How Do You Rate Your Image Quality ?

[Detail Man]

On numerous occasions I have revealed that out of every 100 shots that I take with my cameras, my average rate of what I judge to be "keepers" is 2 (2% of total shots), and my average rate of what I judge to be "gems" is 1 (1% of total shots). Independent of camera used, and experience.

Will you join me in the spirit of full disclosure and reveal your own true photographic success-rate ?

Bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge their own "IQ":

One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ .

Also bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge other people's "IQ":

His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' IQ was proportional to one's own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#IQ

Thus, it appears that the lower that you report your own-success rate to be, the better a photographer you are ! So, let's see who dares to claim the lowest success-rate! ...

 

[kernow]

I don't bother to keep track, but my keeper rate is pretty high. Gems far less abundant.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim

 

[Egret]

Ignoring the fact that the way you have set this up is a little like asking "Are you still beating your grandmother?" since it makes as much of a statement as a question, the answer is a moderate number of keepers (maybe 30%) and a small number of gems. Keepers, however, is a rolling value judgment since at the time they may well be the best I have done up to that point and are keepers for that reason, but with time they are often surpassed by newer pics. My judgment of what is good is constantly becoming more critical, so that as my wife reminds me, pictures that I would have killed for in the past are no longer good enough.

 

[silent tim]

I'm not sure how this info will benefit anyone, but here goes: as I am still relatively wet behind the ears to photography I keep about 50%, I think it'll go down drastically once I figure out what I like - any holiday or event type photo's its about 80%.

No real gems to speak of they are pretty much all rubbish to average, besides from my three month old niece when she came to visit for a few weeks.

As a further question to DM's, how many photo's do you go the extra step with and actually get printed and framed?

Not counting my Peru trip I've only gotten about a dozen printed out, and a 'big' (half metre) canvas of my sun behind the clouds shot.

 

[LTZ470]

First thing a man must remember when he is in a hole...is to quit digging...I don't think I'll even start DM...

I keep 90% (and 80% could be deleted easily) and would only post 5% of those...so basically I suk at photography if the truth is known...lol...but it sure is fun!

I print 8 X 10 max of family and pets mostly 4 X 6 "Post-It" back photos that can be stuck up anywhere...I have never printed a Macro Shot or a Bird Shot those are strictly for fun and teaching our children as we home school...

I really can't stand Portraits and Mock up poser shots...I don't know why, as good as some are...I just can't stand them...I would rather look at a photograph of my child feeding the ducks or enjoying a boat ride taken "off the cuff" than a portrait anyday..."Life Shots" photographs of my family enjoying life...

I think to gain the skills of anyone that is a true photographer, artist, musician, professor, teacher, fireman, etc...it takes years of dedicated work along with a lot of practice...I have just learned a small amount of photography skills in the past 1-1/2 years and after taking photos and then going back and reviewing them I am always reminded I am still an amatuer...

It takes years to develop the skills and knowledge to be a good photographer...

How deep do you think I am now?...Should I drop the shovel...or keep digging?...lol...see what I mean...

 

[Stevie Boy Blue]

If it helps, from over 150,000 images taken over a period of five years with my FZ20, less than 250 of those are what I'd label 'keepers', with a possible 50 of 'em being 'gems'.

Of the 35,000 photos I've taken with my FZ28 since buying it in 2008, maybe 100 of those are true keepers, with 25 being of 'gem' standard.

From the 2,000 images taken with my FZ38 since I bought it last year, I'd say about 30 are prized ones, maybe 10 of which I'm really glad I took.

Not sure of the percentage of keepers in relation to numbers of images shot from all three models, but it's obviously very low. I do have exceptionally high standards of judgement though, perhaps being far too self critical for my own good at times.

Good look with your little survey.

Kind Regards

Stevie Boy

 

[John Miles]

You go about photography in a completely different way to me then.

I aim for 100% keepers, and am truly upset if I miss a single shot.

As you well know I thrive on capturing the moment. If I miss that moment there's no going back for a second go.

So I pick up a camera and optimise for the given surroundings. This improves with experience of the particular camera. But I know what I am going to get through practice shots before the shoot. These shots are deleted whilst chimping at the scene. Should I count these as non keepers perhaps?

If walking around as a tourist for example, my movements through my surroundings are matched with periodic test shots to keep the camera optimised. These tests are deleted, but the camera is then ready in an instant to capture whatever I want.

It means I chimp at every change of environment, not during a series of shots in the heat of the moment.

So what of image quality then. Well again I view this differently as well. I review at album level; at the ability of the whole series of photographs to have captured and preserved everything as I wished. This is a balance between image quality and the ability to capture the image in time in the first place. For me a DSLR shot one second after a person has been laughing is never better than the one captured during the laughter; pretty much no matter how the images compare technically.

Time to first shot from camera off is paramount. Thereafter the zoom range over which this can be achieved is most improtant. Finally weight and handling speed dictate that a small camera with quality manual ergonomics is best. What results is reliable image capture of everything going on; ergo good image quality.

--


The FZ50: DSLR handling of a bright Leica 35-420mm lens that's this good: http://www.flickr.com/groups/panasonicfz50/pool/ (slideshow always good). And now add the LX2: http://www.flickr.com/groups/lx2/pool/
[Tomorrows camera is better and smaller than todays]

 

[leeland48]

Well the other morning i went out took 148 shots after looking at them i was left 21.I just wonder some times when you are shooting digital its a bit of a care free attitude not like with film.In my film days out of 32 i would like to think i get 10 to 12 keepers just a thought

lee

 

[leeland48]

Well the other morning i went out took 148 shots after looking at them i was left 21.I just wonder some times when you are shooting digital its a bit of a care free attitude not like with film.In my film days out of 32 i would like to think i get 10 to 12 keepers just a thought

lee

--Just one other thing i for got to mention when you set your camera up on a tripod its the same thing you start to think about what you want to get out of your photograph. Hope you get my drift.

lee

 

[LTZ470]

Well the other morning i went out took 148 shots after looking at them i was left 21.I just wonder some times when you are shooting digital its a bit of a care free attitude not like with film.In my film days out of 32 i would like to think i get 10 to 12 keepers just a thought

lee

I agree with your thought process Lee...so...

"The only photo I have ever regretted was the one I didn't take"...so I might take 30 of the same subjuect and then choose over them for one or two keepers...I use a 32Gb Class 10 Card "so is that bad or is it a bad habit?"

Why?...Why not?...

 

[rkhndjr]

I am not risking a negative reply but will say there are too many variables to truly assess your own image IQ in way of 'keepers', et cetera. For example. I just love to take pictures but after reading the reply about untold numbers of pics by the shooter I feel like a piker. I take about a 1000 pics a year and still say they all are fair to very good and I keep maybe 50 for posterity. I can do a lot better but it requires time and I get impatient. The moment grabs me and I just have to take it right then. That sort of shooting does not lend itself to great images but can get some nice candids. I do think this is a good post and am reading all the replies. Is my IQ low)?
--



Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.

 

[Stewart Corman]

Let me chime in here.

We have a new paradigm with 16GB memory cards.

In the old days shooting ektachrome ...I probably kept 30% for slide shows.

BUT, at $5/36exp roll and weeks to get them processed ..a long trip with 10 rolls was a lot of shooting. Each was framed on a tripod, since there was no cropping ...sometimes bracketed for a rare/tricky shot ..no instant review, just hope for the best.

I won't go into the 4x5 speed graphic times processing B+W film one at a time.
Hey, Elliot Porter used to do dye transfer prints for exhibits!

Now the new paradigm ...instant review to take the shot over..blown out highlight displayed, continuous mode to grab the right instant ( haven't gone beyond 2f/sec yet) ..auto bracketing for odd exposure situations ..PP for cropping, wide bracketing for HDR which was almost impossible for 35mm ( except when I had some ASA16 film with Dmax of 4.0).

I am considering slide copying to digital format (until I see the scratches and dust spots) from the few 100 exceptional Ektachromes taken over 30 years ago.

Bottom line ..NOW we can all afford to get VERY sloppy and do all the sorting and PP/effects in the comfort of a warm, well lighted room.

I have wall mounted mostly 8 1/2x 11 prints behind glass, such as:





proofed on a 21" Sony CRT from a Sony f505V 2.8MP, while slide shows now are on a 55" plasma directly ported from the puter HD by Blu-ray player.

Results are stunning and my next trip will produce 10x12 framed prints hung all over the house (my gallery, my pleasure,every day).

So, my take is that talking about "% kept" is an outmoded concept ....the new technology has surpassed the old paradigm by leaps and bounds.

Stew Corman from sunny Endicott

 

[raimaster]

I am not snap-shoter. One object angle maksimum shots 2-3x. For one day photo trip less than 300 MB with my FZ28, means around 70-80 pictures and around 200-300 pictures with DSLR.

Bird shots around 5%,
Flower shots around 20%
Surfer shots roughly 5%
Landscape + - 5%
Human Interest / street photography + - 10%

sometimes i deleted my old collection though

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

I'm going to say 99.9% of the images I take are "keepers" . . .

Because I never delete anything unless it is completely out of focus, or just a bad exposure (which never happens with me ).

Now, out of the total number of digital images I take, I usually only choose a small few to use, but I have no exact numbers, nor do I care to even try to calculate that out.

All that being said, I'm not a 'spray and pray' shooter.

Although I do take images of more stuff than I did back in the film days, due to the fact that pressing the shutter release doesn't cost me .50 cents each press.

• From Panasonic FZ50:

.

Took this shot at the same place about two minutes before the above shot:



--
J. D.
Colorado

• "If your insurance company tells you that you don't need a lawyer . . . hire a lawyer!"

 

[jazzbass62]

DM this is unfair, if I'm going to be honest! I keep about 35 - 45% of my photos, mainly because they mean something to me either in terms of my people, or memory of a place or thing... That being said I haven't really tracked the "gems" though they exist. My gems may not strike anyone else as gems. But the important thing is they are MY gems... I will throw out a figure of about 2% - 5% that I REALLY like for one reason or another, and they get thrown into the jewelry case of gems.

Keep in mind that to me a GEM has a lot to do with subject and composition - the actual technical gem-ness sometimes takes a back seat. I frequently invoke the ole pushed Tri-X defense!
--
---
Cleve

 

[DutchMate]

I'm with Silent Tim,

In general i keep events and holidays for memory allthough some may suck in my mind. Technical failures immediate removed after shooting.

Technical bad ones kept for evaluation and pp-skill purpose sometimes.

I asolutely suck at portraits. I hate posed unnatural behaviour.

I think this topic is highly subjectif to personal preference\taste. What one person likes may dislike another person.

fe some technical failures may be keepers for its composition. Interesting shots.
others might be technical gems but lack interest.

It all comes down to the mind of the beholder.

Keepers after shooting 70% . However later deleted the evaluation ones .

Overall keepers about 30%

Gems: maybe 1-2% ?

--
maarten

 

[Jim_H_]

Compositionally-speaking, not counting what can be done in PP, my percentage of keepers is in inverse proportion to the size/cost of the camera gear I'm using:

Canon PowerShot SD450: 50% keepers, 5% gems (maybe)
Lumix GF1: 40% keepers, 2% gems
Canon EOS 3 or 20D: 30% keepers, 1% gems

I think the reason for this is that the SD450 is so limiting, it forces me to think about composition and lighting, and produce a better-composed shot before pressing the shutter button. Often times the keepers take a lot of PP, but the JPGs are malleable for that, and I end up with more keepers as a result.

With the GF1 and the Canon gear, I dunno, maybe more of the shots are forced by subliminally trying to justify the expense of the gear by taking more pictures, hence fewer keepers?

Just a thought or two...

--

'Forget the camera, forget the lens, forget all of that. With any four-dollar camera, you can capture the best picture.'
— Alberto Korda

 

[tymevest]

On numerous occasions I have revealed that out of every 100 shots that I take with my cameras, my average rate of what I judge to be "keepers" is 2 (2% of total shots), and my average rate of what I judge to be "gems" is 1 (1% of total shots). Independent of camera used, and experience.

Will you join me in the spirit of full disclosure and reveal your own true photographic success-rate ?

Bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge their own "IQ":

One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ .

Also bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge other people's "IQ":

His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' IQ was proportional to one's own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#IQ

Thus, it appears that the lower that you report your own-success rate to be, the better a photographer you are ! So, let's see who dares to claim the lowest success-rate! ...

My I.Q.? Why, I'm a genus of course! Just ask me.

Oh, the camera's.....

Probably 1% are something I may be proud to show. I keep about 60% that are "good enough" for later viewing. Maybe another 5% that are "good enough" when reduced to 1 to 2 MP. The rest are trashed. Usually from being blurred, wrong exposure, out of focus, bad lighting, or from the wrong camera settings for the situation. Call it "operator error".
--
Tymevest

 

[LTZ470]

My I.Q.? Why, I'm a genus of course! Just ask me.

Oh, the camera's.....

Probably 1% are something I may be proud to show. I keep about 60% that are "good enough" for later viewing. Maybe another 5% that are "good enough" when reduced to 1 to 2 MP. The rest are trashed. Usually from being blurred, wrong exposure, out of focus, bad lighting, or from the wrong camera settings for the situation. Call it "operator error".
--
Tymevest

TV...What "genus" are you Genius?...lol...yep I see you're diggin too...

 

[palincss]

On numerous occasions I have revealed that out of every 100 shots that I take with my cameras, my average rate of what I judge to be "keepers" is 2 (2% of total shots), and my average rate of what I judge to be "gems" is 1 (1% of total shots). Independent of camera used, and experience.

You are an analytical sort of guy. What would you say about any production process that had a 98% failure rate ? It amazes me that you speak of this with obvious pride, as though it indicated something positive, like exacting high standards and the discrimination of a connoisseur.