Percentage of keepers/surprise good shots

[TXFZ1]

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?

2062 strike outs

8399 at bats

714 Home runs

David

[Vaughn]

And if you look at the spread of the type of hits he got (lots of singles, not so many doubles, few triples and lots of home runs), it does not appear that he was quick on his feet!

Someone may have already said this -- but if you get nothing but keepers, your standards are not high enough.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, the reason I asked about Babe Ruth is probably to console myself for the fact that my stack of "forget it" sheets of film is a lot bigger than my stack of,
"to print".

[Rayt]

Someone in one of the previous posts said to increase the percentage of keeper just shoot less non keepers. I think this is one of my problems. There were times when I have gone a long way to reach this destination and then maybe the light isn't great or there are no clouds or the wind is high I would shoot anyway because hey man I am here. But then the negative isn't what I wanted. My own fault really.

[Alan Gales]

Someone in one of the previous posts said to increase the percentage of keeper just shoot less non keepers. I think this is one of my problems. There were times when I have gone a long way to reach this destination and then maybe the light isn't great or there are no clouds or the wind is high I would shoot anyway because hey man I am here. But then the negative isn't what I wanted. My own fault really.

Back in the 1980's I used to go out shooting 35mm cameras with several friends. We would shoot when we could get together and unfortunately, rarely at optimum lighting. One of my friends told me I was the best at making something from nothing in bad lighting. No, the photos were not that great and if i reshot them in the best light they would have been much better. I will tell you this, the exercise did make me a better photographer so I don't think your time is wasted. When you can make the best out of nothing it really trains you to make the best out of something.

[sun of sand]

If you play every hand in poker you get no matter how well you can read the other players eventually it comes down to cards
You're going to lose a lot of hands

If you play only the best hands that come along and you're a good reader of people you've got the best odds at winning that hand out of everyone at the table
But they don't come around too often

This is large format

Problem in poker is luck
Problem in photography is nature

In poker you aim for not much more than 20% of hands
If you can win 40%? Of those hands you keep you're doing wonderfully well

Few hands kept even fewer are winners

Probably about the same odds

Oddly enough people have said 10%

Which is probably about the odds michael Jordan could hit a shot from 38+ feet


The quality of winners is what matters
You can win over time by winning moderately well
Or you can win big by winning exceptionally well

Getting to exceptional requires everything and a hardcore editorial process practically every shot to be reasonably sure you're not running in place

[John Kasaian]

It depends.

[Liquid Artist]

The more it costs me the more fussy I am.

I just developed a 36 exposure roll of 35mm Delta 100. I had 6 keepers in it, which is probably about my average.
Some of the photos were taken over 2 years ago, and the last 2 weeks ago so I don't think I shoot 35mm very often.

With 4x5 I usually keep 1 out of every 3 or 4.

With 5x7 I probably keep 3 in every 4.
I should mention that I pretty much only grab out the 5x7 when I know I've got a good shot. If I don't I grab out the 4x5.

[Bruce Barlow]

Back in the 1980's I used to go out shooting 35mm cameras with several friends. We would shoot when we could get together and unfortunately, rarely at optimum lighting. One of my friends told me I was the best at making something from nothing in bad lighting. No, the photos were not that great and if i reshot them in the best light they would have been much better. I will tell you this, the exercise did make me a better photographer so I don't think your time is wasted. When you can make the best out of nothing it really trains you to make the best out of something.

+1

[David_Senesac]

To the novice the visual world for outdoor nature and landscapes is boundless, endless easily filling camera film or sensors without much filtering. But what are keepers to novice photographers are unlikely to be so to a many years experienced photographer. Thus with experience most of us become increasingly discerning in acceptable aesthetics. All we elderly folk would likely be embarrassed publicly displaying work we were proud of from our early years. Additionally with specific similar subjects one may not bother capturing subjects that have a noticeably lesser aesthetic than something already in a body of work. Thus after capturing a grand colorful cloud sunset at Grand Canyon one is less likely to bother in following years with more common ho hum end of days. Accordingly we with little museums of dusty camera gear and greying hair may find it increasingly difficult to easily locate worthwhile subjects... keepers.