Some thoughts on self-editing and hit rate

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I honestly have no idea how many photos I have taken this year; certainly more than one a day, on average, although I tend to shoot in "spurts" - when I have the time, the oppportunity and the inclination. Let's say it is somewhere just North of 500 individual images. Probably about 75% of those have been on film, the rest digital.

 

I tend to use Flickr as a repository of the shots that I am comfortable for the rest of the World to see. That therefore excludes personal photographs of family and friends and the duplicates, dross and other general rubbish that does not survive a critical review. 175 shots made it online this year - 35%-ish of the assumed 500-odd taken.

 

Of that 175, I have winnowed out 14 that I regard, for one reason or another as my best shots of the year. That's 8% of the 175, and a generous 3% of the assumed 500-odd. You can see them here and form your own opinion.

 

Of that 14, the split between film and digital is approximately 65% to 35% and the split between monochrome and colour is again approximately 80% to 20%.

 

What does all this mean?

 

Damnfino.

 

But I'd be interested in your comments and hearing from anyone else who can share similar stats.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ndjambrose]

Are you familiar with Gianni Berengo Gardin?

 

He's a fantastic Italian photographer who was highly prolific in the 50's through 90's, and one of the early cadre of the Leica Academy. He still works now, although he's in his eighties and long retired from professional photojournalism. One of his best books, and a testament to all his work, is entitled "Gianni Berengo Gardin: Photographs".

 

The reason I mention him is he has a talent that survives any form of review, with excellent work in a range of themes. He was often likened to HCB (some people have said he was better, although not as well known).

 

The book comes with an interview, in which he says he has never made more than one good photograph a year.

 

Of course, the book demonstrates otherwise (there are 250 photographs, not 40) but it shows something of his self-deprecating nature and the very high bar that a talented photographer puts on his own work. When someone strives for the best they can produce, perhaps one good photograph a year is a fair target.

[farnz]

Bill,

 

I take my figurative hat off to you for being able to so readily pick and cull; it's not something I find easy at all. It's not that I can't choose, it's that for me that objectivity takes time.

 

For example, after a day's shooting I'll already have a certain feeling about the merit of some of the shots I've taken and with any luck I'll feel that one or two are 'special'. But I can't look at them straight away because they are still too fresh in my mind, which has this annoying ability to mentally over-hype the special ones. If I look at them on screen the same day they don't compare favourably with the enhanced image that my imagination has created. They may still be very good but I've gone cold on them because of the unfulfilled expectation created by the mental over-hyping. Yeah, nuts, I know.

 

The only remedy is to leave them for some time, normally two or three weeks, until the enhanced mental image has faded and I can look at them with fresh eyes and feel the emotion that I was feeling when I took them. Then, and only then, can I look at them objectively and dispassionately, recognise their true merit, and feel *that* thrill that's associated with any 'special' ones.

 

Incidentally, starting to use film again has helped this because of the delay imposed by developing.

 

Pete.

[pico]

[...] When someone strives for the best they can produce, perhaps one good photograph a year is good target.

 

What a relief. That means I'm only 45 photos short of the goal.

[giordano]

Bill, hearty congratulations on your best of 2010 (a couple wonderful, some very good, and a couple that I'd have regretfully not included).

 

I can't easily work out any annual stats that aren't distorted by pictures taken purely for record purposes or for work, but when things are going well 10-15% of exposures seem good enough for my web site. For example:

 

Australia 2008: 288 DNG files from the M8 and 289 NEFs from the D200 making 577 exposures (plus various blurred pictures 4x4 roof-linings, boots, and other hopeless images that I deleted on sight). Say 590 total. Of these, 69 (12%) are on my website.*

 

Compton Verney: 55 exposures of which 8 (15%) are on the website.

 

Liverpool: I made 24 exposures exploring reflections in a mirrored building. Three (13%) are on the website.

 

And yes, one good photograph per year is a good target. One year maybe I'll hit it.

 

*In the Gibb River Road, Broom bos indicus sale and Fremantle Market galleries, if anyone's interested.

[scsambrook]

I make no pretence to being someone who ever makes 'great pictures', nor do I count how many photographs I take in any particular period. My photographic activity varies with whatever work I'm doing, with the weather and where I am - I don't carry a camera daily, sometimes I may only pick it up once a month, and then only briefly. That has been my life's pattern in photography, I suppose, scores of rolls of Kodachrome a year at one time, scarcely a couple of rolls at another.

 

But irrespective of output, I do edit, far more ruthlessly with digital images than I ever did with film, and discard a considerable part of what I record. Whereas with slides I used to put the less pleasing ones in a box and then forget about them, I now delete their dgital equivalents without a second thought. Perhaps I'm more discerning of my own likes these days, perhaps I no longer feel that each image has cost a finite amount of money and deserves to have some permanence on account of that.

 

Sometimes, though not too often, I do feel that an image is particularly pleasing to me and I get that warm feeling of (self) satisfaction at having done a good job of composing or something akin to capturing 'the decisive moment', but after a few times looking over such pictures the feeling tends to fade and it becomes just another that might have been better had I pressed the button a moment earlier or later, or moved closer to or further from the subject.

 

The pictures I do look at over and again with real pleasure are the mundane records of our daily life, at home or at work; the cat we had twenty years ago, our younger son graduating, colleagues now no longer here, buildings pulled down and cars now long turned to rust. To others they would doubtless (and justifiably) seem unworthy of critcal review, but to me they have a quality that means more than is easily articulated.

 

So there I am, someone who can't even say if he even has a hit rate and regards critcal judgement of photographs by others largely as an irrelevance. All I can ever be qualified to say of a picture is whether I like it or not. And perhaps that's really true for everyone.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I was shooting film I reckoned on 2-3 keepers per film. I don't think that average has changed much with digital.

 

When I was doing a 'picture a week' project back in 2002 I was shooting around 5 rolls of film a week. Usually the best shot of those 180 shots was pretty obvious, selecting the 2-5 also rans was more difficult. Quality doesn't hide away, it walks up to you and hits you in the face with a wet haddock.

[Jager]

Editing is hard. Really hard. Mostly, I suppose, because we're emotionally attached to all those "good" images that lift themselves up to us - whether it be on a light table or from a computer screen. The ones that give us that little jolt of pleasure when we look at them.

 

Three years ago I started a PAW (picture of the week), hoping that the obligation to post my "best of" every seven days would impel me to both shoot more and edit better. Alas. Despite carrying my Leica with me just about everywhere (including to work every day), the first hasn't been realized. And I have doubts about the second.

 

If there's any consolation for those of us drawn to and driven by this passion, it's knowing that at least the big boys don't do an awful lot better. If you study the contact sheets of just about any of the top drawer photographic talents over the years, you find an awful lot of dross. Just like our own.

 

Quoting from David Hurn (a very accomplished Magnum photographer):

"As a general guide I would guess that for a seven-picture essay I would shoot 20 to 30 cassettes of 36-exposure 35mm film. A single, exhibition-quality image probably occurs every say, 100 films."

 

Years ago I remember being dumbstruck when I first heard how much film National Geographic photographers typically burn through on their way to obtaining the 20-30 images that make up a feature story in that magazine - hundreds of rolls. That doesn't mean that most of those thousands of images are poor, of course. But it does emphasize that to get a single artful, impactful image requires the confluence of chance and circumstance at a very nuanced level. And that doesn't happen very often.

 

No less a light than Ansel Adams suggested that one exceptional image a year is a good hit rate.

 

So I suppose we ought not feel too bad.

 

Bill, I like your stuff. You've got a couple in there that HCB himself would have been happy to claim.

[Knomad]

Depends how you define good. I've recently had a book editor and a gallery curator look at the same set of images, and each chose mutually exclusive sets to work with. If I'd shown them my out takes, maybe they would have picked one or two that I didn't like.

 

I can't give you anything like accurate annual statistics, but here's an example from a shoot about a week ago: There were about 140 digital images, of which about 10 made it to the working folder category... good enough to share with the model, and from which my one or two favorites will be chosen after I've lived with them for a while and they've stood the test of time. Then whenever I'm done with this concept... maybe months, maybe a year or two... I'll pull the very best from the concept, and obviously most individual shoots won't be represented.

 

There were also about 36 frames of film done that same day, I haven't scanned any of those yet but if it's a typical roll about two will make it into the working folder.

 

I probably do an average of three or four shoots of that type per month, so let's say multiply the above by 42 to get a year. Enough to be able to pull a gallery show or two from, although certainly not all of those will go down as my long-term favorites.

[pico]

Depends how you define good. I've recently had a book editor and a gallery curator look at the same set of images, and each chose mutually exclusive sets to work with.

 

Would the book editor by chance be one for a self-publishing enterprise, and the curator a coffee shop owner?

 

It helps to mention the specific agents, Knomad.

 

.

[a.g]

I wrote a piece that was recently featured on Steve Huff's site that addresses this exact issue - you may want to take a look - click on the link below

 

Daily Inspiration #174 by Gallery.ag | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

[Jeff S]

After more than 35 years with film, I switched to digital about a year and a half ago. Since the transition, I have stored roughly 2000 images in my LR catalogue. However, discounting multiple shots of the same scene (e.g., for exposure and such), and various test shots, the number is probably more like 1200.

 

To force some self-editing, I purchased two presentation cases (with clear sleeves for 8.5x11 prints), one for color and one for b/w. (With film, my output was strictly b/w). I made 110 prints for the portfolios, 60 color and 50 b/w. These weren't equally special images; but all good enough IMO to warrant attention and further reflection. I spent a fair amount of time arranging these, face-to face and in some rough sequence, somewhat as if I were doing a book. It wasn't nearly that precise; but rather more of a fun exercise to create some structure. In that process, I further subtracted and added several.

 

Of the 110 images, I have since personally printed, matted and framed larger prints of 10 images, 7 of which were gifts to family. Of the 10, 7 were b/w. I'm considering a couple of others. So, maybe 12 of 1200 to frame stage. Still not all equal. And still not as good as I hope to do in coming years. That's the joy.

 

Two surprises for me. One, I hardly expected to print color at all, since b/w had been my thing. Two, the percentage of overall images I printed for the portfolios was much higher than anticipated given my prior film output. I don't think my standards were any lower; certainly not for the b/w (other than recognizing that inkjet is not silver). Apparently I'm more effective with digital processing than I was as a printer in my 4 prior darkrooms (much to my chagrin).

[gberger]

I started shooting Kodachrome when the ASA/ISO was 12, and since then I've probably shot over 2000 rolls of slides: Kodachrome, other Kodak and Fuji.

 

Editing didn't come easy, but developed over many yeaes. Shooting slides forces you to wait for several days before you can see the results on a light table or via one of those quickie desktop projectors. Even at first glance, there are slides that are underexposed, overexposed, with lousy framing, poor composition, etc.. These go into File 13 without a whimper.

 

A week or so later, I look at the remaining slides with a jaundiced eye, and more hit the trash. By this time, I might have 6-10 slides remaining from a roll. These go into one of my P2002 projector slide trays and get put on the top shelf.

 

Sometime later (months to a couple of years) I run the slides through the projector again (no light table this time). Projection does make a difference, and more slides hit the can. The only ones I reluctantly save are the ones essential to the "story" that otherwise would be thrown out.

 

Over many years, I'd guess that my retention rate has averaged 3-5 slides a roll except for photos taken when I was shooting special occasions for other people who simply hads to have photos of Aunt Grace and Uncle Harry jumping into the swimming pool.

 

So, at age 87, I have around 5000 slides covering everything from vacations and family gatherings to being shot at in flight or serving remote tours in such garden spots as Guam and Thule.

 

I shudder to think of what the shelves in our den would look like if I hadn't ruthlessly culled. They're filled and crowded as is.

[giordano]

Reading this thread has made me realise that my hit rate is higher with digital than with colour trannies simply because small exposure errors can usually be adjusted in the processing.

[bill]

Thanks to all for your interesting insights and particularly to Neil for pointing me at the work of Gianni Berengo Gardin - fascinating.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[enboe]

I recently reviewed my last 4 rolls of Kodachrome and found one, yes only one, that really "popped" for me. That was a less than successful shoot for me, as I usually get 5-10% that I am happy with.

 

Of course, as it is just a hobby for me, just one good one is enough for me to declare success.

 

Oh, and we have a relative of your Damnfino over on this side of the pond. It's what you get when you cross an elephant and a rhinoceros (Elephino).

 

Have fun!

[thompsonkirk]

Thank you so much, Bill, for starting this thoughtful thread & posting the year's best, many of which I remember well (who could forget the leap from the goldola, for example?). Congratulations on such a fine year's work!

 

I shoot a lot & don't keep many. I love the feature in ACR/LR where you can hit the spacebar & see the whole image, full-screen – & then click to see how sharp it is. That saves me so much editing time, & I don't end up with many keepers. Those few I print 4-to-a-sheet with Contact Sheet II (no longer in PS, but you can import it from older versions & drop it in plug-ins). There's a quick record, large enough to see critically, with all the file numbers printed underneath!

 

I use this forum for editing of what you might or might not call 'good pictures' on any subject: anything that lots of people look at & few comment on is likely to end up deleted. Doesn't matter much if comments are favorable or unfavorable, since opinions are bound to differ; it's a matter of whether the image produced some interest or not.

 

Most of my work, however, falls under one or two current projects, or into a series of portfolios that have been building over the years. For these I have an Editing Problem: I tend to love all my children & have trouble practicing euthanasia. Here's where I get help from my friends: First, on the domestic scene, from my best critic; then from a critique group (Bay Area Photographers Collective, Bay Area Photographers Collective) where we look at bodies of assembled work & help one another with editing & sequencing (& sometimes put on shows). And finally I have a few trusted friends who I can rely on to be stricter in their judgment.

 

The result is maybe 100 keepers a year, of which only a few have a future. For example my SF North Beach project (all of it has appeared here) has taken 2 years, shooting 1 day a week. It swelled at one point to 160 images – but is now down to about 50. Of those only 25 or so really please me; the rest just 'help to tell the story.' So that's about a dozen a year, or one a month, as a final outcome.

 

Kirk

[Guest mc_k]

...Ansel Adams...

 

I get a kick out of the fact he was still reworking the same pictures 40, 50 years later. And I forget who, saved 200,000 undeveloped negatives. I think it may be more about the hunt than what you bring back, for some.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thompsonkirk]

That was Winogrand; 2,500 rolls = a mere 90,000 frames.

 

Black & White World: A Celebration of Photography. Photoshop monochrome techniques, traditional darkroom how-to advice, famous photographers, digital cameras and software, and much more!

 

Kirk

[Guest mc_k]

thanks, enjoyed that article