How much do you shoot?

Just wondering how many shots per week people around here typically take.


[poll]


Personally, I'm in the 251-500 category - dividing the sequential filenames by how long I've had each camera, my average of 425 shots/week breaks down like this:

• 5DII - 210 shots/week
• 7D - 180 shots/week
• S95 - 35 shots/week

That's overall, and averaged over a period of up to a year (for the 7D). With a more granular look, though, I used mostly the 5DII over winter, but now that the weather is nicer, I'm shooting with both bodies again.

Personally for me it varies a lot, generally in the summer I have a lot more photo opportunities and time and so I shoot way more than I do in the winter. Of course that's no surprise considering wildlife is my main subject.


I also get on photography kicks where I constantly want to be photographing, so those times there are way more photos taken than normal too





I think another good question to ask would be, when you go out specifically to photograph how many shots do you take? I may not photograph anything for a week but then I will go out and take 300 pictures in a day.

Well, I fired off over 3000 clicks in a month but got to keep less than a 100. There was a lot of burst in there and just playing around. But in the spring/summer time between 100-300 shotsa month too keep.After that not too many.


John.

At 10fps with the 1D IV in about 1 minutes of shooting that would be 600fmp of shooting. So I think I shoot far more now with the 1D IV than I did with the 5D II.


I think the keeper rate is more important than the total taken.

Based on this year's statistics, my weekly average is 71. Roughly 50% of picturesare taken with my XSi, just because I carry it with me most of the time.My 5DII is in use about 30% and the 7D 20%.


These numbersand ratios may changeas the weather gets warmer.

Over the last couple of years, my average has been just over 100 shots per week, of which about 10% are keepers.

As others have commented, the average is not representative. Sometimes I'll head out somewhere with high expectations and never remove the lens cap because the light isn't right, but show me a baby penguin in the wild and I won't take my finger off the shutter release all day.

212 pictures per week. But I am just getting warmed up ;)

Time Lapses skew me, though I may not even shoot every week, some weeks I can shoot in excess of 5000 actuations.

My shooting is really weather dependent so I

Mason has been telling me to "Daddy, put the camera, down!!", so between my few paid shoots, and a few outings on the weekends, and my wife telling me, "Honey, get off the computer!!", I

Hey Nighthawk, you better be careful, 600fpm with a 300000 limit, you could trash your new camera in 8.3 hours!!! Move away from the button!!!

You don't have to trash your camera, you just replace the shutter and mirror box for a few hundred dolars and you good to go. 300,000 acuations is just an estimate, youcan go to websites that take a poll on how long eachshutter lasted. 300,000 is a conservative number and usually last a bit longer than that. I've seen them last as long as a milion acuations or more! Although it's not that often. It also depends on how many lens changes you do and how dusty the enviroment, that greatly affects the shutter's life span.


John.

Depends whats going on the week really for me, like this weekend, i have a dance compatition. Last year i shot over 20k myself in 2 days. This year i hope to have alot less lol. Also if i have to do wedings, but if no major things, i do around 250-500 for school stuff and myself.

I

I've got a little over 62K shots on my 5DII. I got it when it was released, so that's just over 500 a week.


Now if I could somehow convert quantity to quality, I'd be set [:)]

i am with you on that john. i went to a professional sporting event this week and had about 30 keepers of 400 shots, 3 of which were really really keepers. according to the new math....hmmm, carry the 4....i conclude that i must get better.

As with most others, average shots per week are really nota good measure of my shooting habits---in the last 3 years I haveshot about 30,000 frames. I know this because I just went through and cleaned off my hard drive a couple of months ago---It went down to 5000 shots---not really keepers, just those I didn't want to get rid of. Out of that 5000, I would probably call 100 of them keepers and the rest are retained for sentimental value or future work (when I get smart enough to operate photoshop). Normally, I go out with a purpose in mind,i.e. to shoot birds. on those days, I will shoot maybe 100-200 frames per hour for a couple of hours or say 1000-1500 frameson an all day outing, especially if there is alot of subject matter I am interested in. I think I have only killed the batteries in my 7D one time. So, to get back to John's question, my weekly average over 3 years is about 192 shots per week---yes, I voted


There is a lot of talk about keepers and keeper rates from many of you----but what I rarely hear is what defines a keeper for you?------John, Should I save this question for another string--I don't want to redirect your conversation?





Bob

The last time I took a photo was over 2.5 months ago - the weather is dreary and the scenery drab - horrible *ain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Williams

There is a lot of talk about keepers and keeper rates from many of you----but what I rarely hear is what defines a keeper for you?------

---

Bob


Its a good question, but the answers would be so varied I doubt there could be a definite answer.


First you would have to define keeers. Are they pictures that camera did its job as it should and they are sharp or acceptably sharp, but may be lacking in composition or in the skill of the photographer. Are they the pictures that are good enough to do a little processing on and keep, but not really show anyone. Are they the ones that have all the elements and your willing to show someone.


Then you would have to narrow it down to the keeper rate for different types of photography. For Instance:

• Wildlife my keeper rate would be much lower than other types of photography, mainly because wild things for the most part do not pose.
• Macro hand held, would be a very low rate.
• Macro off my tripod my keeper rate jumps up fairly high.
• Landscape off a tripod with live view, extremely high.
• Landscapehand heldhigh.
• Candid and portraits inside without flash, very low.
• Candid and portraits inside with flash, a bit higher.

For comparison though, if I go out with 500mm I normally come back with 500 to 1000 pics. Of those pics maybe 20 make it good enough to get printed and filed away. There might be 1 or 2 that I look at and think it is really good. (Not birds next to the feeder pictures, this is the rate for actually going to the woods looking for wildlife. Bird feeder rate is much higher).


But its all subjective, because what I keep someone else might throw away. And what I throw away there are people who would keep.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

There is a lot of talk about keepers and keeper rates from many of you----but what I rarely hear is what defines a keeper for you?------Bob


Its a good question, but the answers would be so varied I doubt there could be a definite answer.

---

Rick, I knew this would be a purely subjective topic, but I was curious "what defines a keeper" for some of you. Like many of you, I am probably my own worst critic when I look at my shots. But one thing I have realized, especially with wildlife, is that IQ, Lighting and Comp sometimes take a backseat to the "catch" for example: I have a terrible shot of a bobcat peering through the bushes at me, but it is a keeper for me since it is so rare "for me" to get one of these guys. I also have a another of two Pheasant cocks fighting that has a similar story, but again, its a keeper for me since this is actually fairly rare to catch, at least for me.--Imay not print these sorts of shots or even put them on my website, but they were keepers for me. But... these are fairly rare. Normally, I look for sharpness first, then lighting, then comp.lighting and comp can usually be improved in post, butifthe image is dull and soft or oof to begin with there is little my skill set can do with the image. Assuming the subject is appealing, if its sharp and decent lighting its a keeper for me---but even with those "loose" specifications, my keeper rate may be 1 or 2 % for wildlife. If I get one or two real keepers on a days outing, I am pretty happy. If I had to develop a formula it would be something like this:


Assuming an appealing subject, i.e the bird facing you, not away.


On a scale from 1-100, score each component


Subject score (the catch)x .3 + sharpness score x .3 + Lighting Score x.2 + Composition Score x .1+ all else (noise, light flare,etc) score x .1 = >than 74


Lets try this formula: Given the image below, does the formula work?


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/1638._5F00_MG_5F00_3596.jpg[/img]


The catch: I was really happy with this so I'll give it a 90


Sharpness, not so good, lets call it 50


Lighting ok, but not great, 70


Comp is off but workable without too much loss. 80


The rest, no real problems, 90


so (90x.3)+(50x.3)+(70x.2)+(80x.1)+(90x.1)=gives you a weighted score of 73


Based on this formula, I should have thrown this one away, but I couldn't. Surprisingly, the end score came fairly close to the go-no go score.


OK, everyone go out and do this with your entire collection:[|-)]


Seriously, This is kind of the process I go through, but usually, you can see it and measure it at a glance (without the formula)---If its so close, that I have to do the math, then its probably not a keeper for any other reason than sentimental value.


Now that I have wasted all of your time with this I think I will go have another [B], wanna join me?


Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Williams

Now that I have wasted all of your time with this I think I will go have another [img]/emoticons/emotion-22.gif[/img], wanna join me?

---

Bob


Sure, you buying right?


Its an interesting formula, I never really thought about applying something like that to my pictures. With me it either looks good or it doesn't.


I will keep sharp and clear pics regardless of composition (why? I like wasting space on the computer and storage I guess), but they get filed away in case some strange need for them arises later. I am not sure these can be counted as keepers, but I did keep them.


I keep them based on composition and sharpness, and IQ. Subject matters to, a bad picture of big foot is still a good picture. It's all pretty subjective.


Really if you have to debate whether to keep a picture or not, I normally keep it. That one is for me to look at later, not other people. If you have to decide whether it should be kept or not its probably not one you show off.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Really if you have to debate whether to keep a picture or not, I normally keep it. That one is for me to look at later, not other people. If you have to decide whether it should be kept or not its probably not one you show off.


Rick

---

Actually, I agree with you, the rest was just for fun----Normally, I'll pick the best of a series and keep that one---wheather it's a "keeper or not" ---Imay go out and shoot 100 or a1000pictures of cranes in flight and still only end up with 1 or2 on my hardrive---doesn't matter how good or bad they are. After all, how many pictures of "cranes in flight" does one person need?


And yes, I'm buying.


Bob

Hi Bob,


Interesting concept. I can't say I am conscience of using a point system, but ultimately, we all are using some sort of value system to determine what we keep and discard. But something that I think you may want to consider, I am not sure many people, at least not me, use "weighting" in the way of your formula (0.3 x pts, or 0.2 x pts). While I am sure everyone weights different criteria when making selections, Instead of everything being scored to 100 pts and then weighted, another system would be that different criteria have different total number of points. For example, staying with your threshold of 75 for a "keeper" maybe sharpness is only given 30 points but "capturing a moment" is given 75. So, capturing a moment on its own could result in you "keeping" a photo.


For example:


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/8863.Eagle-216.JPG[/img]


Not a great photo in a lot of respects, but it captures a moment and is the one of the only I have of a mature bald eagle like that...kept it. Point being is that I often keep a photo primarily for one criteria.


Just some thoughts.


Brant

Bob


You should copywrite/patent your method. In CS6 you might see a sorting method just like yours where you just assign different values for diferent variables on the picture then Bridge just sorts them accordingly. Rather than the 5 star method they use now.


It would be cool if one of the programs automaticaly assign a value for sharpnes and other things, to help speed the process up when sorting.