quick poll- % of prints:negatives

[RobLewis]

So I shoot only 35mm, and after I make a contact sheet for a roll of 36, I tend to really only find a couple exposures I want to try to make prints of.
And those I'm usually not floored by- I just hate to waste all that time converting my laundry room to my darkroom, only to walk out with a contact sheet.
(But I'm new and learning a lot from the APUG forums and galleries!)

I figure I'm at about 10%, tops.
So what percentage of your exposures turn into prints? Do the fine artists among us have higher percentages? I assume this percentage is relative to what you are doing- portraiture as a business, fine art prints to sell at shows, etc.

Just curious. (Ok, I'm really looking for someone to tell me I'm normal)

 

[Travis Nunn]

I think you'll find that the percentage of keepers for 35mm will be lower than for MF which will be lower than for LF.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I get one print of every photo.

A small percentage make it into an album.

Most make it into the computer file so they show up on the CRT screen.

I only have large prints made so very few make it that far.

The real question is what percentage of the photographs are good or really good. :confused: Interested readers want to know. ... 95% - 98% are good, 50% are really good, 10% are great. My problem is display space. Most of the people that see my work would like copies of everything but they don't have that kind of money.

The last three years I have shot fifty rolls of 36 exposure film per year. I just went back to 120 film so I do not know what I will shoot this year between the two formats. :rolleyes: The C330 was not build for ease of use.

Steve

 

[John Bragg]

Hi, Rob.

I think I am doing really well if I get a dozen prints out of a 36 film. In reality its nearer six or ten, especially with portraits where facial expression is crucial to the desired result. There is nothing wrong with being selective of your work and printing only the best as you see it. I guess you are as normal as many photographers.

Regards, John.

 

[naaldvoerder]

I think I'm nearer to 1-3 fiberprints out of 36!?

Jaap Jan

 

[reellis67]

I think you'll find that the percentage of keepers for 35mm will be lower than for MF which will be lower than for LF.

I would second this statement. I almost never shoot 35mm these days but I used to get two or three good shots with that size, with 120 film I get anywhere from 5 to 8 really good images on the average roll, and with large format I almost always like what I get.

With the smaller format I either rushed about too much or was not able to clearly see like I can on the 'movie screens' of my favorite cameras. In theory it should not matter if you have good technique and discipline, but I find that with 35mm I am less likely to take the proper amount of time to get a qualilty shot, I use the tripod less, and I can't gain very good control over the developing due to the large number of lighting conditions on one roll. With 120 I tend to take more time (no motor winder, no metering), can see better in the waist lever finder with magnification, use the tripod all the time, and one roll is about the right number of shots for me for most shooting situations. With large format, well, the control is superb, one shot per sheet, sturdy tripods, etc...

- Randy

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I think I'm nearer to 1-3 fiberprints out of 36!?

Jaap Jan

1 to 3 out of a 135/36 film? It is a relief not te be the onley one!

Philippe

 

[Bill Mitchell]

One keeper per roll would be an extraordinary high number for me. Ansel Adams said that a dozen good pictures in a year is a very good year. W. Eugene Smith said that the most important darkroom accessory is the trash basket.

 

[eric]

For 35mm, maybe 1 or 2 prints from 3 or 4 contacts. A few will get scanned to web for family to see.
With 120, maybe 1 per contact.

 

[jstraw]

I am *hoping* to someday...lord willing...to get to a keeper per week, and something good enough for my portfolio, on average, once a month. I consider those numbers pie in the sky...but something to aspire toward.

 

[Nick Zentena]

You're more likely in my mind to just finish a roll with 35mm. Or to take several very similar shots. Or maybe it's just me -)

 

[MikeM1977]

Yes, for 35mm I make maybe 4-5 prints per 36 exposures. Maybe 1 exposure deserves a fiber print.

For MF, the percentage goes up to about 2-3 per 12 exposures.

For 4x5, the percentage goes up to about 50% of exposures.

 

[PatTrent]

I think you'll find that the percentage of keepers for 35mm will be lower than for MF which will be lower than for LF.

I fully agree, having shot all three formats.

For me, with 35mm, I used to average about 6 enlargements per roll of 36 when I got my first serious camera, then over the years it dwindled down to the present time where it's about 1.5 enlargements per roll. Although my technical shooting ability improved greatly over the years, I also became much more discriminating when judging a picture worthy of making an enlargement.

On a side note: I'm glad to hear about making proof sheets. I find them necessary and well worth the time to make them.

Pat

 

[Lee Shively]

This is a hard one to answer.

If I'm shooting with a purpose in mind, I might shoot one, two--or more--rolls of 35mm or 120 film on one subject and only print one of the negatives.

If I'm just doodling around, I might have 5-6 subjects on a roll and not print anything. I sometimes come back to the negatives a year or five later and find something I like that I initially didn't consider worthwhile.

Because of this, I have a very low percentage of prints made per negatives exposed.

 

[laverdure]

This is very common. What I do:

Don't take pictures of very many things, but when you find something worth taking pictures of, take many.

When you find good light, take more.

Some people will argue with that, but it's an approach that has brought me up to about 20% in 135. Worth printing, that is.

 

[haris]

As people have statistic for everything, I read somewhere that 10% of photographs worth of printing from shooted frames is statistically average.

 

[Rolleijoe]

When shooting 35mm, I went with 24exp rolls, after shooting MF & LF most of the time. I just couldn't shoot 36exp like I used to. But MF & LF taught me to slow down, and think about the shot before hitting the shutter.

So depending on the project I'd get at least 10 shots maybe 12 from a 24exp roll. With 120, sometimes 5 sometimes 8. It just depends. Even after lining up the shot on the WLF, when I look at it critically, I might change my mind, and hold off after all.....not wanting to waste a frame of 6x6.

I'll be in Europe for 2 months later this year, shooting a few hundred rolls of 120. I'd expect most of the shots to be keepers, knowing I'll be taking my time, cause there's no telling when I'll be able to head back over to reshoot.

 

[David Henderson]

This is a measure of an individuals photographic processes not the quality of work. That process can vary over time -from needing to make one shot count to making a couple of dozen exposures of one subject and printing only the best one. Equally there are people who would print a lot more if they ever got round to it, or who like me use commercial printers and so are constantly conscious of a cost vs worth trade off.

So if its of much use, I have maybe 80-100 b&w photographs printed a year from maybe 1500 exposures pa.

 

[Dave Miller]

I would be happy to get as many as Ansel said he did.

 

[jmal]

I tend to get about 6 shots that I think are worth printing. Of those, two or three keep me satisfied for a week or two and then they start to reveal their weaknesses. I'm relatively new to photography, but in the time that I have been shooting I have made two photographs that I think are lifetime keepers. This is a high standard. You have to be able/willing to edit yourself honestly. I see people post photos to various forums by the handful and wonder what the hell they're thinking. There isn't a stringent editing process happening there. Anyone who thinks half a roll, or a whole roll, are keepers is deluded. Not one photographer in the history of the craft has that kind of success.

Jmal

 

[jstraw]

The longer you stick with it...the fewer prints you make that will satisfy you.

 

[Dave Miller]

The longer you stick with it...the fewer prints you make that will satisfy you.

You’re not wrong; but what a depressing thought.

 

[RobLewis]

The longer you stick with it...the fewer prints you make that will satisfy you.

Well, that explains the struggling paper sales...

 

[jstraw]

Well, that explains the struggling paper sales...

I didn't say you'd print less!

 

[Ole]

I used to get 1 or 2 from a 36 frame 35mm roll. So I went to MF, and got 6 or 7 from a 15 shot roll. Then to LF, and it's still about 40-50%.

The odd thing is that when I shoot 35mm now, I get far more "keepers" than I used to. The last four 35mm rolls gave me something like 70 "keepers", with 8 being so good I regretted not using a bigger camera...