What is your "failure" rate?

[Liney]

A bit of a potentially controversial title I know, but now I've got your attention perhaps you can hang around and answer the question...

When I say "failure" rate what I mean is how many good images do you get to blurred, out of focus, "where did the subject go?" shots? The thought came to me when I was trying out a new flash set up for macro and was chasing bees around the cherry tree. Every time one landed I moved into a relatively close position, desperately find the right focus distance, set the aperture (manual lens, I need to see enough detail to focus then wind up the aperture to get a decent depth of view...) and shutter!.

Trouble was after a number of shots that would have exceeded the maximum number of images on two rolls of 35mm film (thank you whoever made digital photography) I got maybe one decent image and a couple that weren't that bad if I worked on them. Not to mention the number of times I got to step three or four and the bee decided he'd move on elsewhere...

Which made me wonder how everyone else got on? Obviously there are photo-gods and goddesses out there who get great shots every time, so maybe the question is what would you class as a "successful" shoot in terms of the good to bad ratio? I'd be particularly interested in any other macro enthusiasts and see how they get on.

Cheers

[nardes]

From the top of my head, if I take say, 300-400 shots during a day's outing, I can usually delete maybe 100 or so immediately (technical, composition errors, etc.) and then of the remainder, cull them down to around 50 and from that 50, perhaps 10 or 15 are worth taking further with maybe 5 or 6 as standouts that I might consider for posting here.

Cheers

Dennis

[Geoff79]

Funny timing for this thread. I had the single worst macro session so far yesterday afternoon. I went to some local bushland to hopefully capture some native bees on the flowers. I got there and although it wasn't an overly windy day, it was in the bush and I couldn't escape it. Finally got deep enough in the scrub to escape the breeze a bit, but then I just couldn't find anything other than flies. There was a gigantic blue fly that I was dying to capture, though. Didn't get anything close to a keeper out of many efforts. I ended up with one last final shot that would have been useable, if he wasn't on the outer edge of the frame with half a wing cut off. So that was 0 keepers.

Then all I could find other than that fly, were a dozen sand fly type things hovering around my legs. I assume it was because I got some cuts on my legs somewhere along the way and the blood was attracting them? Anyway, so I sat down and got a couple of awful shots of flies on my skin and shorts and shoes. Unusable, really. I got a few bites, but I guess one got me in a bad state because I was already frustrated and I swatted and killed it. Turned out to be the only subject that stayed still enough for me all afternoon. But photos of a dead fly appeal 0 to me - so there's still no keepers.

After about an hour and a half of this I went back to the car, attached the wide-angle lens to try and get some nice landscape shots. As happened at the end of my recent holiday, the AF is gone - completely shot now. Later that afternoon at home I resigned to the fact I might have to now use this as a Manual lens from now on, but at the time and in my frustration I got two photos of the dusty road and that was it as the lens was a dead weight to me in that state of mind.

Anyway, the whole outing was a complete waste of time with possibly no keepers at all. I'll review and confirm, but it was awful.

Ironically, later that afternoon I got some nice shots of a jumping spider and lady beetle in the comfort of my backyard. Got some keepers there, at least. :)

But yes, I really like when Macro photography goes well - getting a great shot is quite thrilling. But holy goodness it can be frustrating too. Really frustrating. The worst thing about it for me is that I only get such limited windows to spend time on macro photography, and it's so disheartening when you're all set up and ready to go and there's no subjects to capture, or the potential subjects just make it impossible for you to capture any keepers.

Anyway, a successful shoot for me personally would be to get maybe about five true keepers in an hour? Much, much easier said than done.

[Mark L]

Keeper rates might go up if photogs thought a bit more before pressing the shutter button. Digital makes its so cheap and easy to press the shutter button though.
Thinking keeper rates depend on the type of photo you are after or taking. Macro would have a less keeper rate than people portraits or photos of flowers I'd think.
There's been an astounding amount of woodswallows around here lately so I took 19 photos of them flitting around high in the sky this arvo. I could have used the cameras 8 frames per secound ability and have 160 frames out of focus to delete. I'll post the only useful photo I got. Not even a keeper really.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2axr7D3]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1972/44331614964_b35a8f8f96_o.jpg[/url

[jim]

Interesting question. As it happens I posted a photo of a bird in here today, and while it's still fresh in my memory card I'm in a position to do a bit of a count up. I see that I took 111 photos of it, of which 47 remain as yet undeleted. Ultimately I'll probably keep fewer than half a dozen, and I got one that I think is reasonably good.

Tht's probably about average for me.

[Tannin]

From the top of my head, if I take say, 300-400 shots during a day's outing, I can usually delete maybe 100 or so immediately (technical, composition errors, etc.) and then of the remainder, cull them down to around 50 and from that 50, perhaps 10 or 15 are worth taking further with maybe 5 or 6 as standouts that I might consider for posting here.

To the extent that there is such a thing as a "normal' day (which there isn't), that's about where I stand too, though a day which produces 5 or 6 keepers worth posting here is a pretty good day. Some days, you work hard all day and battle to find even one good picture. Other days, everything works for you and you wind up with a whole series of good shots - sometimes more than 50 - all of the same subject. You could pick a couple at random and they would be fine, but you trawl through looking for the very best one and feeling annoyed because there are dozens of perfectly good other shots you are never going to use.

(But you take them anyway, because with birds, you so seldom get a really good opportunity that you never, ever waste one.)

[farmmax]

Totally depends on what I'm taking. If it is flowers which stay pretty still, there are very few duds. If I'm chasing some insects round and round a plant stem and in and out of leaves, I'm happy if I get a couple of decent shots out of 100.

[Hawthy]

On a one week trip to Tasmania, I took 612 photos of which I kept 40. Most of these were landscapes where I had plenty of time to organise myself, so that's a sad indictment on my abilities. Some were just not interesting photos but on others I hadn't turned the autofocus back on and that type of thing.

[Gazza]

Dennis & Jim sum it up well for me. Thanks guys - :th3:




From the top of my head, if I take say, 300-400 shots during a day's outing, I can usually delete maybe 100 or so immediately (technical, composition errors, etc.) and then of the remainder, cull them down to around 50 and from that 50, perhaps 10 or 15 are worth taking further with maybe 5 or 6 as standouts that I might consider for posting here.

Cheers

Dennis
Geez, Dennis...you've bin lookin' over my shoulder! :grinning01:




I'll also add...I've been experimenting with different genres/ideas lately and find myself getting more-n-more cynical/critical. Keeping one reasonable image a week from this becomes very satisfying.




Great topic...Cheers - https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Cgkwrn4/0/5c159de1/Ti/i-Cgkwrn4-Ti.gif

[ricktas]

Depends.. on the subject!

Take me out to shoot a dawn sunrise and I will likely take 20 photos and fairly much every one is a keeper. I take it slow, do my setup, and move around for different foreground interest.

Put me in the backyard trying to get a photo of the dogs playing in water and shaking it off, to freeze the action and the number of keepers drops, as I run around the yard trying to get a good angle, that doesn't include dog butt. Same thing with chasing kids for portraits.

Then moving right along to Macro, where I am trying to get that bee in flight, well most are trash and I might get a keeper.. maybe.. if I am lucky.

So I don't have a keeper rate that I could quote here, because my subjects keep changing and with that so does my success.

I get why people who shoot film, don't generally go in for bee-in-flight photos, and rather tend to be posed portraiture or landscapes. It is really nice that the landscape doesn't just take off and fly to somewhere else, because that would just plain pi... annoy me.

[Glenda]

Definitely depends on the subject. Also with the more difficult subjects eg birds, macro, quickly moving grandchildren, I will always take lots of shots and get a very low percentage of keepers. However, with landscapes, astro I take less shots and get a higher percentage of keepers.

[Tannin]

It is really nice that the landscape doesn't just take off and fly to somewhere else, because that would just plain pi... annoy me.

Well ... maybe ....

But that's leading me a bit off-topic so I replied here: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?158725-Landscapes-and-blood-pressure

[Liney]

Thanks for the responses, and a pretty good selection they were.

Mark L, an interesting point about not being so quick to press the shutter. Certainly if I was still shooting film I would not be trying to take macro shots of bees unless I was pretty certain I would get something I could keep out of a roll. And of course it depends on how you class a "keeper", I don't sell my images and the only public exposure they get is the good ones get to become my computer wallpaper at work.

Some interesting comments made about different genres of photography, and I suppose you could split them into stuff that moves and stuff that doesn't (or at least moves slowly!).

Thanks again, hopefully anyone new to photography will get the idea that getting a fair number of bad images is par for the course, and happens to the best of us.

[landyvlad]

My failure rate? Up in the region of 100%

But it's largely my fault due to a lack of practice / knowledge.

[Liney]

My failure rate? Up in the region of 100%

But it's largely my fault due to a lack of practice / knowledge.

Landyvlad

Never give up, just keep practicing

[JimmyCat]

I reckon if I get a couple of bird shots that I'm happy enough to keep and maybe push up to Flickr then I've had a pretty good day - in terms of failure rate that could be anywhere between 80 - 100%. For example yesterday I grabeed 5 quick shots of a honeyeater high up in the topmost of a flowering gum and had a couple of keepers, the day before I scrapped all bar one of more than 100.

Thank God for digital photography and large SD cards!

[martycon]

G'day Liney, when I started macro I posted a similar thread. My success rate then was one in nine. And yes in the "good old days" I could not have afforded to do macro. As you say, getting enough light to be able to focus can be a problem. When using a full manual older lens, I use the viewfinder brightness boost for focus facility which is independent of the lens, perhaps your camera also has this.
Focus distance, like focusing on the subject, comes with practise. As many macro subjects are 10 t0 20mm long I start with magnification 1:2 to have the subject occupy half the frame. This also gives better DOF, and allows a crop. If a small insect stays in place, then I can go to magnification 1:1. Magnification 0.7:1 or greater is almost always impracticable hand held.
Practise helps and if nothing presents, focus on anything. My current success (think positive) rate is about one in two or three.
hope this is useful, regards marty

[landyvlad]

Obviously there are photo-gods and goddesses out there who get great shots every time,

Don't you believe it! They say the difference between a professional and amateur photographer, is that the professional doesn't show anyone his mistakes. :)

Extremely good photographers would have a lower failure rate but they will certainly have a failure rate.
And those photos that are really famous and have become integrally associated with a photographer are often the 'best in career' shot as opposed to their typical work.

As I quoted elsewhere don't compare yourself to other photographers, only to the photographer you were.




Depends.. on the subject!

It is really nice that the landscape doesn't just take off and fly to somewhere else, because that would just plain pi... annoy me.

Well, it does move. It's hurtling through space at 29.783 kilometres/second, while also spinning at 465 meters/second.

So well done you ! :)

[ricktas]

Well, it does move. It's hurtling through space at 29.783 kilometres/second, while also spinning at 465 meters/second.

So well done you ! :)

And here was me thinking that was just the vodka :D

[Nick Cliff]

Interesting topic really because the more you learn with macro photography the higher standards you set yourself for composition, sharpness, white balance, lighting and OOF background the workflow just grows. However it does become easier once you work out a workflow and practice often and close observations of insects helps too.
Now if I am thinking I will take note of which flowers are freshest and seem to being visited the most and just enjoy the view. Just set up comfortably and wait and see if the little critters will return. There are times too of course through the day when native bees are more active and I personally try and avoid macro photography in windy conditions.
Using a longer focal length macro lens makes life easier too of course.
The other thing is with insects I recall an entomologist saying try and move smoothly and quite slowly when you are close to the little guys, particularly the wasps:)
Personally I grow plants native and introduced that are attractive to insects and birds and that shortens the odds quite a bit at home:)
Sometimes half the insect photos will be good, it is just waiting for something spectacular composition wise to occur. For instance a few days ago I was photographing flowers when I noticed one spider catch another jumping spider and eat the little guy, I took heaps of photos and really far too many yet you are thinking at the time this may be a once in a lifetime thing to observe.
Personally I do not stress out too much if insects do not co operate, when they do it is a bonus the days of chasing butterflies are over for me. I wait and watch to see if they have particular resting spots in the daytime or especially late in the afternoon see were they camp for the night and may have an early start the next morning to grab a few photos before the little guys warm up and leave for their days feeding routine.
With landscapes composition is key and having the picture planned helps re ND grad filters, tripods etc and a good weather eye (BOM) for the conditions you want if the subject is fairly local, so that you can get the photo first go especially with sunrise or sunset photos so most photos should be OK, it comes down to the changing conditions re god rays, lightning and that bit too if you are fortunate:)
Other guys have said this stuff before on the site particularly Rick and Mary-Anne, no doubt other photographers may want to add a few pearls of wisdom to help newer photographers shorten their learning curve in relation to this conversation:)

cheers Nick

[Mark L]

And here was me thinking that was just the vodka :D

You need red wine to really appreciate it.:confused013

[mongo]

A more complex question than it originally seems. We all shoot certain subjects they way we do. That is not likely to change except to the extend we may learn how to possibly do that better

In the days of 36 roll of slide film, Mongo would be lucky to keep, say, 4 frames. These days, at a guess, 10 % - 15%. It does not seem much has changed but read below, and maybe it has or at least the reasons have.

There may be many different reasons which may affect the keeper rate on any occasion but some of the real factors have nothing to do with the shoot or image quality itself. By this Mongo means it is very often up to us to decide the fate of an otherwise perfectly good image. EXPLANATION:-

You come back from a great shoot where everything went great. You have 40 to 60 frames of the same subject (and some multiple of virtually the same frame/image). Most of them are as good as you might ever hope to take. So what do you do with them ?? You of course instinctively start to toss the lesser of them even amungst quality of images that in other circumstances, you would not think to throw away. Again, this is to reduce the number and thereby increase the quality to its most concentrated form (like a well reduced sauce).

Even worse, picture the above cenario, and you throw them all away because 8 months earlier you had the opportunity somewhere else to have taken images of this subject that you never thought you could better and , indeed, they are th best you have of this subject. So, no need to keep any of the latest otherwise keeper images and they are trashed in their entirety.

Two thing:-
You are only as good as your last best shot of anything/subject. No matter how good it might be, unless you can better your last best, there is no need or purpose to keep your latest otherwise great shots.

It is Mongo's strong belief that the best way to reduce the overall quality/standard of our photo work, is to "water it down" with our lesser work. The minute you throw out the lesser work, your higher standard work becomes the benchmark to yourself and to others

[jim]

Mongo, a variant on this would be when you sort your photos for the day and wind up throwing away several perfectly decent images, because other similar shots were marginally better, but keep a couple of mediocre ones because they're the only shots you have of a worthwhile subject. Obviously you hope to improve on them, but in the meantime your sorting and editing actually reduces the overall quality of your work.

At least I sometimes find myself doing this...

[bobt]

Not exactly on topic, but I've always said that you need to look back at early photographs to see whether your photography has improved over time - it usually has.

I've also measured my own performance (and I guess this ties in with "failure rate) by evaluating how well I have done in club competitions over the years. I have a spreadsheet which records my "batting average" over time.

In the first 8 years 44% of my comp entries won some sort of an award. This crept up to around 50% and currently it's at 67%. This serves to tell me that I'm doing something right, and gives me an idea of how I'm travelling in the club scene. Of course there are many in my club better than me, but at least I feel I'm keeping up. Outside the club environment my stats would be nowhere near as good of course. In any event, I guess that means I must be getting more "keepers", or perhaps my post processing is getting better! 8*)

(I'm stopping competing next year because I'm a bit over it all now after competing for so long.)

[mongo]

Mongo, a variant on this would be when you sort your photos for the day and wind up throwing away several perfectly decent images, because other similar shots were marginally better, but keep a couple of mediocre ones because they're the only shots you have of a worthwhile subject. Obviously you hope to improve on them, but in the meantime your sorting and editing actually reduces the overall quality of your work.

At least I sometimes find myself doing this...

Have to agree with Jim. This is one other aspect of the whole thing

[Mark L]

A more complex question than it originally seems. We all shoot certain subjects they way we do. That is not likely to change except to the extend we may learn how to possibly do that better

In the days of 36 roll of slide film, Mongo would be lucky to keep, say, 4 frames. These days, at a guess, 10 % - 15%. It does not seem much has changed but read below, and maybe it has or at least the reasons have.
Maybe I'm a bit misguided her
There may be many different reasons which may affect the keeper rate on any occasion but some of the real factors have nothing to do with the shoot or image quality itself. By this Mongo means it is very often up to us to decide the fate of an otherwise perfectly good image. EXPLANATION:-

You come back from a great shoot where everything went great. You have 40 to 60 frames of the same subject (and some multiple of virtually the same frame/image). Most of them are as good as you might ever hope to take. So what do you do with them ?? You of course instinctively start to toss the lesser of them even amungst quality of images that in other circumstances, you would not think to throw away. Again, this is to reduce the number and thereby increase the quality to its most concentrated form (like a well reduced sauce).

Even worse, picture the above cenario, and you throw them all away because 8 months earlier you had the opportunity somewhere else to have taken images of this subject that you never thought you could better and , indeed, they are th best you have of this subject. So, no need to keep any of the latest otherwise keeper images and they are trashed in their entirety.

Two thing:-
You are only as good as your last best shot of anything/subject. No matter how good it might be, unless you can better your last best, there is no need or purpose to keep your latest otherwise great shots.

It is Mongo's strong belief that the best way to reduce the overall quality/standard of our photo work, is to "water it down" with our lesser work. The minute you throw out the lesser work, your higher standard work becomes the benchmark to yourself and to others

You're addressing your keeper rate and not failure rate.
And based on what you've said, we might not be posting our new photos here on AP because although they might be interesting they are not quite as good as what we have previously taken?

[Tannin]

a variant on this would be when you sort your photos for the day and wind up throwing away several perfectly decent images, because other similar shots were marginally better, but keep a couple of mediocre ones because they're the only shots you have of a worthwhile subject. Obviously you hope to improve on them, but in the meantime your sorting and editing actually reduces the overall quality of your work.

This would be like the day I graduated from my country high school and went to university, thus reducing the average student IQ in both institutions.

[mongo]

You're addressing your keeper rate and not failure rate.
And based on what you've said, we might not be posting our new photos here on AP because although they might be interesting they are not quite as good as what we have previously taken?

Mark, Mongo completely stands by what he has said. By subtracting the keepers from 100%, you cannot but get your failure rate. In any event, as Mongo has tried to relay, it is not just the numbers that determine this but rather the philosophy of how we get to the ratio. As far as posting, it is of no concern to Mongo . Whilst Mongo encourages and participates in the sharing of photography in hopefully broad and helpful terms, posting is not the reason he takes images. Of course you should consider posting what you think is different, informative, beautiful, rare, having photographic or other merit ... or just simply what you think is worth posting...... and only you can judge that.

[Mary Anne]

Failure rate well I never really count it as such these days, to me if I can get down the back ramp into the garden and press the shutter button on my camera that's a Plus.
Hubby calls me Hawk eyes as I can see little tiny Insects where he cannot see anything, sadly I cannot get down under plants like I used so don't see as much.
I really enjoy shooting macro especially Jumping Spiders and Bees, I am able to manage the Bees OK these days though those Cute Spiders don't play fair anymore.
All they want to do is jump on my left hand where years ago I could hold that heavy Canon gear with one hand and get good shots.
Where these days even with my lighter m4/3 macro gear and shooting with one hand does not get them in focus, so plenty of failures now.

We got 12mm of rain last evening I reckon that will bring out some Insects so I am now off now to see what's in the Garden.
If I take 300-400 RAW/jpeg shots this morning I will probably get about 250-300 failures. As long as I get 10 decent shots I can post on line I am Happy :D
Though I never get around to it these days, guess I will have to make more of an effort :nod:

[Brian500au]

Interesting subject. I don't shoot macro (scares the $h#t out of me), but I do shoot a lot of wildlife (being that mammals or birds), environmental portraits and the occasional landscape and architectural shot. As others have said, when shooting because I can, I do cover my ar$e with multiple shots of the same scene. When doing a portrait I would shoot off two, three or even four shots just in case the subject has blinked etc. My reason behind this is I find it very difficult in sunlight to check the back of the camera each time (and I wear bifocal glasses which I take off when putting my eye to the view finder). Also during those four shots the subject might move their head, body, arm etc. Equally after taking those four shots I might take a step to the left or right, maybe even ask the subject to angle their body, head, hand etc differently. I would then take another two, three or four shots.

When I come home I sort through looking for the most aesthetically pleasing photo and PP that one. To me that does not mean the others are failures - and in fact they could have some elements about them that are better than the one I picked to PP. In some cases the subject maybe better but the back ground is not as good and I am too lazy to work on the back ground to clean it up.

Wildlife, landscape and architecture, I use the same theory for one reason or another (multiple shots with different exposures etc). Once again in raw we can clean up under or over exposed shots - and sometimes this is a matter of opinion which one you want to work on. Certainly does not mean the others are failures.

Given my explanation above my "failure rate" is very low. I do have failures though. When doing environmental portraits, if I use too low shutter speed then I will get movement in the shot, alternatively I might have used a too shallow DOF for the focal length of the lens and therefore not all the subject in in focus. I find this mostly happens if I am using a new addition to my kit, but I quickly learn after I have gone through the days shoot, and try to adjust my technique for next time I am using the same lens.

Given that most people are using macro as examples of their biggest failure rate I really cannot comment. I suppose the closest I would come there would be when photographing birds in flight, but this can really depend on the type of bird you are trying to photograph (ducks vs swallows). I guess some of it too would depend on the type of equipment you using - a Canon 6D is great for portrait, landscape etc but would have a 99% failure rate trying to catch a swallow in flight.

[Liney]

Mark, Mongo completely stands by what he has said. By subtracting the keepers from 100%, you cannot but get your failure rate. In any event, as Mongo has tried to relay, it is not just the numbers that determine this but rather the philosophy of how we get to the ratio. As far as posting, it is of no concern to Mongo . Whilst Mongo encourages and participates in the sharing of photography in hopefully broad and helpful terms, posting is not the reason he takes images. Of course you should consider posting what you think is different, informative, beautiful, rare, having photographic or other merit ... or just simply what you think is worth posting...... and only you can judge that.

Well the simple question appears to have kicked over a can of worms!

When I originally posed the question I had not considered my personal standards would affect what I considered to be a failure, and I thank Mongo for explaining that so eloquently. Looking back on what I would consider great images from five years ago I notice that firstly I wasn't taking macro images, but secondly I wasn't trying too hard to push the envelope of what could be achieved.

I remember a talk by a local keen photographer many years and thousands of miles away, and they offered one piece of advice which was to make use of the automatic functions of the camera to get a couple of early shots in, just in case everything you do after that doesn't work. This may be echoed in some of the other comments, particularly around workflow. I find myself setting up the various settings, shooting off a couple of quick images then tweaking settings as I go along, perhaps even trying out some specific features such as HDR to see what the effect will be. But it isn't until I get home and start viewing the images that I find what works and what doesn't.

Thank you all for your contributions, it has been a very interesting read.