How many keepers on a roll?

<p>I think people here are using different definitions of 'keepers'. I'll get 0 to 5 on a 120 roll.</p>

<p><em>Even better, Robert Frank shot 28,000 frames of film for 83 "keepers" published as The Americans. All you 90+% guys should have been around to teach him how to shoot.</em></p>

<p>You assume yours or others "keeper" definition is just that. Multiple definitions. <br>

Keepers? One magical moment? Cover of a worldwide magazine (you are REALLY pushing it, we are not all Mozart). Or how about, something well composed, well exposed, athat nearly every friend and relative love?</p>

<p>Or keepers for pro work versus top amateur work?</p>

<p>With color neg, 30 out of 36. With B&W, 1 out of 36. With transparency, 3 out 36.</p>

<p>I'm down to my last two rolls of Kodachrome. For these, I hope for 3 out of 36.</p>

<p>I'm an amateur. I get some good ones. And simple me, it makes me happy.</p>

<p>Similar to Doug's story about the Model T, I would imagine that Lisa Jack would consider her full roll of 36 exposures of her <a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1866765_1815160,00.html">photo shoot of Barack Obama in 1980</a> as keepers now !</p>

<p>Yes on the Model-T etc. conditions -<br /> Many of my old slides left as 'seconds' or worse in the original Kodak boxes in the cupboard after sorting through (and fortunately labeling them all), have turned out to be quite good images ('keepers') when digitized and with the most minimal of post-processing. In many cases, I now consider them better than the ones I kept out for projection.<br /> As a result, I have become even more anal retentive than I already was. :|</p>

<p>I think one of the big factors here is how much effort is required per shot: the more time, money, and effort, the more you might slow down and consider things like composition, exposure, and the like. I don't shoot digital*, so for me this is format dependent: I have a higher percentage (~85%) for medium and Large-format than for 35mm. Taken to the extreme, this gets really interesting. One of the interesting things about shooting Brownies is you're never quite sure what will come out... my keeper rate for those (10-15% for really good pictures) is the same as my keeper rate for the Transmission Electron Microscope (where you also never quite know how it will turn out). Then there's the question of how well you know what you're shooting: keeper rates for experimental shots (new process, new camera, never shot this before, etc) turn out to be less than 'routine' shots.</p>

<p>(*The only digital I capture with regularly are microscopes that, by virtue of their imaging detectors, cannot be recorded directly onto film: the scanning electron microscope and laser confocal microscope. A film image of these would be a copy-image of a TV screen, and that's no fun.)</p>

For purposes of this discussion, I define "keepers" as photos I'd like to exhibit. I usually get 5-6 keepers out of a roll of 24

MF film.<br>

<br>

BUT I usually take at least two photos of the same thing at the same EV usually because of movement. I want to choose

the print that shows the amount of movement that pleases me. My opinion changes over the years. When I look at some

photos that were in exhibits, I wonder why in the world I exhibited THAT photo. On the other hand, going through old photos,

I think they're better than I did at first.<br>

<br>

--Sally

<blockquote>

<p>I have a higher percentage (~85%) for medium and Large-format than for 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do too. I probably have the same number of keepers on a roll of 120 as I do on a 35mm roll but the percentage is higher.</p>

<p>Well, technically, since I file all my rolls of film and almost every LF negative they are all keepers. But on any given roll I will over/under expose a few, miss the focus, accidentally trip the shutter at the sky, or otherwise "botch" the image. Then, for the subjects I really like I will shoot a duplicate and maybe exposure bracket one or two over or under. So, on any given roll probably half the negatives are what I intended or otherwise turned out despite my best efforts. Then there is the occassional roll that is completely botched through no fault of my own (ha, ha) and more processing errors than I care to admit in my darkroom, but then again I experiment alot. Then there was last spring's accidental dip into the Swan River (ruined the camera but saved the film). From these negatives I might print one per roll although there is the occassional roll where I'll print 3 or 4. About two thirds of those prints are destined for the trash for a variety of reasons after a year or two or three in a box. What's left is the maybe one or two percent that seem to meet my ever changing criteria for what I like and what I think is good. Then there is the much smaller percentage that might interest somebody else. I have a few that other people (even people I don't know) hang on their wall so I'd classify those as keepers. Ultimately, I try to get one photo a month that I really like but probably get only about half that many. So a year's work over hill and over dale with 30 or 40 rolls of film and maybe 50 to100 4x5's yields a half dozen or so keepers. Incidentally, Lex, I'm thinking the universal ultimate upper bound on keepers is 42. </p>

<p>Spray and pray all the way!</p>

<p>Seriously, if I go into the studio, my objective is to make one (1) photograph. I set up the lighting to do the best I can, evaluate the results, and iterate. I make take 100 shots to get one. Maybe I get 5 out of 100.<br>

With digital "film" is free.<br>

In non-studio, I don't iterate as much, but the keeper rate is still modest, maybe 1/10.</p>

<p>Then there's guys like Bill Eggleston, who doesn't shoot all that much but prints practically everything he shoots.</p>

<p>I would say how many every 100 shots... It depends, usually I get one or two shots every roll of 36. My best is 10 in one roll but that happens once every five years.</p>