what's your % of keepers?

Ole · Mar 2, 2007

Once upon a time, when I did test shoots for a model agency, I would judge the chances of a prospective model by the contact sheet.

The only person I ever got more than 50% keepers from went on to be a very successful full-time model. Average was around 30%, and some otherwise beautiful young people just didn't work on film at all - say 10%. That's far too low for a professional shoot.

eddym · Mar 2, 2007

Derek Lofgreen said:
I guess what I am thinking is that one photographers keep rate may be very high/low just because of what and how they shoot. Not what there ability is, although that is part of it too.
D.

Exactly. When I shoot a Ballet performance, I may shoot 10-15 rolls of film (36 frames). That's 400-500 shots. Of those, some will be out of focus, some will be just before or just after the dancer is in the perfect position, and some will just not be very interesting. The company may only ask for prints of 10 negatives. Or they may want more, depending on the performance, the dancers, and a whole lot of other variables.
That's why I never think in terms of "keepers."

S_Patton · Mar 3, 2007

Generally, IF I can get one shot that I absolutley truely love per month, then I'm ususally happy; whether I shoot 4x5, 8x10, or 35mm. Of course I'm rather slow at setting up my shots, going so far as to doing a few quick sketches to see if I like the composition or can work out one that works for me. I'll probably be even slower (more sketches) once I get my 16x20 built.

Thanasis · Mar 3, 2007

I also keep all all my transparencies. But I reckon that I get really excited about 2 or three frames per roll. The rest of the roll is good to learn from.

removed account4 · Mar 3, 2007

i keep everything, i figure if i don't like them now,
maybe when i am older and somewhat wiser i may like them.

Mahler_one · Mar 3, 2007

Obviously the percentage of keepers depends entirely upon so many factors that one has trouble generalizing about how many negatives in a given set wind up being printed past the contact sheet. Looking back over the past few weeks I would say about 1-2 out of 36 exposures seem to be worth the effort and time of attempting to make a satisfactory print. Certainly the percentage of "satisfactory" negatives is greater with MF, but I think that 3-4out of 36 exposures ( trying to keep the 36 exposure guidline to make comparisons easier ) would appear to be my average. I admit to admiring those who find that 25% of their exposures are worthy of the effort that is needed to make larger prints. Hats off to those who reach such a lofty degree of expertise!

Edwin

wclavey · Mar 5, 2007

I like Ole's reasoning... and for me 2006 was a good year, as well. I keep all my negatives, but I use a hybrid workflow, because I no longer have access to a darkroom for printing, and probably never will again.

But "keepers" really is tough to judge. I shot 2-3 rolls of film/week (MF and/or 35mm) last year, so about 120 rolls that were not tests of some sort ... that had real content (I am strictly amateur). From them, I scanned 183 negatives. Of those 183, I adjusted and "printed" (paid for a medium quality electronic print of my scanned image) 31 images on 8x10 paper, and from those 31 I have identified 4-5 that I am truly satisfied with and will get good prints made.

So 4 "keepers" out of about 1400 exposures. Sounds like 0% to me. The funny thing is, I don't know what to do with the 4 - - I already have 2 of my own pictures hanging on our walls and I can't see more... I have been thinking about rotating them. But for now, they are just going to be matted and stored.

eddym · Mar 5, 2007

wclavey said:
So 4 "keepers" out of about 1400 exposures. Sounds like 0% to me. The funny thing is, I don't know what to do with the 4 - - I already have 2 of my own pictures hanging on our walls and I can't see more... I have been thinking about rotating them. But for now, they are just going to be matted and stored.

Sounds like a good year to me.

copake_ham · Mar 5, 2007

wclavey said:
I like Ole's reasoning... and for me 2006 was a good year, as well. I keep all my negatives, but I use a hybrid workflow, because I no longer have access to a darkroom for printing, and probably never will again.

But "keepers" really is tough to judge. I shot 2-3 rolls of film/week (MF and/or 35mm) last year, so about 120 rolls that were not tests of some sort ... that had real content (I am strictly amateur). From them, I scanned 183 negatives. Of those 183, I adjusted and "printed" (paid for a medium quality electronic print of my scanned image) 31 images on 8x10 paper, and from those 31 I have identified 4-5 that I am truly satisfied with and will get good prints made.

So 4 "keepers" out of about 1400 exposures. Sounds like 0% to me. The funny thing is, I don't know what to do with the 4 - - I already have 2 of my own pictures hanging on our walls and I can't see more... I have been thinking about rotating them. But for now, they are just going to be matted and stored.

I wonder if, in a way, if you are to some extent, your own severest critic?

I'm thinking of your post in the context of the other current thread regarding "who shows their photos to others". Perhaps your real "keeper" rate is higher than you think?

In a way, this and the other thread are quite complementary. Many posters on that one seem to suggest that "sharing your photos" with others is the way to "grow" photographically since it provides feedback.

Most posting here are speaking of what they self-select to consider "keepers".

Very interesting reading both threads. Provides a lot of grist for the old thought mill.

bruce terry · Mar 5, 2007

copake_ham said:
I wonder if, in a way, if you are to some extent, your own severest critic?.

Very good point. You should kick yourself in the ass alot, long as you don't lose the fun-of-it, drive yourself into a rut and come to a stop. (Could I be referring to myself?)

At the moment I'm NOT in a rut, accepting my criticism quite well and soon as the weather turns moody make a few 8x10s and 24x36s ... have some fun!

Bruce

RDKirk · Apr 29, 2007

I usually shoot only one subject per roll (any subject worth shooting is worth at least one roll, in my book).

I will select the single best image. So...one keeper per subject.

However, it's possible that over time I'll change my mind about which one was the keeper.

roteague · Apr 29, 2007

It depends upon what you mean by "keepers". If you mean proper exposure, then it is around 95%. If you mean the number of images that move me, my average is more like 2% or so. My last trip to Australia, I shot about 200 sheets of 4x5, of which I like about 10 or so.

mcgrattan · Apr 30, 2007

roteague sounds a bit like me.

Most of the time my photos, except when shot in extreme conditions like handheld in very very low light, I can expect to get the vast majority of them properly exposed, in focus, reasonably framed, etc.

The percentage I like, or think are worth keeping, a tiny fraction of that. I sometimes think it gets worse. Looking back, I think a higher percentage of my shots, when I was less technically able, were better photographs.

rmolson · Apr 30, 2007

keepers

AnselAdams once responded to someone complaining they only produce 12 pictures that year that were really good. "12 really good pictures a year is good production". It 's not volume that counts.I wish I could say I made 12 really good pictures last year, some years the count is zip!

Daniel_OB · Apr 30, 2007

“Keeper” is terminology in uga-buga-photography of drooling teenager. If I can translate it to photography it relates to negatives that can be used so you "keep" it.

If you have any negative that you cannot use it why you made it. It shows you at first shoot than think what to do with it or how to expose it. Good for Ilford. I suggest to get some super-motor buster with some extra shoots for spare that will get cranked and tranked when smells rushing girl around the corner.

www.Leica-R.com

Kino · Apr 30, 2007

I haven't shot an image yet I would consider a "keeper" in a fine art sense...

Maris · Apr 30, 2007

When I took up photography a few decades ago I decided that a keeper rate of as near to 100% as possible would be my aim. I tend to be a methodical (plodding?) perfectionist with a predeliction for static subject matter. I would also try to pour as much heart, mind, and soul into each exposure as I could muster. After that much of an emotional investment it is just too painful to discard pictures to the cutting room floor.

In practice the keeper rate is about 90% for stable subject matter and about 10% for totally out of control stuff like other people. Hey, it's not my fault, I blame them!

A side effect of going for a high keeper rate was the change from 35mm photography to large format. To put in so much effort only to get 1.5 square inches of negative seemed a bad bargain when I could get a 80 square inch negative. The big negative did not need to be tested with a $1.50 sheet of photographic paper just to see if it was technically ok.

And I have to admit that what are keepers for me may not be keepers for anyone else.

roteague · May 1, 2007

Maris said:
A side effect of going for a high keeper rate was the change from 35mm photography to large format.

For me it is just the opposite. I seem to be more critical of my LF work than of my 35m work.

Thanasis · May 1, 2007

I shoot 35mm only with the odd foray into MF. I've never played around with LF but from what I read here, I'm shooting with the slowness of LF. I tend to be very methodical, slow, metering this, metering that, waiting for the wind to stop, locking up the mirror etc, etc. I shudder to think how low my keeper rate would be if I were not so slow.

PHOTOTONE · May 1, 2007

In my studio, or on location when I shoot products or industrial photos on 4x5 transparency film I have a "keeper" rate of about 99%. I do my own E-6 processing, so I control the whole flow. I shoot polaroid tests for exposure and composition analysis.

My personal b/w photography in 4x5 is about the same, I only shoot what I want, and I generally expose 2 sheets for each view, and process myself and they are all keepers, although the choice of which of the two negatives to print usually is based on random dust specks..choose negative with fewer specks.

However, all this is photography of static scenes...no candids. If I were to shoot candids of people then my rejection rate would be higher.

But, with my preferred styles of photography, I generally do not have rejects on the basis of exposure or processing.

Snapshot · May 2, 2007

I must admit my standards are probably not as high as most peoples but I find I like 2 to 3 shots on a roll of 36 exposures. For really good shots that I want to mount or at least enlarge beyond 8"x10", I find that 1 frame out of 3 rolls is the usual.

Patrick Latour · May 2, 2007

On 35mm I have around 15% of keepers, when I shoot with my Mamiya 645, it drops to 5%.

stevew4567 · May 2, 2007

Whew! I do feel better reading these posts. I'm happy if I get 2 decent shots on a roll of 645, and have been "lucky" enough to have something to really love about every 5-6 rolls. I'm just getting into LF, and hope to improve my keeper percentage considerably. I now see that it may improve only marginally, so these posts will help keep me based in reality. B&W is hard... I AM suffering for my damned art!

Steve Williams

aldevo · May 2, 2007

I'd say I probably scan about 20-30% of my exposures in 35mm.

Ultimately, I elect to print about 4-5% of my exposures. So that's about 1.5 frames per roll of 36.

I find the weeding out process to be very educational for me. And humbling.

ChrisC · May 7, 2007

Shootig film for 2.5 years now, I've had 1 keeper with 4x5 (out of somewhere just north of 50 sheets) and maybe 5-10% keepers with MF/35mm combined.

I'm too critical of my work sometimes which frustrates me no end, and it's often to the point where it saps alot of my motivation.

what's your % of keepers?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency