number of pictures taken vs number used

[danzel_c]

<p>on average my ratio of number of pictures taken vs used is 3:1. in other words, i only end up using about 1/3 of the pictures taken to provide the level of coverage and tell the story per my vision from the wedding day. for instance, i may take 900 pictures but only delivery 300 for 4 hours of coverage, and take 1800 but only deliver 600 for 8 hours of coverage. i like where i'm at as far as deliverables and am trying to get my ratio down to about 2:1. most of the shots i end up not using occur on the dance floor and during the getting ready phases it seems. maybe this is when i'm the most trigger happy! just curious where others are with their ratios and if this is something others are trying to improve on as well?</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Nope, although I shoot sparingly to some extent (mostly because I learned and worked in film for years where you shot more selectively). I really don't care what the hit ratio is and think it's a wasted exercise. What matters is capturing a complete story of the day, composing and exposing shots well and creatively. Work on your technique and the hit ratio will improve as a side benefit.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>my ratio of number of pictures taken vs used is 3:1. in other words, i only end up using about 1/3 of the picturesuld<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be 1/4</p>

[green_photog]

<p>1/3 is pretty good and mine is more like 1/4. Candid shots I take less. But if it is a 20 people group portrait, I could easily take 5-6 shots to make sure I can get one with everyone's eyes open.</p>

[danzel_c]

<p>steve, 900 divided by 300 is 3:1 right? 300 is 1/3 of 900. peter, what's your average hit ratio?</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>You stated a ratio of 3:1 That's 3/4 to 1/4</p>

<p>Using 300 out of 900 is a ratio of 2:1</p>

[danzel_c]

<p>basically trying to state that for every 3 pictures taken, there's 1 keeper. a 2:1 ratio would be the number of rejects (600) to keepers (300).</p>

[green_photog]

<p>There's no right or wrong answer in Math, all answers are acceptable and different answer are caused by the difference in your gender, race, sexucal orientation, religious belief and cultureal heritage. At least that's how math is taught to my kids at school these days.</p>

[danzel_c]

<p>steve may be thinking in terms of lighting ratios which can be confusing but i don't want to change the subject here. im assuming that once you get a pretty solid handle on your "style" you don't waste time taking shots you know wont pass the "keepers" test and end up with a lot less pictures to sort through on the post processing end of things. </p>

[frank_mezzanini]

<p>Steve <br>

2:1 is 50% ---- 50% of 900 is 450 not 300. </p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Danzel, No idea. I've never bothered to figure it out. Probably more than half my shots would be perfectly usable but I don't deliver duplicates or images that don't tell some of the day's story. Like Green suggested, if there are group shots etc, I'll take 3-4 of the same setup just so all the eyes are open. Most other shots are taken once, maybe twice if need be.</p>

[john_williams]

<p> A few people getting their percents and ratios mixed up here . . .</p>

[charleswood]

<p>A ratio wouldn't be stated as number taken to number used. A ratio would be stated as number bad to number good, where the number taken is implied as the sum of good and bad. So a ratio for the OP would be 2:1, with two bad to one good, total 3 pictures taken, 1/3 of which are good. Or, 1:2, 1 good to 2 bad, where one in every 3 is a keeper, 1/3. There are twice as many bad ones as there are good ones, half as many good as there are bad. A ratio is between parts, numerators, having the same denominator where a fraction is the relation between a part and the whole.</p>

[danzel_c]

<p>a ratio is just a quotient right, basically one number divided by another. as long as the numerator and denominator are defined the ratio has meaning and we can all be talking about the same thing. so we are all correct as long as we define the two numbers we are dividing. now when we talk "percents" we have to be specific because percents compare parts to a whole. maybe nadine can change the title of the thread :-)</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>900 shots = 600 unused and 300 used.<br>

600:300 = 2:1</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Numerator and denominator define a proportion through division. On the other hand, a ratio expresses proportionality between two numerators, each numerator related to a common denominator, that denominator being the sum of the two numerators. Take 4 quarters. Flip 3 so you have 3 heads, flip the last one to tails. You have 3 heads to one tail, 3:1 is the ratio of heads to tails. As a proportion you have 3/4 heads and 1/4 tails.<br>

So if a third of yours are keepers, that's 1 out of three, 33.33%, 2 out of three trash, so the ratio is 1 keeper, 2 trash, 1:2. 1:3 expressed as a proportion of the total shots is 1/4, etc.</p>

<p>Your ratio of keeprs is pretty darn good.</p>

<p> </p>

[cegeiss]

<p>Steve,<br>

feel free to define the ratio of wasted vs. keepers: then you end up with 2:1. But the original post compared shots taken vs. used and that comes out to 3:1.</p>

[savagesax]

Funny - this is now a math site!

 

I usually only reject between 10 to 20 images. I'm sort of still in the film days when it would cost a $1 per print. I surely don't like to over shoot.

 

However, I often delete a bad image on camera, if something isn't correct such as a blink or glare on glasses.

[shawn_mertz]

<p>50% is 1:1 two equal parts.</p>

<p> </p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I typically keep between 15-30%. I use that number as a metric and I work hard to push the number higher. I actually don't select the keeper so it serves as a more stringent criteria of my performance as a photographer. </p>

[markonestudios]

<p>To the OP: your original keeper ratio is a 2:1 as has been mentioned and explained, but I digress...</p>

<p>Coming from film, I too became accustomed to shooting however few shots it takes to tell the story. I will sometimes take 'safety' shots, e.g during the formals, just in case Uncle X blinked. I also actively cull my images during the day, during lull times. This reduces my final editing time significantly. From 300 images I will typically deliver ~200-250.</p>

[laurel_jensen1]

<p>A couple of years ago I got a second shooter gig with a large studio for a beautiful, expensive country club wedding. I was shooting with the company's "boss" and was a bit nervous to begin with but figured that if I hit my 60% keeper goal I'd be OK. Right before we arrived he told me he expected a 90% keeper rate and I literally bit my lip. He's been in the business for 25 years and film shooting is still his standard although he uses digital. <br>

I shot my 60%, probably even 70% but he was unhappy. After that, he had me running a green screen station.<br>

Over the years I have definitely trimmed my shots and keep reaching for that 90%. Fewer shots, less post-production. Putting the work in during the shoot rather than after definitely has it's advantages. I take better shots to begin with by thinking it through before I hit the shutter release, even on the fly.<br>

I'm happy with 75%.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>It's too bad that this discussion turned into math. Many others who have probably come to this thread have long since disappeared.</p>

<p>Laurel, IMHO that's nuts. You worked for an OCD shooter and you don't need his mental disease. For one thing, it's digital, so who cares if you take a few test shots periodically or fire off 5-6 of the same shot to make sure the eyes are open and get a good expression? For another, you are not limited to the number of rolls of film you carry and the associated cost of processing (although your time in culling and editing has significant value).</p>

<p>I'll give you a perfect example. I had a couple this Saturday sitting on the ground in a lovely flower bed. I instructed them to take a quiet moment as if they were on a date and just discuss how great the day has been, tell each other a few jokes, whatever. I got some distance away to give them space and with the 200mm, shot through the flowers. I wanted a natural, not posed looking set. Some shots have odd expressions and others look pretty good. All are composed fine and exposed fine. One shot in particular stands out and will be in the album. If I was trying to get a 75 to 90% keeper ratio, I would have missed that shot because it was 11th of 16 shots. </p>

<p>Don't obsess over getting each and every shot perfect in camera (in terms of being a "keeper", just shot correctly). It's a laudable goal to shoot the very best you can technically but the huge advantage of digital is you are only limited to the memory cards you have with you. I'm not a proponent of "spray and pray", far,far from it, because those that do are clueless on how to shoot both technically and visually. I also think you need to take advantage of the freedom digital offers the photographer over how selective a film photographer had to be. </p>

<p>It's why I think this whole ratio thing is a waste of time. Just work on getting the composition, framing and exposures right (and I bet you are already there), then use the near unlimited memory you have to let the creativity come forth. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Since you're taking a poll, I'll tell you what I do. My numbers shot vary within a good range, because I don't follow any kind of recipe. I shoot what I feel should be shot. I shoot a lot if I am experimenting, or the action dictates shooting a lot.</p>

<p>So--if a typical 6 hour wedding, I may shoot about 700-1000 images. I deliver most of that with basic processing, which, in most cases, means a totally printable, quality image. I also open eyes in group shots. My cull percentage is about 3 percent--5 percent at the most (I'm staying away from ratios). I do not have repetitive images that only vary by a tiny bit (beyond the two per important pose), and I do not include the 'failed' experimental and/or images where I leaned on the shutter button to catch peak moments. I actually rarely use continuous mode. I find that anticipating peak moments is much more successful, and results in way fewer images--you either got the moment(s) or you didn't.</p>

<p>There are only so may images that can be jammed into an album before it becomes bloated and loses storytelling focus, so images 'used' is confusing to me. Albums with more than about 70-100 images tend to be bloated. I retouch images going into an album further--smooth skin, fix hair, enhance, etc. I will also do any kind of processing treatment my client requests on these images or a select few that the client will use for enlargements, not going into the album.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Using the (virtually) unlimited memory and the inexpensive memory of digital (compared to film) is not the only method of allowing creativity to come forth.</p>

<p>Editorial selection on the run; or waiting for the moment; or ‘One Shot’ Technique (Ref “The Deer Hunter”), are all effective means of allowing the Photographer the pathway to a creative process.<br /> Also, using the (virtual) unlimited memory is not ‘cost less’, apropos time.</p>

<p>The consideration of the ratio or percentage of “keepers” to “culled” should not, of itself, be an indication of performance or a measure of creativity.</p>

<p>This topic has been discussed many times before on this forum and anecdotally those Photographers with a longer history shooting Weddings and Events using Film, even those Photographers who used Motor Drives with Film Cameras, tend on the whole to make editorial selections on the run and tend on the whole to shoot to fewer total shots and tend on the whole to not use continuous mode.</p>

<p>It occurs to me that it is logical to assume that having begun Event Photography counting and being critically aware of the Frames Remaining per Roll – these Photographers had to be editorially selective on the hop. Whereas those who began Event Photography with Digital gear have only that experience upon which to draw and with or without formal training the general trend of conversation seems that it is reinforced that to be safe and to ensure ‘the moment is captured’ one must to shoot in Continuous Mode and cull later.</p>

<p>Also, choosing to WAIT for the moment before releasing the shutter (such as the 11th shot of 16 shots in the flower bed) is not necessarily missing that moment: merely it is a different shooting technique. And it is neither right nor wrong that one Photographer is more comforatble with one method or the other or switches between the two as it suits.</p>

<p>I liken the comparison above, to comparing those who have taken written exams, under the pressure of a time limit and have had to compose and write the essay longhand to those who now can take the same exam under the same pressure of a time limit and can use a word processor to write the essay.<br /> The thinking process and the application of the creative process are different; in the former the writer has to compose and arrange before the execution, in the latter all the thoughts can be put down willy-nilly and arranged later.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>just curious where others are with their ratios and if this is something others are trying to improve on as well?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rather than being fixated on what ratio or what percentage is better or if the ratio has to be improved, I’d suggest it is better to examine exactly what PROCESSES you are using to make the coverage.<br /> And then question whether or not each of those processes exploit the gear you have and best address what it is YOU are about and make each task YOU undertake flow freer and ultimately make for YOUR improvement.</p>

<p>WW</p>