what is your keeper rate?

Qarik

I started taking pictures about 1 year ago on D40X. At that point my keeper rate was maybe 1 in 50. After discovering flash bouncing and getting an SB800..that rate increased to maybe 1/20. My composition was always okay but about 6months into it..I had a revelation that it's all about lighting. After the Gary Fong..my people shots keep rate shot up to maybe 1 in 10.

I recently got a D90 and hopefully that will help me in low light situations and I think I will be getting the 85mm 1.4 this christmas. I am looking forward to that. I have also found my eye is getting pickier. What I thought was a keeper 6 months ago is perhaps not any more. Depending on the conditions I find my keeper rate now (the pictures that I will actually post in a forum like this for critique) is probaly 1 in 6 or so.

I try to shoot in manual mostly now for practice but I still get quite few over/underexposed shots and end up deleting 1/2 my shots in the "1st cut" of editing. I always have wondered what kind of keeper rate others have.

SitterS

I have never really paid alot of attention to what my keeper rate is in terms of numbers. What I can tell you is that it has increased tremendously when I switched to shooting in manual mode, started paying more attention to the light and how it falls on my subject(s), and continously watching the histogram.

Qarik

SitterS wrote:

I have never really paid alot of attention to what my keeper rate is in terms of numbers. What I can tell you is that it has increased tremendously when I switched to shooting in manual mode, started paying more attention to the light and how it falls on my subject(s), and continously watching the histogram.

I know of the historgram but I have always just looked at the picture after the shot and "eyeballed" it. If it looks good on the screen then I simply rely on PP to fine tune it. That's one of small improvement oin the keep rate is from the nice screen on the d90 vs d40x. Better instant feedback.

SitterS

Google histogram and you will find lots of information regarding this invaluable tool. When I relied on my LCD screen to eyeball a picture, I know my keeper rate was not good at all. Learn the histogram and how to use along with other things and your keeper rate will definitely improve. The end result will be much better photos straight out of the camera and eventaully you will not depend on photoshop as much to correct the mistakes. Also shooting RAW was a positive move.

Swartzy

I suppose "keeper rate" is somewhat relative to the subject matter. If one were speaking of actual photos that would process and could be given to a client, then most likely 80% or better. But....if speaking of the best one's to give to a client, that's a different story. I've been pretty much a 10 to 20 percenter. Generally for a wedding, the couple won't get much more than a couple hundred images...partially because of all the post work done...and the selection of the best of best.

Even on weeklong landscape trips, I may only work on 50 to 100 of say 1200 images.

Elaine

SitterS wrote:

I have never really paid alot of attention to what my keeper rate is in terms of numbers. What I can tell you is that it has increased tremendously when I switched to shooting in manual mode, started paying more attention to the light and how it falls on my subject(s), and continously watching the histogram.

I completely agree with this!
I've found that watching the histogram has proven far more valuable than checking the pic on the LCD. I zoom in on the LCD to check focus, and I look for blinkies and composition, but the histogram gives better info as far as exposure is concerned. Going manual and setting my screen to show the histogram after a shot has helped me greatly. I think my keeper rate has definitely improved over the last year, but as it does, I get pickier.

Qarik

Elaine wrote:

I completely agree with this!
I've found that watching the histogram has proven far more valuable than checking the pic on the LCD. I zoom in on the LCD to check focus, and I look for blinkies and composition, but the histogram gives better info as far as exposure is concerned. Going manual and setting my screen to show the histogram after a shot has helped me greatly. I think my keeper rate has definitely improved over the last year, but as it does, I get pickier.

We are talking about the RGB histograms right? I can see how they might be helpful in sunny situations where you can't see the LCD much or if your eyes are not what they used to be or if you are in a rush. I also see the value to "train" your eye initially to calibrate what you think is good on the LCD is actually okay in the histograms.

But I also think the your eye is pretty dang good judge. I have never been disappointed form photo or series of photoes that I think are spot on in my LCD when I see them in the screen (except for perhaps sharpness).

du8die

If I'm shooting sports, I'm probably keeping one in 8 or 10. But, I'm doing a lot of cropping. Portraits, on a recent senior shoot, I took 199 and kept 33. A lot of duplicates. Trying different exposure, slightly different angles.

Nikolai

The term keeper changed in my mind as I progressed. Some years ago I would consider any photo not dispaying a major technical flaw (OOF, over/under-exposed, etc.) a keeper, and even at that liberal notion I was happy if 10 out 100 would qualify.
Nowadays I would be seriously concerned if 10 frames out of 500 were technically improper. Then again, what's the keeper? I may have 10 nearly identical technically perfect captures, each with a different hint of a smile. Which one I give to client? Some minute reason may decide, and sometimes it's purely random. And out of those 500 I may post only 10 here. Does it mean my keeper ratio became worse over time?

S4per

I would say the type of shooting also factors in re: using your eye and/or histogram. For example: for night time shooting, is the historgram really that valuable? It's an honest question on my behalf, as I believe the answer is 'No' and your eye will be the best judge here.

For more 'normal' situations I think the histogram is a lot more useful and I'm still trying to train myself to use it consistently and to learn what a good vs. a great one looks like given a particular situation.

mmmatt

Qarik wrote:

I started taking pictures about 1 year ago on D40X. At that point my keeper rate was maybe 1 in 50. After discovering flash bouncing and getting an SB800..that rate increased to maybe 1/20. My composition was always okay but about 6months into it..I had a revelation that it's all about lighting. After the Gary Fong..my people shots keep rate shot up to maybe 1 in 10.

I recently got a D90 and hopefully that will help me in low light situations and I think I will be getting the 85mm 1.4 this christmas. I am looking forward to that. I have also found my eye is getting pickier. What I thought was a keeper 6 months ago is perhaps not any more. Depending on the conditions I find my keeper rate now (the pictures that I will actually post in a forum like this for critique) is probaly 1 in 6 or so.

I try to shoot in manual mostly now for practice but I still get quite few over/underexposed shots and end up deleting 1/2 my shots in the "1st cut" of editing. I always have wondered what kind of keeper rate others have.

Keeper rate is very subjective, and given a persons specific equipment it is mostly due to how, where, and when you shoot what; factored by what, how, and when you want to deliver it. Specific to exposure it is how, where, and when you shoot what, and factored by the guy pushing the button (who's proper definition requires a whole lot of adverbs I'm not prepared to type right now).

You can however, be assured that as you get better, your keepers of today are your throw-aways of tomorrow, and the better you get the more critical your tastes become. Then, as you become more critical of your own work, you will consistently improve your skills untill you realize that your crap is another mans treasure! Then, and only then does all become right in the world. At least thats my dream... I'm at about step two!!!

Matt

crockett

Well, by now you know that you need to define keeper.

Using my definition, I'm putting energy into about 1 out of 100 after they leave the camera.

Images that I'm personally pleased with. I'm currently running about 1 in 400-600.

Technically correct....meh, from an exposure stand point, I could care less anymore. As long as I don't blow the highlights or block the shadows, I'm fine with it. I do try to push the histo to the right when I'm thinking about it.

I'm more concerned with composition (I suck!) and getting the focus I desire.

zoomer

Keeper rate, there is something I have not thought about in awhile.
For weddings probably 90 percent are technically good and 80 percent are keepers that I will show to the client. If I take 1000 pictures they will get about 800 generally.

For my personal work of landscapes and bird photos. My keeper rate is much lower. Pretty much 95% are technically good but I normally only really keep 5 or 6 out of 100. They have to be perfect on every level to be a keeper and as others have stated when I first started out my keeper rate was much higher. Now that I know what I am doing I am very picky and my keeper rate is very small.

cdonovan

So, for curiosity sake....as I never wondered this question before this topic came up.

When I am taking pictures...say at a wedding and have a group pic, and several turn out the way I want....I edit one of each "grouping" unless something silly or funny happens that I capture during that time, then I'm sure to include that in there as well....is this not the norm?

Elaine

cdonovan wrote:

So, for curiosity sake....as I never wondered this question before this topic came up.

When I am taking pictures...say at a wedding and have a group pic, and several turn out the way I want....I edit one of each "grouping" unless something silly or funny happens that I capture during that time, then I'm sure to include that in there as well....is this not the norm?

If I understand you correctly, I would say this is the norm, and that's what's causing some confusion about what keeper actually means, I think. Say 5 shots of one grouping actually turned out (exposure, all eyes open, composition, etc...). It doesn't make much sense, IMO, to provide all 5 shots to the client. They are all "keepers" in the sense that there is nothing wrong with them and they could each provide a satisfactory print once edited, but only one ends up being edited and therefore it is the most important "keeper."