I have read that some National Geographic Photographer take 20000 (may be more) exposures on a single assignment and are happy if they get 20 incredible images.

As an amateur I am always aiming for a higher rate than 1 in a 1000 - ofcourse my pride is probably raised by different standards of images. Anyway, I was wonder what you guys hope for as a kind of benchmark. A few images per film or are you looking to show off 90% of what you take. I imagine these expectation about hit rate may well influence how a photographer approaches a

-- Matthew (mat@theeto.com), December 18, 2001

Answers

It depends on what a "hit" is. For an NG photog, that's getting one published. I think an M shooter should strive to get most all of the exposures correct and most all of the focus correct (say about 35 and 30 per roll respectively). As far as composition and content, that is very dependant on what you are doing. I think Ansel Adams said that one good print a month was an acceptable rate. I think you should strive for maybe 1 picture per roll of film as being one you are proud of, for display, etc. For events and family stuff, I suppose something like 10 exposures per roll being useful to document an event might be pretty good. This is all just my opinion, of course.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 18, 2001.

Dan's about right in my opinion. I too, when I shoot something specific (I exhibit in galleries), aim for one useable image per roll. When it's family documentation keep 'em all, but hardly print any due to lack of time.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 18, 2001.

It's important to understand thath the National Geographic numbers, like any editorial assignment, have nothing to do with "hit rate." Whenever an editor is involved, it is essential to get enough shots to match whatever direction the editorial content may take. This is well-documented somewhere on the National Geographic site or in one of their books, you should look it up.

My son was once photographed during flooding in San Francisco by a photographer for the San Francisco Chronicle. He shot an entire roll (36) for a single shot in the back of the paper. This isn't uncommon.

It depends on working style and what one is trying to do. This is one of those questions that pops up regularly on forums and always has the same answer, which is "it varies."

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 18, 2001.

Virtually 100% of my pictures are well exposed and well composed, but there may be nothing worth a second look on roll after roll after roll. I find it interesting that on an occassional roll if there's one great shot, there will frequently be several more on the same roll, often on adjacent frames, and of completely divergent subjects.

-- Wihlimn (bmitch@home.com), December 18, 2001.

A beginning photographer concentrates on exposure. An intermediate photographer concentrates on composition. Advanced photographers look for the light.

Hit rates vary with ability. Generally the better you get the less you are satisfied. AA eventually said one good print (new, not reprint) a year was a good hit rate....

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 18, 2001.

I think that it was Lilo Raymond who said that after the first five years photography gets much harder. That sounds about right. Cheers!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), December 18, 2001.

Major motion picture studios shoot around ten times as much film as winds up in the movie.

For color slides, I shoot about five to ten times what winds up in the slide show.

For black and white, I shoot at least fifty times as many shots as ever wind up hanging on the wall. Maybe a hundred.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 18, 2001.

my hit ratio is 1:1

-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), December 18, 2001.

I find my hit-rate goes down with the ease and cost of shooting, i.e. my hit-rate is much higher with LF and MF than a motor-driven 35. One (more) reason I'm staying away from digital as long as possible.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 18, 2001.

I'm always dissapointed with my hit rate generally in 35mm. It seems such a waste to only get 1 or 2 per roll although there are exceptions. My hit rate for medium and large format is much better all around. It does seem that it is harder to come up with better photographs as the years go by. The most passion was in the first 2 years...once in a while though I feel the inspiration strongly if I let go of all my preconceptions.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), December 19, 2001.

AA eventually said one good print (new, not reprint) a year was a good hit rate....

Either he didn't shoot much or he had a terrible hit rate.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 19, 2001.

Yes, but those NG photographers will have thousands of stock images out of those rolls they shoot. What gets used in NG has nothing to do with how many usable shots they get on assignment. Agencies like Aurora live off the stuff NG doesn't publish.

Personally I get about two or three selects per roll, perhaps.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 19, 2001.

FWIW, AA also claimed he felt he had fewer than two-dozen stellar images after a lifetime of work...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 19, 2001.

Shoot for yourself and shooting for other people have different priorities. When I did weddings to help pay the bills in college I shot nonstop the whole event because it is once in a lifetime thing for the clients you need to cover all the angles literally. In the end you put together an album according to whatever theme the client dictates.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 19, 2001.

funny, i wanted to post that question last night.

just last night i went through a few files of my old negatives, as i am going to buy a scanner next week. i marked the one i will scan and it came up to about 1 to 4 keepers per film. some films didn't give me even one interesting shot. but i think that rate is allright.

i now more or less dropped digital photography. one big reason was the even lower rate of keepers:junk. when the single picture doesn't cost enough (money or sweat), inflation kicks in.

in my medium format folder i usually have about 3 keepers per film (3/12!). much better rate!

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 19, 2001.

"If I knew how to take a good photograph, I'd do it every time." -- Robert Doisneau

-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), December 19, 2001.

Matthew:

As an Amateur, I tend to pay for the films and don't expect to make money out of it.

So? My hit rate is far much better since I take less pictures but each of them is thought over. A little plus for this enjoyable hobby, it takes some thinking, looking at, dicovering.

That is mostly claimed by most of those having a M6, "the extension of the eye". Er I have a R system but it does not change the problem.

Those "pro" would shoot far less if they were using 6x6 or 6x4.5 but they would deliver far better photos. My not so humble opinion, that is. Xavier

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), December 19, 2001.

Wasn't it George Bernard Shaw who said that "leica photography was like unto a salmon, who must lay a million eggs in order that one may live". With that kind of a 'hit rate', its a good thing he lived into his nineties.

-- Seth Honeyman (sdhoneyman@hotmail.com), December 19, 2001.

In answer to Jay: My "Hit Rate" is actually much higher with digital than with 35mm. This is because I only get 8 SHOTS on my tiny 64 MG card. Of course I erase as I go so an actual number is hard to come up with.

-- Sanford (sanford@usa.com), December 19, 2001.