How many "keepers" per roll of film?

I'm wondering what other people's "keeper ratio" is, i.e. out

of an average roll of 36 exp, how many OK, good and great images

do you get on average?

 

<p>

 

I presume that nature photographers (and especaially wildlife)

photographers get fewer great images/roll than photographers

working under controlled conditions (in a studio for example).

Given the problems of uncontrolled lighting, uncontrolled

sujects, wind, rain and so on, plus the temptation to take

"insurance" shots (i.e. take the shot now, even if it's not

great because in 2 seconds the critter may well decide to

leave), it's not suprising if the "keeper" ratio is low.

 

<p>

 

Has anyone ever taken a workshop with a "big name" photographer

(Shaw, Lepp, Rowell etc.) and found out just how many good/great

images/roll they average. I presume we only see their very best

images in print, not the 25,000 other images in their files.

 

<p>

 

For what it's worth, I usually instantly junk maybe 4-8 images

per roll (not sharp, subject moved, operator error). Of the rest

I'd count myself lucky if there are 4 or 5 I'd rate as good. I'm

certainly averaging less than 1 "great" image/roll. This is

mostly wildlife work, with some landscapes thrown in.

I have been in outdoor photography for 4 years, so I'm only going to reply about my slides of the last 2 years, or so. The first 2 years I was doing lots of testing of the equipment, technique, and just how everything worked. The love of the outdoors is what got me into this crazy hobby. It was a way to keep the memories of what I see when I'm out stomping around in the forest. Seems the more I do it, the better I get at it.<G>

 

<p>

 

When I'm shooting wading birds and wildlife in the early morning light, or on overcast days is when about half the roll is going in the trash. I use a Nikkor 75-300/4.5-5.6 (TC-201 sometimes) that is my bird and wildlife lens. The ratio is about 5-6 goods and 10 ok's per roll. I have 5 of what "I" consider greats in the past 2 years on these subjects. I'm sure a great big out of my price range 300/2.8 would help this ratio.

 

<p>

 

Now, as far as landscapes scenic, and macro photography I can be very selective about what I want to shoot and how I want to shoot it. These subjects aren't going to be moving their little heads around, and I can shoot them any way I like, and they won't fly off, or run to the next county in fear. I'll get mostly goods with 1 or 2 greats per roll. Control helps the "keeper ratio" on these subjects! Operator error still gets a few frames, but less now than a few years ago.

 

<p>

 

I have never been to a workshop. I would like to watch one of the guys at work sometimes, just to check his style. I think a "one person" workshop would be about the cost of that "out of my price range 300/2.8 lens", and I think that's the only way I'd want to do a workshop with one of the masters. I don't think that they work much different than experienced outdoor photographers, it's just that they have more time and equipment available (it's a job to them).

I just looked over some still-unsorted slides I took of a spider in a web and a barnacles on a rock. Out of eight photos I would keep only one of them. I tend to keep about 1/2 to 2/3 of my flower and landscape photos. My keepers will have the usual decent sharpness, exposure, etc. although I sometimes keep "failures" if I find them to have some compositional merits. (I'm still kicking myself, however, over throwing away a head-on shot of a great blue heron that was landing because the wings were partly clipped off at the edges of the picture--everything else about it was great, in spite of the fact that I shot it using a non-automated MF camera.) Like you I find that I may get 1 truly-good shot per roll, although from time to time it seems like every shot on the roll is a great one. Those times, however, tend to be rare. :-)

I think we all average well under 1 great shot per roll. I think that as you improve, your standards also increase, and so your perception of the number of great shots per roll doesn't necessarily increase with time. In fact, as you get better, you may find that some of the shots that you once thought were great aren't so great after all.

 

<p>

 

At Sam Abell's workshop, he commented that most slides were dissappointments. He also said that National Geographic needed 6 great images to do a story. It was a challenge to get those six great images (some not quite great images could be included as filler, but you need six great ones to consider publication at all). Many times, National Geographic tries to get those six great images from literally hundreds of rolls of film. (I don't really know how rigid this idea of six is, but it is the number that he used in the work shop).

 

<p>

 

In terms of Sam's own work, he has a lot of great slides. I would have been proud to call any of them my own. But there were clearly a handfull of images that he shared at the workshop that were above the rest. Special images worth more than just a serious single look. The most interesting thing, in my view, is that which images should be included in the handful of special images would probably be a subject for debate. When you get to that point (I'm not there yet), I think you've arrived. When you have enough great work so that other people are arguing over which of your images are truly special, you've finally mastered the craft.

 

<p>

 

Just for the record, I still get rolls back from time to time where there are NO slides that I want to share with anyone. At this point, I am diligently working on issues related to composition, rather than technical stuff. I've pretty much mastered the science part of this. It is the art part where the challenge lies.

At age 26 I have been a full time photojournalist for the past 8+ years. I do a large amount of nature and wildlife photography and am working to go full time with my nature photography. This is a long process that I am just starting to work towards. However I do have two thousand plus slides on file and have taken some "workshops" with John Netherton, Art Wolfe, and Bryan Peterson as well as having met and shot nearly side by side with John Shaw, David Middleton, L.Rue Jnr, and others. At the Great American Photo seminars that I have attended and competed in their contest I have won placed highly in each category and won the Weekend shooter title as well. They and I do have a much higher percentage of keepers per roll than most serious, but not professional, shooters.

I shoot in camera dupes of most images that I think are going to be sellable. So consider that when I tell you that on a roll of 36 I generally keep about 26-30 images. Shooting 20 rolls a week for my newspaper work and sometimes that many for my nature stuff (when light and weather cooperate-you know the deal) I am technically in touch with my equipment and techique. I shoot with Canon EOS1n's with lenses from 14mm2.8 to 400/2.8 which I further extend to 800mm with 2x converter.

All of the images that I keep are sellable and I generally get one truly great image on 1 out of 5 rolls shot. I have been told by the big names including Art Wolfe to turn pro asap. Wish I had the cash flow to travel and shoot as much as necessary to be pro.

Like the pro's I have learned to know what will work and what won't when shooting. Also I learned a long time ago how to decipher what it is about each scene that is important to show on film and the best ways to just that.

I also am not afraid to blow through and throw away a roll to get that one great shot if necessary. Sometimes pushing the envelope with technique or creativity one must do just that.

I've been turning over a lot of equipment and testing new techniques, but I only tend to find 3 "good" shots (composition + technique okay) per roll of 36. In the last six years, I've only gotten four that I've put on my wall and only two that I've given to friends...I aspire to that 1 "great" image per roll status someday!

 

<p>

 

I can also say that my percentage of keepers is higher with the manual focus FG than with the whiz-bang N90s, probably because I slow down and think more with the FG. The N90s does definitely catch shots I couldn't have gotten with the FG and the spot meter and DOF preview make for better shots when I *force* myself to slow down and think. At least, that's how I rationalize getting better shots on a $150 camera versus a $1000 one...

I exposed 18 rolls in

<a href="http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/samantha/samantha-X.html">

Katmai National Park</a>

and think that I got one great shot (the two bears fighting). Well, anyway I thought it was great enough to enlarge to 20x30" and hang on my wall.

 

<p>

 

I think I get about 3 or 4 good pix/roll. My standards for great are getting higher as my wall space gets tighter and my taste in picture frames gets more expensive (I like 8-ply mats and Denglass and custom wood finishes so it cost me at least $250 to get one photo framed).

 

<p>

 

I don't think that one can get a great picture just by shooting more film and therefore the relevant metric for me is "how many great pictures per expedition or idea?" The answer is usually one or two. If I'm going on a foliage trip to Vermont, I could burn 10 rolls to get the one great picture. But sometimes I just get an idea in my head and it only takes 10 frames:

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd3502/crouching-10-sm.jpg">

</center>

(I wanted this for my career guide for engineers and scientists)

My ratio depends entirely on what I'm shooting. Even when shooting birds at times I luck into a quiescient victim and and burn a roll and get nearly 100% success. That's uncommon, though. Usually birds are "twitchy" and don't hold pose as models due. That fraction of a second delay between pushing the shutter button and exposure ruins a lot of good photos of birds that are doing major head-turning activity.

 

<p>

 

Also, when shooting birds in open terrain, i.e. shorebirds, I often start shooting before they are really in range. This gives them time to get acclimated to me and the camera and associated noise. This also allows me to gauge their reaction. I suppose if I were really smart I'd do this without film in the camera, just to raise my success ratio :)

 

<p>

 

And, of course, my standards vary. I got a good lesson in this recently. This winter has seen a large number of snowy owls invade the Pacific Northwest. I managed to shoot one down on the beach near Tillamook (Oregon) a day after it was discovered and before hordes of birders began chasing it for their state list. I wasn't at all pleased with the results - it didn't let me get close enough, and heat shimmer and the wind on the beach meant sharpness just wasn't up there.

 

<p>

 

I almost tossed the lot (three rolls). About six weeks ago, though, I learned from a writer friend that WildBird was trying to locate a publishable photo of a snowy owl from the PNW and this year's invasion. They're printing one next month. So I'm glad I didn't toss all of them!

 

<p>

 

I returned from New Mexico about two weeks ago and thus far have just had time for one quick sort of the slides. The slides left vary from about 3-4 in a box to nearly a full box, again, depending on subject. I rarely have to toss landscape shots unless I've bracketed, or have made a boneheaded error. The next sort will probably cut this down by 20% or so.

 

<p>

 

When I do get a lot of photos of, say, one particular bird, I often get rid of quite a few frames that are good (sharp, well-exposed, etc) and just keep the cream. I figure that I'll just be sending out the best ones anyway, so why spend all that time labelling, etc? But these would be "keepers" if other frames weren't noticably better.

Before I become philosophical, let me state that I probably get less than 1 keeper per roll when shooting wildlife due to all of the factors that others have previously mentioned. Scenics are more like 4-5 per roll.

 

<p>

 

However, I think we should take a minute to compare our great images to those made by a painter. A painter may take days or months to create a painting and then he/she may or may not consider it a worthwhile work of art. Why should we be different? Just because my wizz-bang T65X can burn up a 36 exposure roll in under 7 seconds does not mean that the time factor to take a great photo has changed. Many factors go into taking a great photo. I dare say that Ansel Adams would not have produced many more great images if he had a motor driven Nikon F5 instead of a view camera. Why? Because he spent most of his time waiting for weather or light, and just plain getting to where the great photos were.

 

<p>

 

Rather than measure keepers per roll, I suggest we measure keepers per hour. And include in those hours, all of the time spent preparing for the shoot, including travel, maintaining equipment, studying the subject and sight, setting up, and so on.

I tend to bias myself to pressing the shutter. Not counting in-camera dupes or minor recomposing of the subject, I'd guesstimate around one per roll also. For a typical trip, I'm trying to come back with at least twenty images I'd like to add to the portfolio. Perhaps images per trip is an interesting metric to consider, as the cost of film pales in comparison with the cost of taking time off, getting there, getting around, room and board, et cetera...

<P>Philip's metric of good shots per "expedition or idea" is pretty relevant to me.

 

<P>Recently, I shot a few rolls at a collegiate women's water polo tournament (sports photography is not really an interest of mine, but I thought it might be an enlightening exercise). I got more keepers the first day because of the number of ideas that I came up with.

 

<P>The second day returned fewer good shots. I was less inspired, but got some decent shots: a couple of lucky ones and some taken right before the sun set (I had to leave early the first day).

 

<P>Commercial studio photographers (esp. the large format folks) burn through a lot of Polaroid proofs before taking the beauty shots. This is pretty important when the product marketing folks from Acme, Inc. want to see how Acme's Revolutionary Widget looks with a magenta background instead of a teal background.

 

<P>The overall average number of good shots is probably pretty constant; I'm pretty picky about what I consider great and it won't get any easy as I become more experienced.

In regards to how many the big names keep, Outdoor Photographer published something about Art Wolf about 6 months ago. They said he went through about 8 rolls (I forget the exact amount) in 5 minutes on one subject. He was using an 80-200/2.8, was in-camera duping, and was bracketing. He ended up shooting at various focal lengths between 80 and 200 and bracketed and duped all of them. Art seems to use the gatling gun technique. I don't know how many he keeps but it wouldn't seem to be that many.

 

<p>

 

I also have the Nat. Geo. special "The Photographers". They go on assignment for a couple of months along with a gross or more of 36-exposure rolls and end up with 12 shots or so in an article. Of course here you have to define keepers. Are keepers the ones that get used in the article or the ones that don't get thrown away? I would imagine these guys(and gals) have a better keeper ratio than Art Wolf and have a lot more great shots that don't make it in to the magazine.

 

<p>

 

Me? I'd say my hit ratio is about the same as yours. I get 3-5 that are decent and if I get one that's very good than I'm quite happy. If I'm in an area I know well than I do a little better.

I find that I have 4-9 ok and 1 keeper per roll. But I have started selecting a few folks that are not photographers, and will be honest with me, to look at the whole role. "Things" that I thought was trash, one guy asked if can have a copy. My wife, trully not a photo type person also picks out stuff that she thinks is great and I think it's ok. So I think we are harder on ourselfs that maybe we should be.

 

<p>

 

So I started thinking on how do we compose, for the general public, since they are our customers and their standard is differnat than ours. I haven't got any real answers to this thought, but It's a thought!

<P><H4>Reply to Dennis:</H4>

 

<P>First of all, I take pictures for <EM>me</EM> and end up personally covering the cost of equipment, film, (and usually) processing, etc. I do this for fun. I have no clients.

 

<P>The uneducated public will have lower standards than what a serious photographer will have. That's normal; they don't know any better. A true artists is judging his/her images on a professional level (and if not, someone else certain will). This is a public who will pay thousands in finance charges annually on various credit card bills and balk at putting a $50 piece of art in a $25 frame. An $80 opera ticket is not justifiable, although a $150 seat for an NFL football game is.

 

<P>Take a look at <I>Edward Weston Nudes</I> and read Charis Wilson's comments of what he thought about his own images. Inability to accept "good enough" is what drives the true artist.

 

<P>What would you think of a chef who just creates something moderately tasty and nutritious? A true artist? Certainly not me. Should such a professional halt any efforts after satisfying the average person who just wants a steak and Caesar salad?

 

<P>You <EM>can</EM> adjust your standards to that of your clientele. Hollywood certainly has (film and television). Before you claim that this is adequate for you, I suggest you rent the Criterion edition of Robert Altman's <I>The Player</I> and watch it on laserdisc.

 

<P>What it boils down to is whether or not you are happier pleasing the whims of others more than yourself. If you are interested in pleasing the general populace, don't try too hard (since you don't need to) and don't create anything controversial (people hate that).

I have been photographing for twenty some years, but only in the last three years I have been selling my outdoor and cityscape work.

My experience is that as the proofs come back the first look will get rid of at least ten shots. I will not go back to the photos for a few hours so I have a fresh look the next time around. By the time I am ready to pick the best it's 4-8 per 36 that are acceptable. Many times I and up with 1-3 great ones per 72 shots. And those are the ones that attract the buyers who will look further and find exactly what they are looking for. By the way I am not a pro just one that loves photography and have a keen eye.

As far as photo weekends, I must agree with Jim Bridges, the workshops are probably good but by the time all said it's a $1,000-$1,200 spent and I would also rather buy another lens. One on one I could not afford either. Just like any other technical workshops these are money makers for the pros.

REPLY TO Sean:

 

<p>

 

Well maybe I didn't explain myself well. I didn't mean to say lower any standard, there is stuff that is just pain bad. This "junk" does have to go. And your right, someone spending $150 bucks on a basketball game is not going to buy the opra ticket, but that is because his perspective is differant. If I took a picture of Jordan, and charged him $200, he would pay it and not bark at the additonal $75 or $100 frame to hold it.

 

<p>

 

This is what I was getting at, the differnt perspective of the viewer from me and my intent. Here is an example of where I was comming from. This year I pick 12 keepers, and purhaps sold some. The following year, I come back to these shots and change my mind I don't think they are keepers any more. Are they really bad? Did they really lose value? I did sell them, dose that mean I can't sell them now?

 

<p>

 

I think we are too hard on ourselfs as time goes on, we get more critical of ourselfs for things that don't change. If however I am trying a new process, that is differnat, and until I get a handle of the process, the first sets will be bad after time. If we are trying to create a certain feeling, then this too will burn negs, because we have not achived that feeling. But I am suggesting that even if we did not capture that certain feeling, dosen't mean the the shots are not keepers.

 

<p>

 

I did not read the book you offered, but most photographers publish stuff they say is not quite right, but they still published it. Why, because on its own, not tied to the feeling or proces they where trying for, its a good shot. It has a differnat feelings, differant mood, not what they intended, but a keeper in its own right. This is where I was going. Sometimes my perspective changes over time and I judge based on that perspective. It may not mean the shot is bad, just my perspective has changed.

 

<p>

 

If I said these 12 are keepers, then we are no longer talking about bone head stuff, or techi-no-no'ss. What we are talking about is perpective. I show the whole role, with the tecki-no-no's to these two trusted folks so when they pick the junk, I can explain why it's junk. Next time they don't pick junk. I build up a small tech background without bulding a photographer. That way I get differnt perspectives. I always have the final say, but they help me keep my mind open to something I may have missed, because I was trying for something else.

 

<p>

 

Just a thought.

I think I have shot more half a million pictures (per frame)in my career as

a photographer.I probably have less than 20 images which I personally

feel is good. I have been a pro for 17 years, firstly as a photojournalist,

then a full-time nature photographer.

 

<p>

 

Having said that, I must add that a 'good' picture is very subjective. Sometimes

I am inclined to believe that what is good to one's eyes may not be to another.That's

why I find 'judging' a photograph in a competition is something I

find hardest to do.

As to keepers per roll: get a View Camera and learn to shoot one image at a time. It will sharpen your vision, force you to concentrate and improve your technique. Other than subject movement, small variations in exposure for creative reasons and 'shooting just because you are there & don't want to "waste" the time', you ought to have a good number of successful shots per roll. The 'similars' and extra frames really ought to be good. Not 1 good & 35 others-if your vision and technique are in sync.

It isn't a crime to refrain from shooting. Get a good tripod and use it-to help force you to see what is within the frame. In my nature photo workshops, I set up a duck, mouse, great blue heron, rattlesnake and damselfly. Not live, but stuffed so that the participants can actually 'see' what the camera will see. Most tend to get so excited by the subject that they have the mental image that does not match what is in the viewfinder. Then I set up the lenses. 600, 400, 300, 200, 105, 50, 24, 18. First, so the subject is exactly the same size in the viewfinder. Everyone looks an sees the distance from subject to camera with the various lenses. Then they take meter readings and see the actual problems with subject movement with the lenses. Then, all are viewed from the same location to get a feel of when the bigger lenses are needed and field of view as it related to their lenses.

As far as sharpness, use a tripod &/or support to help. Use optimum apertures(if you aren't sure with your lenses, test them). Use the films that will give you the sharpness & color you like. Fast=lower overall quality results UNLESS they convey the vision you have.

These are your images, not someone elses and should convey your vision. If you force it, results suffer. And sometimes you are in a great area, wonderful subject matter, and it just doesn't 'click'. So don't shoot, or figure at best it is nice but isn't your day for some reason.

ON the large format-it will help concentrate your vision-whether you get into swings, tilts & movements or not. Having ONE SHOT with its set up time, upside down & backward image on the ground glass, and the delibrate work method will push you to see more carefully and should help in your future work. But, if you aren't inclined to do that-no harm done. Your personality, etc., may make it an exercise in frustration. Dave Muench uses the view camera as well as 35mm. With both an incomperable vision is rendered on film. It takes practice, a commitment to quality, a daring to experiment and take some chances, a willingness to critically examine your own work to learn from it and a really big trash can to throw out what just doesn't cut it.

Good luck

I probably average a couple really good shots per roll, and that average stays fairly consistent over the years as my increase with my ability. It's not consistent roll to roll. However, I'm capable of drastically increasing that ratio if I were to simply choose to do so - what I mean is I take a lot of shots that I know won't be 'great' when I take them. But I take them because I think they might be 'just good' (for an album) or for the practice. When I 'know' that I'm shooting a potentially great shot, then my average is more like 1 in 4 (the other 3 in 4 times it will turn out good, but not as expected because of something I overlooked - & that's what I try to learn from). When I try to make the best image possible from something that I don't believe will be a great shot, it very rarely is great - sometimes better than expected, but never as good as the ones I know will be good.

I believe that we ourselves may not be the best judge of the quality of our work, other than perhaps the technical standards we try to set. A shot may be technically perfect, yey have no 'soul'. And conversely, the single best photo I have in my portfolio is, to my way of thinking, technically flawed. And yet those who have seen it invariably want a framed print.

 

<p>

 

I shoot many rolls in which there are no keepers, in my eye. And yet others, including my wife, who have seen my work for many years, insist that I throw away good photos. So that may reinforce the old cliche that 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

 

<p>

 

But that really doesn't answer the question adequately. As we grow in the craft, unless we are cursed with an inflated ego, we tend to be harshly critical of our own work. Now if we are in the business of selling photos, we need to remember that the client is the person to please, and we may not be seeing with his eyes when we judge quality. what we may consider a cull, the client may want for a full-page spread.

 

<p>

 

Since I am strictly amateur, I shoot only for myself, thus tend to be the only judge of what's good or bad in my work. And if we set unreachable goals, then we may have no keepers at all!

As far as keepers go, it depends on who's doing the keeping. Twenty years ago, I worked for Copely news service, and as long as the shots were in by 8pm, they were keepers.

 

<p>

 

When I got into the stock business, the agency wanted to see all of my shots and they picked the ones they thought would sell---almost always these were not the ones I would have picked.

 

<p>

 

Now that I have a real job(not photography related) that pays real money, I can afford to pick and choose what turn's me on. Maybe 3 or 4 per roll and maybe 1 or 2 per 10 rolls that I enlarge and hang up. And while I'm sometimes elated at these shots, my wife and my friends still prefer pics of their kids with food smashed on their faces.

I've been involved in photograph for 23 years. I've have around

350 - 400,000 exposures, and have been very fortunate to have

several pictures published. But to reply, I'm lucky if I get 12-15 really

good images per year (out of 400 + rolls). Why? I'm my own worst

critic. The more demanding you are of yourself, the higher your

standards become. Usually, I know what the vision is that I see

mentally, but cannot always translate it to film.

There were plenty of good and sound responses before me, but I still would like to add my two cents. I haven't been shooting long, two years max. But my definition of a "keeper" has sure changed since my "early" days! The secret I found is to take pictures, look at them, and then look at works of the pros. Can you see the difference? If your image looks inadequate in some way, try to figure where is its fault, then shoot some more. Eventually you will reach the level where your images should be as good or even better then the rest. That, of course, will take ~20 years and ~500,000 frames of film. Visualise, compose, shoot, evaluate, re-compose, shoot, evaluate, etc...