bill Posted March 31, 2008 Share #1 Posted March 31, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Over the years I have seen a number of threads about what your personal "hit rate" is. It occurred to me when I was loading my shots from Seville onto Flickr. I took 10 rolls of film - 6 colour, and 4 black and white, and a digital (G7). I exposed 9 rolls (6 colour, 3 black and white) = 326 exposures - and 40 digital shots = 366. I have uploaded a total of 105 photos to Flickr (Seville - a photoset on Flickr) - 29% of total and singled out 23 as my "best of" (Best of Seville - a photoset on Flickr) 6% of total, and 22% of the photos I uploaded. Given that I was in a target-rich environment, I actually regard this as quite a high hit rate. Bear in mind that a number of photos were in camera "duplicates" - either same subject with a slightly different composition, or different exposure, and the percentages go up a bit. Either I am not particularly choosy, or I am improving, or I was fortunate or... ...your thoughts? Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Hi bill, Take a look here Musings on hit rate...?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted March 31, 2008 Share #2 Posted March 31, 2008 As I've said elsewhere 2-3 per roll of film was always my aim. Sometimes I succeeded, sometimes I didn't. To be honest focus and exposure are the easiest parts of taking photographs, though that's what people seem to dwell on the most. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 31, 2008 Share #3 Posted March 31, 2008 10% is about right, in my experience. But, what do I know? Oh, hello. Palmer's gone "Pro" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted March 31, 2008 Share #4 Posted March 31, 2008 Steve - you're good. At National Geographic, photographers shoot 400 rolls of film (on average) for each article, that's 14,400 frames to supply 30 published images on the page. Bill, keepers are relative to your mind set. What's a keeper in 1990 might not be a keeper today. A keeper for Bill might not be a keeper for Steve. You might be getting more because you know what you want, because you're more experienced, or choosy, or lucky. Press the shutter less, more % keepers, press it more, more % fun. Rolo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 31, 2008 Share #5 Posted March 31, 2008 At National Geographic, photographers shoot 400 rolls of film (on average) for each article, that's 14,400 frames to supply 30 published images on the page. That's a lot of scanning, and a lot of dentists' waiting rooms... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted March 31, 2008 Share #6 Posted March 31, 2008 I know in the olden days, sixties, early seventies, the Geographic photographers got on a reef trip out to the swains with, two kellogs cornflakes cartons, the cardboard box that packets of conies come in to store, full of kodak. They shot the lot, and I think there was about four or five images used, if anyone has the back issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted March 31, 2008 Share #7 Posted March 31, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's a lot of scanning, and a lot of dentists' waiting rooms... That's a different kind of scanning Andy. See the video - Dewitt Jones - National Geographic photographer - Nationwide Speakers Bureau Forgive me Rob, "I know in the olden days, sixties, early seventies" - before my time. Rolo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 31, 2008 Share #8 Posted March 31, 2008 I know, these guys pay minions to scan on their behalf. Just like Cartier-Bresson... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 31, 2008 Share #9 Posted March 31, 2008 David James, he's a keeper! FWIW I find my hit rate so variable. Sometimes its one or two images a roll, other times it can be pretty much the whole roll (allowing for duplicates for exposure bracketing etc). Depends on what I'm shooting as well as frame of mind, enviroment etc etc. Digital hit rate is definately lower simply because I'll rattle off any number of frames - and delete the obviously bad ones - rather than the more measured approach I take with film. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted March 31, 2008 Share #10 Posted March 31, 2008 David James, he's a keeper! Digital hit rate is definately lower simply because I'll rattle off any number of frames - and delete the obviously bad ones - rather than the more measured approach I take with film. Just to complicate this - my % keeper rate is lower, but my number of take homes has increased substantially. I shoot much more with digital for the same location and it's rubbed off on film, but no way is it yet balanced (10:1 say). I seem to be more aggressive with digital, which is good, I think, as I'm searching harder for shots. I've forced myself to change and expose more frames when I'm out with film. However, my 'upper standard' has dropped because I used to want one good picture a month and then something I considered to be worthy of adding to my 'all time greats' once, twice a year. Hope that's not confusing. Rolo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted April 1, 2008 Share #11 Posted April 1, 2008 Over the years I have seen a number of threads about what your personal "hit rate" is. It occurred to me when I was loading my shots from Seville onto Flickr. I took 10 rolls of film - 6 colour, and 4 black and white, and a digital (G7). I exposed 9 rolls (6 colour, 3 black and white) = 326 exposures - and 40 digital shots = 366. I have uploaded a total of 105 photos to Flickr (Seville - a photoset on Flickr) - 29% of total and singled out 23 as my "best of" (Best of Seville - a photoset on Flickr) 6% of total, and 22% of the photos I uploaded. Given that I was in a target-rich environment, I actually regard this as quite a high hit rate. Bear in mind that a number of photos were in camera "duplicates" - either same subject with a slightly different composition, or different exposure, and the percentages go up a bit. Either I am not particularly choosy, or I am improving, or I was fortunate or... Hi Bill, Looking through your 'Best of Seville' set, there are about a dozen that I'd have uploaded ... which means only that you and I have different tastes and different uploading policies (if that's not too formal a word). Fortunately we don't have to justify them to anybody. If I'm in an 'reportage' situation (like you and the procession) or carrying a camera on a site visit I fire away and end up with a fairly low proportion of shots that satisfy me as pictures (maybe one or two in a hundred). OTOH when I'm out enjoying myself with a camera I'm much more selective and on a good day have a higher hit rate. On a recent Sunday afternoon in London with the M8 I made about 45 exposures (17 pictures after bracketing and other variations) and have uploaded 6. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted April 1, 2008 Share #12 Posted April 1, 2008 When I shoot portraits, I may shoot two or three films but only keep one or two prints. This does not mean that 100 pictures are flops, but I do not need dozens of similar looking pictures. (I also do not have a library full of books that I have once read but probably will not read again, and I regularly clear my wardrobe of items I have not used during the last two years as I am unlikely to use them during the next two years.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTD Posted April 1, 2008 Share #13 Posted April 1, 2008 I'd hope for one good picture per roll or per outing. I'd expect most to be correctly exposed and focused – though the success rate with my M6 is going to be lower as I'm not used to it yet – but if it's a fleeting moment I think it's always better to bang out a shot first and worry about technicalities second. I do find it's worth taking a few pictures of anything to 'warm up'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted April 2, 2008 Share #14 Posted April 2, 2008 "Hit rate" is something that never enters my mind. When I'm making images, I think only in terms of "Did I get the image I want?" and "Did I give my subject the best 'coverage' that I could possibly give it?" With any subject, I'll make 5-6 identical exposures (in-camera dupes) of a given composition or exposure; I'll then make 3 or 4 different compositions and/or exposures of that subject. On a roll of 36 frames, I'll end up with anywhere from 2 to 6 different images. As the saying goes, "Film is cheap; imagemaking opportunities are priceless." Given the bloodcurdling amount of money we invest in Leica (and other) cameras and lenses - not to mention the cost of workshops and the thousands in travel costs to the locations where we make our images, the cost of film & processing is not something I'm going to worry about too much. I'm not going to spend $6000 going to Greece to make images and then sit up at night worrying about whether film & processing is going to cost me $500 as opposed to $400. There are no guarantees in life; I may never get to go back to Greece again. When I'm there, I want to get it right, regardless of film & processing costs. That's just my way of conducting photographic business. It's what works for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted April 2, 2008 Share #15 Posted April 2, 2008 With any subject, I'll make 5-6 identical exposures (in-camera dupes) of a given composition or exposure Why? I can see the reasoning behind taking the 'same' photograph with say different apertures, but why 5-6 identical ones? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted April 3, 2008 Share #16 Posted April 3, 2008 Why? I can see the reasoning behind taking the 'same' photograph with say different apertures, but why 5-6 identical ones? Insurance. I have a 120 E6 image of a red "Mail Pouch Tobacco" barn, photographed with my Hasselblad 6x6. There's a perfect blue sky w/ puffy clouds and a perfect blanket of snow on the ground & barn's roof. I made three transparencies of it. Two are flawed by Turkey Buzzards circling in the distant sky that I didn't see at the time (I know - they can be Photoshopped out - but not if I'm making an Ilfochrome print). I'm down to one "good" transparency. What happens if it is damaged or lost? So just go reshoot and make some more transparencies? Can't - the barn has been torn down. And I traded off the Hasselblad (big mistake!) In my opinion, any image that's worth making in the first place is worth the pocket change that 5 or 6 frames of film costs. YMMV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted April 3, 2008 Share #17 Posted April 3, 2008 I get my films processed with 9x6 prints. I define a keeper as one where I (a) put the 9x6 original print in my "portfolio file" (mount on card and put in a transparent pocket folder loose leaf file) AND ( get a 10X15 done, cut a mount to mount it up properly, and maybe show at our local photographic society. On this definition, my hit rate is sometimes zero, usually 2 or 3, and very, very occasionally 6 or so. My gut feeling is that my hit rate is getting lower and lower, but this might simply be that I'm getting more and more choosy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted April 3, 2008 Share #18 Posted April 3, 2008 And I traded off the Hasselblad (big mistake!) In my opinion, any image that's worth making in the first place is worth the pocket change that 5 or 6 frames of film costs. YMMV. 1. - BIG mistake !! Fortunately, they are cheaper than ever. 2. - Your logic is difficult to argue with and I've come around to that with digital, but film does not get used as quickly. There's something deep inside that slows the use of film and I can't overcome it. I just think it's not worth another frame, and generally it isn't. On Tuesday, I shot the 'Hello Dot' image and knew when the displayed image was in the bag that I was wasting time trying to improve it - not that it's perfect, but the people traffic was so slow and the mix was wrong. However, I stayed quite a while. It's only 2 years ago since I would spend a weekend driving to Scotland to shoot a few images and back each one up with a single frame (5x4), then return home and process the second frame only i the first was problematic ! How ridiculous, but when it's been carefully composed, spot metered to death, how many backups do you need ? Further, if only one of 10 is published, does it even matter if there's a better one available, or you missed a better one by not moving to the left. After all, we miss photos all the time, every blink. Rolo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted April 3, 2008 Share #19 Posted April 3, 2008 What I find rather amusing is that when I take several similar shots of the same subject - changing aperture or framing slightly - it's invariably the first frame that's the best and I disregard the others. No idea why. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTD Posted April 3, 2008 Share #20 Posted April 3, 2008 What I find rather amusing is that when I take several similar shots of the same subject - changing aperture or framing slightly - it's invariably the first frame that's the best and I disregard the others. No idea why. Don't know why either – but it's true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.