scan and $100 for a 30x38 inch or such for Lightjet print master that I can exhibit. And at least $15 to mount it crudely on foam core to minimally be able to show. A fair number of 4x5 sheets I expose, I am certain will not be marketable but there is some value in making a shot if simply for information about how it might look. Usually a Coolpix capture will suffice, but sometimes if worthy enough, I may waste a sheet when conditions are not really workable just to see what the film really does. At other times I may see something pretty good that I doubt will actually produce a winner but which I know could surprise me. Thus on the fence, I sometimes take the shot since I've invested time and effort to be there. And a sometimes I'll take a shot just for my own pleasure as something I find interesting though know others would not. I currently have over 40 strong queued up mages that I intend to eventually process that would cost me more than $8k to do so per above. Of those 40, half were taken this year. So 20 major 2007 keepers though there are a lot more that I would process if I wasn't such a peon. One can see these queued up images at: http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/Upcoming/upcoming.html
...David

[Adam Kavalunas]

I must say, I'm quite surprised at the answers to this question. I would expect the results to be much better in terns of keepers/sheets exposed. I've gotten to the point that if I dont think its gonna be a keeper, I dont shoot it, why waste my time. How can you all be shooting so much film, only to throw most of the shots away, or just decide not to work on them? I dont get it. I thought LF slows people down, makes them more selective? It sure has for me. All the images on my site except for 2 have been taken in the last 18 months. All of which are purchaseable and would certainly not hesitate to print them up for a show. Whether or not everyone considers these keepers, who knows, but "I" kept them. I shoot about 8 boxes of quickloads/year.

Adam Kavalunas
www.plateauvisions.com

[IanMazursky]

Adam,

It does slow me down. I will only shoot what i will definitely consider a keeper.
But i also end up shooting a small bracket. I need it in case i metered wrong.
I have also drum scanned them and combined certain elements here and there.
When i shoot portraits, all bets are off on the number. Im trying to catch that fleeting moment. You have to burn some film sometimes to get it.
My family project is up to 120 or so sheets now. Probably more by the end of the year.
I want to have as many shots of my grandparents as i can. They are in there late 70's and 80's. My parents dont have many of there grandparents and they regret it. I never want to have that feeling.
Film is categorized as an expendable. I dont treat it that carelessly but its a tool. While i have it, i want to use as much as i can. I love it with a passion.
My Nikon D200 is collecting dust while my 4x5 and 12x20 are nice and shinny.

[Sylvester Graham]

Dhananjay made a very good point. Just recently while going over my old pictures, I revitalized several pictures I previously considered unworthy.


Yeah. I find one of my favorite things to do is to comb through the folders I have of old negatives/slides and give them all a second chance.

I recently went through about 200 slides I took when I was 13. I couldn't believe how horrible they were. Actually, I couldn't believe how much my "vision" has changed since then. In fact all the images I remember liking I no longer liked. Out of all those slides I only found one that I really liked, and I don't even remember taking it. I don't even remember where I was, or even what it is exactly.

[Hollis]

It is intersting to count how many exposures one makes in a year. I just did a massive overhaul on my archive system, Im moving to a RAID setup very soon. Anyways, looks like I shot around 30,000 digital give or take 10% and about 500 sheets of unique 4x5, a smattering of 8x10 and a few dozen tintypes.

As far as keepers, and ruling out the digi work anf the tintypes, I would say about 30 will see the inside of a gallery, maybe 10 inside a book and none on my walls (i don't have walls).

[Bill_1856]

That is a very interesting image. I love the relationship between the long straight road, the fence and the church in the left of the frame.

Have you tried looking at it in a frame?

Thanks, Steve.
I'm having trouble getting a satisfactory print. Also, I can only print to 8.5x11, and it needs to be 12x16.
Gawd, despite all the definite advantages of digital printing I really miss Agfa Portriga!

[David_Senesac]

I must say, I'm quite surprised at the answers to this question. I would expect the results to be much better in terns of keepers/sheets exposed. I've gotten to the point that if I dont think its gonna be a keeper, I dont shoot it, why waste my time. How can you all be shooting so much film, only to throw most of the shots away, or just decide not to work on them? I dont get it. I thought LF slows people down, makes them more selective? It sure has for me. All the images on my site except for 2 have been taken in the last 18 months. All of which are purchaseable and would certainly not hesitate to print them up for a show. Whether or not everyone considers these keepers, who knows, but "I" kept them. I shoot about 8 boxes of quickloads/year.

Adam Kavalunas
www.plateauvisions.com

I'll agree a few that have posted seem to shoot like they are still 35mm shooters. Beyond those few, much has to do with each photographer's own perspective on what is a keeper, purpose, and style. My own standards as an older photographer of nearly three decades are relatively high. Some of us are more perfectionists than others. A keeper for one person may not even receive a glance from another in the field much less any value after development. I see quite a lot of posted images at serious photography communities, that from the comments most would consider them keepers but which I don't think are exceptional. And could readily criticize them in detail were it not that I personally don't feel a need to pick on other's work each time I see such. Additionally each photographer has their own style and preferences for subjects. A person that exposes film on urban cityscapes is going to have a whole different philosophy about what does and doesn't work versus a landscape photographer of the southwest. And likewise among nature and landscape photographers there are a wide range of subject types. Those shooting wildlife for instance will likely take a lot more shots merely because of the fleeting situations. In my own case, my style is strongly realistic without manipulations. Even though I could given my strong Photoshop skills from way back, I don't play the usual game most others do on their computer creating something in their minds eye that actually wasn't captured on film or experienced. Not right or wrong at all but rather just my preference as a style. Any photographer that works within that rigid classic constraint will necessarily have many more images that don't quite rise to an acceptable level. Simply because its easy to enhance images on a computer and much harder to capture the real deal live. I'm sure others could relate additional reasons pertaining to their styles also. As I related in my above post which is in no way thorough, I think there are also good reasons to expose film at times even when one knows a keeper won't result. ...David

[BradS]

"How many keepers in a year?"

crap...at the rate I'm going, I'll be lucky to get three or four keepers in my lifetime.

Guess I just have to take satisfaction in making the journey.

[SAShruby]

I believe there's more than we count today, we just couldn't print them right yet.
In my case I printed about 30 pictures , so far there is only one, I printed it in somewhat way what I wanted to get from it. I'd say, there are more keepers, so far I couldn't print them to be keepers.

[alec4444]

"Maybe that fresh, first take is an essential part of the process - for me."

I've found the same thing -- reworking a picture sometimes leads me to forget what it was that stimulated me to capture it in the first place.

I think there's two perspectives to this:

In some instances, the initial take is better than subsequent takes. The fresh subject and the photographer's instinct work together to form a pretty decent first take.

There are other times, however, where constant revisiting of the same subject make the difference. Shoot a photo of something interesting in your neighborhood year after year after year and you'll likely end up with something fabulous. You'll know the way the light is hitting that subject that day before you even leave your home. I've found that with the 11x14, that really has to be my strategy. It's not really portable (though I've "ported" it) so while taking it to an unknown place might be fun, I think more success would be had through strategy #2. The 5x7 might work better for strategy #1.


I believe there's more than we count today, we just couldn't print them right yet.
In my case I printed about 30 pictures , so far there is only one, I printed it in somewhat way what I wanted to get from it. I'd say, there are more keepers, so far I couldn't print them to be keepers.

Wholeheartedly agree. My printing skills are abysmal - so my negatives have to be near flawless to get a decent print. Unfortunately, I'm not quite there with the negs either... :(

--A

[Shen45]

"How many keepers in a year?"

crap...at the rate I'm going, I'll be lucky to get three or four keepers in my lifetime.

Guess I just have to take satisfaction in making the journey.

I would love to see those 3 or 4 as they must mean so much to you. I'm very particular as to my own work - but aren't we all. Two of my most favourite images were done and printed nearly 20 years ago and yet they are timeless.

Maybe timeless is also a part of the keeper thing as well?

[nathanm]

I haven't been shooting large format for an entire year yet, but at least for my personal tastes the percentage of keepers is extremely high. It's simply too much work to set up a LF film shot and toss it away. I shoot on average 6-8 shots in a day (just on weekends) and I scan and post almost all of them. I have also decided to shoot no more than one frame of any given setup as well. Doing all that time in the darkroom and having duplicate shots was unsatisfying. Of course, if there's camera shake or motion blur on that single frame one can kick themselves a bit. I've found that I am out in the field and I rush myself even a little bit and try to force a shot just to finish off a film holder I find that these aren't all that hot. Less is definitely more.

Plus to my eyes even a subject which would be boring in color digital turns into magic on BW film so the keepers go up just on that alone. It's like guitars, sometimes if you've got a great tone dialed in you're just happy hearing it even if you aren't playing something awesome.

[Daniel_Buck]

I'm not in any galleries or anything, but if I were, I would probably submit one photograph from every weekend outing. Maybe my standards are lower than others, but I usually end up with at least one photo that I really like, every weekend.

By the same token, I usually end up with one photo each weekend that I might as well throw away the negative (but I don't), and then the rest are just decent. The decent ones are enough to show friends, but I wouldn't submit it to be viewed publicly in a gallery. It's funny how it works like that, but it always seems to end up like that, one I really like, one I hate, and the rest are just decent. I shoot about 4-6 negatives per outing, and on a good weekend I'll get to go out twice.

[Ben Chase]

If I get 6-8 per trip, I'm happy, and I average 2-3 major trips a year.