What is your "hit" rate for great photos?
Discussion
As the title says really. As a newbie, it is easy to get disheartened by all the fantastic photos that are posted on this forum.
So, what i want to know is how many photos do you take of each scene with different settings etc. or have you just taken so many photos that you know what settings to use automatically?
Is it experience or 10 different versions of the same scene? Do you get great photos straight from the camera or do you have to fiddle around with them?
I have to admit that the photos I am happy with happen once in a blue moon.
So, what i want to know is how many photos do you take of each scene with different settings etc. or have you just taken so many photos that you know what settings to use automatically?
Is it experience or 10 different versions of the same scene? Do you get great photos straight from the camera or do you have to fiddle around with them?
I have to admit that the photos I am happy with happen once in a blue moon.
I've only ever taken a few that'd I'd consider 'great', but they pale in comparison to some of the efforts of folks on here admittedly as I simply do not know enough about photography to get the best results.
Plus I don't generally try and take great shots, just acceptable ones for the most part that don't look too shonky.
So all in all, my hit rate is probably 1 in 10000
Plus I don't generally try and take great shots, just acceptable ones for the most part that don't look too shonky.
So all in all, my hit rate is probably 1 in 10000
Not sure how you rate photos 'great' or not... I rarely look at things and say 'wow'; more often I go back some days after first viewing results and things look better. Some of my favourite pics have been slow growers... Don't take that many variations on the same view as a rule 'though I did for the London Eye pic I posted yesterday in the 'Random' thread and that was an instant like ('though I don't claim it as 'great') 
That I'm happy with? About 40-50%. But that's having gone back to film. Back when I was shooting exclusively digital, it was about 2-5%.
It's amazing how the limit of 36 (135) or 12 (120) exposures makes you really think before you pull the trigger....
My rules? Must be full-frame, and any adjustments limited to what I used to do in the darkroom.
Leica MP, Noctilux 50/f1.0, Fuji Pro 800Z@1600
It's amazing how the limit of 36 (135) or 12 (120) exposures makes you really think before you pull the trigger....
My rules? Must be full-frame, and any adjustments limited to what I used to do in the darkroom.
Leica MP, Noctilux 50/f1.0, Fuji Pro 800Z@1600
Edited by urban_alchemist on Sunday 23 November 21:12
For me, the 'hit' rate depends on so lots of factors and while I don't think I've ever taken a great photo, I'm satisfied (technically and artistically) with about 1 in 50. Sometimes I'll only take a single shot of a particular subject and it turns out better than I'd hoped, but lots of the time I'll take multiple shots with different composition and/or settings with the intention of keeping the best one or two. Personally it's not always a case of not knowing what effect certain settings will have, but not knowing which I'll like most until I see it on the computer screen. If I'm doing insect photography most of the photos get binned because the focus point is in the wrong place or the subject flew away as I pressed the shutter release. If it's partly cloudy out doors I might take half a dozen photos, then repeat them a minute later because the sun has come out (or very occasionally because it's gone away) and made the scene look better.
As for processing, I alter almost all of my photos on the computer to some degree or another. However, I don't think I've ever made a photo that wasn't good in the first place good by altering it. Hope this is of some use.
As for processing, I alter almost all of my photos on the computer to some degree or another. However, I don't think I've ever made a photo that wasn't good in the first place good by altering it. Hope this is of some use.
Simpo Two said:
By 'great' do you mean something you'd hang on the wall and admire every day (ie subject and composition), or a shot that's technically correct (ie exposure, focus point, white balance)?
I'd say that you would be happy to hang on the wall, not technically great but subjectively very pleasing.SamHH said:
For me, the 'hit' rate depends on so lots of factors and while I don't think I've ever taken a great photo, I'm satisfied (technically and artistically) with about 1 in 50. Sometimes I'll only take a single shot of a particular subject and it turns out better than I'd hoped, but lots of the time I'll take multiple shots with different composition and/or settings with the intention of keeping the best one or two. Personally it's not always a case of not knowing what effect certain settings will have, but not knowing which I'll like most until I see it on the computer screen. If I'm doing insect photography most of the photos get binned because the focus point is in the wrong place or the subject flew away as I pressed the shutter release. If it's partly cloudy out doors I might take half a dozen photos, then repeat them a minute later because the sun has come out (or very occasionally because it's gone away) and made the scene look better.
As for processing, I alter almost all of my photos on the computer to some degree or another. However, I don't think I've ever made a photo that wasn't good in the first place good by altering it. Hope this is of some use.
Thanks, I think that I'll get more out of my camera by being more disciplined with tweaking it on the pc and also being more patient with the composition side.As for processing, I alter almost all of my photos on the computer to some degree or another. However, I don't think I've ever made a photo that wasn't good in the first place good by altering it. Hope this is of some use.
Just bought a book by Tom Ang called Digital Photography Masterclass which will be read cover to cover.
Also, thanks to eveyone for their experiences and it has certainally given me better expectations so I won't be so disppointed with my efforts.
As above, prob. about 1 in 50. EVERYTHING goes through Photoshop (not least because all the in-camera noise reduction and sharpening is turned off as I prefer the extra control in post). However recently with the new camera I've noticed I do very little editing. Usually a slight hint at levels, but that's it (with NR and sharpen). obviously in B&W it's a bit more work. Think I've gotten better over the last four years ago 25k shots, but then my standards of what's okay goes up as well. Previously I'd shoot lots. Like 8000 shots in a three week holiday. Am far more conservative no and do more in-brain filtering. Was down to about 2k for three weeks this year. My new trick is to force myself to try and shoot every situation with every lens in my back - wide angle portraits, macro landscapes etc. Have gotten a few I wouldn't normally take.
That said, I have to say I've only taken one photo ever that if I were to go back I wouldn't do slightly differently.
Looking at the works of the great photographers only serves to show how much you have to learn, how much skill you lack...
Sebastião Salgado's "Workers" is a good place to start
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/sa...
That said, I have to say I've only taken one photo ever that if I were to go back I wouldn't do slightly differently.
Looking at the works of the great photographers only serves to show how much you have to learn, how much skill you lack...
Sebastião Salgado's "Workers" is a good place to start
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/sa...
I'd say...
'Trash' is 10-20%. I mean utter garbage, OOF, lens flare, blured etc.
'Nothing special' 70-80%. Either multiple, inferior shots of 'the one' that makes it up the chain or plain unintresting, unemotional shots.
'Good' 5-10%. Worth putting online, usualy the best of several at each scene if its good enough, these I take some time to process properly.
'Excelent' 1-2% tops. Neevr a certainty, no matter how many 'Goods'. My hit rate here is going up as I learn what works & doesnt , hit the mechanics right and get bette at spotting the opertunities. But even so I guess 10-40 shots per year here (out of say 4000).
'Perfect' - What is? But these are shots I couldnt improve on and I dont think other photogs could much given the location/time etc AND theyhave to be real keepers too. Framed right, exposed right, processed as good as I can etc. Prehaps 2 or 3 a year.
'Trash' is 10-20%. I mean utter garbage, OOF, lens flare, blured etc.
'Nothing special' 70-80%. Either multiple, inferior shots of 'the one' that makes it up the chain or plain unintresting, unemotional shots.
'Good' 5-10%. Worth putting online, usualy the best of several at each scene if its good enough, these I take some time to process properly.
'Excelent' 1-2% tops. Neevr a certainty, no matter how many 'Goods'. My hit rate here is going up as I learn what works & doesnt , hit the mechanics right and get bette at spotting the opertunities. But even so I guess 10-40 shots per year here (out of say 4000).
'Perfect' - What is? But these are shots I couldnt improve on and I dont think other photogs could much given the location/time etc AND theyhave to be real keepers too. Framed right, exposed right, processed as good as I can etc. Prehaps 2 or 3 a year.
RobDickinson said:
I'd say...
'Trash' is 10-20%. I mean utter garbage, OOF, lens flare, blured etc.
'Nothing special' 70-80%. Either multiple, inferior shots of 'the one' that makes it up the chain or plain unintresting, unemotional shots.
'Good' 5-10%. Worth putting online, usualy the best of several at each scene if its good enough, these I take some time to process properly.
'Excelent' 1-2% tops. Neevr a certainty, no matter how many 'Goods'. My hit rate here is going up as I learn what works & doesnt , hit the mechanics right and get bette at spotting the opertunities. But even so I guess 10-40 shots per year here (out of say 4000).
'Perfect' - What is? But these are shots I couldnt improve on and I dont think other photogs could much given the location/time etc AND theyhave to be real keepers too. Framed right, exposed right, processed as good as I can etc. Prehaps 2 or 3 a year.
Actually, what he said. Maybe slightly less junk shots recently (Decent AF to thank for that one), and no way as many perfects - been using SLR's for 16years, only taken one or two that wouldn't benefit from hindsight.'Trash' is 10-20%. I mean utter garbage, OOF, lens flare, blured etc.
'Nothing special' 70-80%. Either multiple, inferior shots of 'the one' that makes it up the chain or plain unintresting, unemotional shots.
'Good' 5-10%. Worth putting online, usualy the best of several at each scene if its good enough, these I take some time to process properly.
'Excelent' 1-2% tops. Neevr a certainty, no matter how many 'Goods'. My hit rate here is going up as I learn what works & doesnt , hit the mechanics right and get bette at spotting the opertunities. But even so I guess 10-40 shots per year here (out of say 4000).
'Perfect' - What is? But these are shots I couldnt improve on and I dont think other photogs could much given the location/time etc AND theyhave to be real keepers too. Framed right, exposed right, processed as good as I can etc. Prehaps 2 or 3 a year.
Tycho said:
I'd say that you would be happy to hang on the wall, not technically great but subjectively very pleasing.
OK, well that's tougher. Very often the photo you can hang on the wall and enjoy day after day is not the one that smacks you between the eyes.I confess I don't really shoot for 'fun' any more (for example a D300 has just arrived and it's sitting on the settee waiting for attention) but I currently have three of my own photos on the wall.
One of my first digital photos taken with a 3.2Mp Olympus compact:
A portrait version of this macro shot is upstairs:
(D70 + Micro Nikkor 60mm)
And of my NZ trip, when I took 3,500 photos in a month, this one is my long-term favourite and printed on canvas:
(D70 + 18-70mm)
I don't normally 'do' landscapes and generally find it impossible to take one that pleases me in every respect, but that one does. It was one of about 30 I really liked - but again, 'really liking' does not make them wall-worthy IMHO.
Simpo Two said:
Tycho said:
I'd say that you would be happy to hang on the wall, not technically great but subjectively very pleasing.
OK, well that's tougher. Very often the photo you can hang on the wall and enjoy day after day is not the one that smacks you between the eyes.I confess I don't really shoot for 'fun' any more (for example a D300 has just arrived and it's sitting on the settee waiting for attention) but I currently have three of my own photos on the wall.
One of my first digital photos taken with a 3.2Mp Olympus compact:
A portrait version of this macro shot is upstairs:
(D70 + Micro Nikkor 60mm)
And of my NZ trip, when I took 3,500 photos in a month, this one is my long-term favourite and printed on canvas:
(D70 + 18-70mm)
I don't normally 'do' landscapes and generally find it impossible to take one that pleases me in every respect, but that one does. It was one of about 30 I really liked - but again, 'really liking' does not make them wall-worthy IMHO.
great country.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff