% 'Keeper's?

RobG wrote:
"Jeremy" wrote
I started shooting photos of mundane scenes--places where I lived
and
were familiar with--about 35 years ago. I now have a collection of
images of places that either do not exist anymore or places that
have
undergone dramatic change. I had no idea when I started taking
those
photographs that I would come to cherish them for their historic
and
sentimental value. I wish that I had taken many more such images.
Long after I'm gone the photos will take on historical importance.





Must be a sign of old age - I've had a bit of a bug in my head to do
the same here. Now, I'll have to.

RobG
"Just take the damn photo"

Very fulfilling -- for someone -- even if you don't get to share it.
Acts that sustain unknown generations are a foundation that sustains
civilization (if any).

Have a kind thought for all those photographers / snapshooters who
left their works so eBay seller Gargantua can sell them and I can see
them. If you have one left (kind thought, I mean) send it to Dean
Lautermilch; I think he earns it daily.

--
Frank ess

Forecasting is difficult.
Particularly about the Future.
—Deepak Gupta

"Frank ess" wrote If you have one left (kind thought,
I mean) send it to Dean
Lautermilch; I think he earns it daily.


Who is Dean Lautermilch, and why should I send him my kind thoughts? But
you're right about the future generation stuff.

RobG
"Just take the damn photo"

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:19:36 GMT, Mardon wrote:

If a slightly above average semi-pro photographer with good equipment were
to spend a day doing a general shoot of their community (no special theme
in mind), how many photos would they generally take and what percentage of
those would be keepers? I feel like I find too many things at the PP stage
that I should have noticed at the shutter-release stage. This causes me to
have a very low % of shots that I would consider worthy of printing or
showing to anyone else. I'm looking for some comparison numbers that maybe
I can use as a target to improve my own on-site composition ability. TIA
It depends so much on the subject matter, your overall shooting
approach, and what you mean by "keepers."

Compared to a lot of photographers, I take relatively few shots. When
I started taking pictures, the good ones were a bit surprising. After
taking pictures for many years, I pretty well know which shots will be
good when I take them. The connection between what I see in my mind
and what the camera captures is pretty clear -- mostly as a result of
taking a lot of shots and analyzing the results.

To reiterate what Bill Funk said, it is invaluable to analyze the
non-keepers to see what you did wrong. Each bad photograph contains
lessons that you can learn.

If you are taking landscape photographs, you can often pick the time
of day and shooting angle to make it nearly a sure thing. On the other
hand, if you are shooting action pictures, you don't have that luxury.
You just have to watch things unfolding and shoot at just the right
moment.

I shoot mostly landscapes and candid shots of people. For landscapes,
I often arrange shots carefully and deliberately, and I use a tripod
when it is feasible. "Candids" are much more difficult. You have to be
unobtrusive, and the difference between a poor shot and a great one is
often a fraction of a second of timing as well as all the technical
aspects.

To answer your question, though, for a carefully controlled landscape
shoot, I may frame and display as many as one in five shots. For more
typical shoot, I may take 50-100 shots to get one I think is worth
displaying.

Leonard

I think as time goes by, one tends to be a little more discriminating
in one's photo quality. I find myself looking through the viewfinder
and saying to myself, "there's nothing special about this shot. Move
on.", and I don't take the picture. I shoot digital, there's no cost
involved other than my time, but why shoot it if you're just going to
discard the shot on the pixelboard?

There are situations where I will shoot a lot of frames, in the hope of
getting a good one or two: action shots, portraits, or even candids of
the grandkids whose expressions change from moment to moment.

Anything static, though, I frame it, shoot it, and perhaps shoot a
spare frame or two with a different exposure or angle. Bracketing
exposures pretty well guarantees that you're going to throw out 2 out
of 3 at a minimum. Shooting RAW, I bracket less these days.

I like to "keep" about 100 to 200 frames/month. I'll post 20 or 30 on
my website. If I'm REALLY REALLY lucky, I'll find a couple that I
really like. But as I said, I think my tastes are becoming more
discriminating and the general quality of my shots is improving.

Reply via the web portal at www.faczen.com or
email usenet at firstaidco dot ca

Guns/Zen4 wrote:

I think as time goes by, one tends to be a little more discriminating
in one's photo quality. I find myself looking through the viewfinder
and saying to myself, "there's nothing special about this shot. Move
on.", and I don't take the picture. I shoot digital, there's no cost
involved other than my time, but why shoot it if you're just going to
discard the shot on the pixelboard?

Exactly. You can learn to almost just look at the scene without even getting
the camera out and tell if it will work or not. I guess I learned this from
shooting 4X5, it's such a hassle to set up the camera, I'd walk around and
look carefully before setting up the tripod.


There are situations where I will shoot a lot of frames, in the hope of
getting a good one or two: action shots, portraits, or even candids of
the grandkids whose expressions change from moment to moment.

That's where you need to burn a bunch of shots. It's "The moment" that make
it.



--

Stacey

Ron Hunter wrote:
Mardon wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:

The percentage of keepers means nothing.
*snip*

Based on your comments and Bill's, maybe I'll just caulk this off as a
'silly' statistic then. I've had some of my photos selected as POTD on
Internet sites and people often complement me about my work. The thing is,
I generally refuse to show anyone my 'bad' stuff. I was starting to get a
little paranoid about how many of my images I judge as unworthy to make it
beyond the Raw converter in Post. Maybe that's a good thing?

Don't let it inhibit your taking of pictures.

There's a famous book called "Art and Fear". It's highly recommened
to everyone involved in artistic endeavours.

'The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing
the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio,
he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced,
all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was
simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom
scales and weigh the work of the "quantity" group: fifty pound of pots
rated an "A", forty pounds a "B", and so on. Those being graded on
"quality", however, needed to produce only one pot--albeit a perfect
one--to get an "A". Well, came grading time and a curious fact
emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group
being graded for quantity. It seems that while the "quantity" group
was busily churning out piles of work--and learning from their
mistakes--the "quality' group had sat theorizing about perfection, and
in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose
theories and a pile of dead clay.'

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...er/ai_97116332

Andrew.

Daniel Silevitch wrote:


The fourth image in the sequence, named Image3.html (why do you do this
to me, iPhoto? Why?),

No idea but have you seen Galerie? Nice bit of software with an
excellent price Not sure if it will cure the problem but worth a shot
[1]. Don't use it with iPhoto as I've never got on with it, now
trialling iView Media (pro) which I do like. Not so good a price point
to iPhoto though.

[1] It just does web galeries, various templates, options, use with
iPhoto, finder etc etc.
--
Jon B
real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:19:01 +0000, Jon B wrote:
Daniel Silevitch wrote:


The fourth image in the sequence, named Image3.html (why do you do this
to me, iPhoto? Why?),

No idea but have you seen Galerie? Nice bit of software with an
excellent price Not sure if it will cure the problem but worth a shot
[1]. Don't use it with iPhoto as I've never got on with it, now
trialling iView Media (pro) which I do like. Not so good a price point
to iPhoto though.

[1] It just does web galeries, various templates, options, use with
iPhoto, finder etc etc.

Interesting. Well worth a look, especially since I just this morning got
back from 2 weeks in Hawaii, and am not looking forward to sorting
through the several hundred frames I took. Not to mention the dozen or
so stitching jobs.

I'll give it a try, though, once the jetlag wears off (redeye Honolulu
- Chicago, got in at 5:00 this morning Chicago time. Gah.)

-dms