How much do you shoot?

[Ade]

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!!!

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Steven23]

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.

[allisonmann]

I

[Jon Ruyle]

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 []

[erno james]

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.

[bob williams]

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

[elmo_2006]

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

[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.


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

[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.

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