Print to exposure ratio.

[Pieter12]

I was thinking about the ratio of how many prints I end up making compared to the number of frames on a roll of film I have shot. It seems to be about 1:6 for me, that is 1 print for every 6 frames shot. That's analog--for digital it is probably 1:20, just because.

 

[jim10219]

That's a lot better than me. I'm probably at around 1:50-100 for analog, and 1:500-1000 for digital.

I tend to not print much, unless I have a purpose for printing. I don't much care for the keeping a closet full of prints that I never revisit.

 

[Chan Tran]

For film it was about 1:5 like you. For digital it's about 1:5000. The reason is really I don't have a printer for digital. I don't print often enough buying an inkjet printer would simply cause its head to be clogged and dies.

 

[Vaughn]

More than I have time to print...

I was an artist-in-residence ion Zion National Park, April 2018 -- nothing to do but photograph for a month outside my backdoor. I exposed roughly thirty 5x7 sheets, forty-five 8x10 sheets, and twenty 11x14 sheets (~95 total sheets). I had a much lower success rate with the 11x14 (lack of experience and some bad film). I have printed perhaps 12 negs so far, of which the Park has one for their collection (an 8x10 pt/pd print)...so over-all with all formats presently 12:95 (1:8), with a possibility of bumping that up more. (PS - not including the Rolleiflex B&W work).

I spent a month in southern Chile last Dec/Jan and exposed 32 sheets of B&W 5x7 film. Many were doubles (changed filter and/or exposure). I printed about 6 of them, though one needs more work. This is 20 percent more than I anticipated before the trip (I'd be happy with five). I might be able to print others if time and desire permits, but now it is about 1:5.

Several decades ago I spent about 6 months on a bicycle in NZ with a 4x5 -- exposed 70 sheets, made a 20-print portfolio...16x20 prints. I also had some nice images that were unprintable due to negative damage, so it goes. I would whittle that down now to 12 prints as I am getting fussier in my old age. I suppose if I scanned those negs, fixed the nice ones with the high humidity static discharge marks in PhotoShop I could bump the portfolio back up to 20 again, but they'd be inkjet prints and I have better things to do. But for now, 20:70, or 1:3.5 with a 20 print portfolio, or 1:6 with a more solid 12 print portfolio.

But I find that I am open to experimenting -- 'wasting' a sheet or two to try a different approach to composing the light...that sort of thing. And since I contact print in Alt processes, as I change the process, the negs often need to change too, so that hits my success rate. Using all sorts of films, old and new, makes like interesting, too. All worth it.

 

[wyofilm]

Interesting question. Recently, I have printed a higher percentage - maybe 1/3. But these are usually one-off, straight prints. From this reduced set I will work more diligently on better prints at a rate of 1:10-15.

 

[Maris]

My long term average is about two and a half sheets of photographic paper per negative. The usual sequence is a test strip, then a pilot "print", then the first refinement with best-guess burning, dodging, contrast decisions. If this result does the subject (and negative) justice then I move onto the next picture. If not, then redo it and try harder.
In the past when making photographs for gallery sales I'd often make two more very close versions, a "soft"and a "hard", to offer choice to match a potential buyers display lighting.
It's the luxury of doing slow paced large format work that makes this approach feasible, easy, and economical: no (or nearly none) "empty" negatives.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Boy, you guys get a lot more "keepers" than I seem to. Yes, sometimes I'll have three or four negatives in a row that make the cut, but usually the ratio is much less, say one negative printed from 5-10 proofed. These then get culled at yet another stage, so the ratio is even greater... That said, I think I'm better now than 25 years ago. My eye is sharper and I don't waste so much film since I've learned a lot about when not to bother with a set-up.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Sirius Glass]

Black & white about 20% to 25%; color 100% because I almost always send them out for processing mainly because I I do not have time or patience to print every one even as a proof.

 

[Ariston]

Oops - I would like to apologize for asking this same question on another thread! I did not see this one, so I wasted bandwidth.

 

[removed account4]

More than I have time to print...

what vaughn said

 

[Vaughn]

what vaughn said

And alas, that is when the problem of too many good, patiently waiting negatives can interfere with the desire to experiment when it comes time to print...especially if such time is limited.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

IMHO. Quota don't work for me. Technical part of making a photo aside, I shoot as a hobbyist with no intentions of making a printable shot. I would be thrown off by trying to make a quota. Some of my best shots are me not caring if the shot work or not.

 

[wyofilm]

IMHO. Quota don't work for me. Technical part of making a photo aside, I shoot as a hobbyist with no intentions of making a printable shot. I would be thrown off by trying to make a quota. Some of my best shots are me not caring if the shot work or not.

I guess I have percentage, but not a quota. I print a large % of negs (not a large as others) because I see the image better from a quick print than I do from a negative or even from a contact print. From the initial prints I decide if it is an image worth working on. For me it is a work flow rather than an imposed standard.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I guess I have percentage, but not a quota. I print a large % of negs (not a large as others) because I see the image better from a quick print than I do from a negative or even from a contact print. From the initial prints I decide if it is an image worth working on. For me it is a work flow rather than an imposed standard.

That's great. But some of my decently exposed negative and well focused negatives isn't even worth printing.

 

[Vaughn]

My long term average is about two and a half sheets of photographic paper per negative. The usual sequence is a test strip, then a pilot "print", then the first refinement with best-guess burning, dodging, contrast decisions....In the past when making photographs for gallery sales I'd often make two more very close versions, a "soft"and a "hard", to offer choice to match a potential buyers display lighting...

When I was silver gelatin printing (thru the 1980s), I'd often take a pack of ten sheets of 16x20 paper to make three very close final prints, following your general pattern. This might be anywhere from a 6 to 12 hour stretch in the darkroom. But then years later looking at the series of prints leading up to the final three, I find it most difficult to see the changes I was so keenly aware of decades ago while in the darkroom.

Printing for gallery lighting is a hard habit to break. It starts with shining your desk lamp on one of your photographs, then to Home Depot track lighting, and you're hooked...it never stops...

It is just that for many images, the directed light traveling through the emulsion, reflecting strongly off the base of the photograph and back to the viewer is tough to match when printing for viewing with diffused light (such as prints with glossy surfaces, and where contrast and/or spectral highlights are critical to help carry the image). Well done, Maris.

I find it less of an issue for platinum prints, but still needs to be paid attention to.