What percent of shots are “print worthy”?

So, what percentage of your shots are “print worthy”?? By this I mean, you would print and display in a store front, fair booth, or other outlet . . . or you would include as a prime shot in a wedding package?

Let us know what you shoot (landscape, sports, etc) and what is your average “print worthy” shot percentage . . .

I only do landscape/nature/wildl​ife. Hard to say, but I haven't uploaded any new images to my gallery since October...if that helps. I do have a couple recent photos that I'm going to add. I would say less than 5% for me.

I'd have to say its probably less then 5% for me as well. Now this could be because I'm my toughest critic or I just didn't get back to them after I've taken the picture. (something else comes up/no time to do the work I'd like to do on the image)

It might be higher if I was able to do photography full time.

I do mostly landscape/scenery/stil​l life stuff, and I'd say 5% as well. Just wondered if I was in the ballpark with everyone else . . .

Kind of depends really,

Landscape - 10%
Event - 30%
Wedding 40%

I'm happy with these figures. The 1/10 landscape makes me appreciate the ONE.

I was reading a coffee table book from a photographer that specializes in Colorado. I think he goes out full time in search of great images. He said he gets about 1 every 10 days of shooting that are fit to be put in a book!! I couldn't believe it. I was so encouraged to hear that it is even difficult for such a seasoned photographer to get a great shot.

"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."-Ansel Adams

The ones that are print worthy....can't really get the figures you'd want to get because it varies so much.

With me I'd say less than one percent.

One famous photojournalist stated in a lecture that if he got three photos a day that were print worthy he would make a great living. And over the past thirty years he has done that.....his name is Joe McNally!

All interesting stuff here . . .

What I would call "print worthy", the next guy might reject out of hand as not good enough. I thought about the guy with the coffee table book. Print worthy for that publication may have a higher standard than needed for a different application.

I remember when I was first introduced to photography (in high school), I was told by my mentor to shoot, and shoot often, because film is cheaper than the cost of a missed shot. Well now that digital is around, that philosophy is even easier to follow. But has the pendulum swung too far? My thought is, if we shoot continuously because memory (film) is cheap, do we burden ourselves with the review and PP part that we miss the contemplative thought we put into any given shot or exposure??

Just thinking out loud . . .

I can usually tell before i take the shot if im going to print it or not. That mainly goes for landscape and scenery or even at times close up flowers. And it all depends if im out TO shoot that shot. So i can come home with ten images on my card and in time most will be printed. However If im on a vacation, or at a birthday, or even scouting a location for a shot that number drops a lot.
Then there are those odd times when a shot just seems to look better on a screen be it a Monitor or TV then it would printed.

When I studied, my lecturer pointed out that most pros rae very happy with 1% of photos being of the sort of quality that they'd display on their showroom walls or in an exhibition, and then over the course of the next few years proceeded to show us many docos and interviews that backed up this essertion.

interesting that i'm not much different than other photogs. i guess each of us really are the hardest critics on our own work. i shoot a lot of things that may wow other people, but the results are mostly "meh" to me...

Back in the film days the number I heard was if you got 1 or 2 printable photos from a roll of 36 you were doing good.

I think the number of printable photos depends on the standard. My standard has been is it worth the money to actually print the image. AND now is it worth my time to process.

I took photos at a couple of gymnastic meets at NCSU back in the 90's. The gym lighting was HORRIBLE. I used 800 speed Portra film pushed two stops to 3200. It was UGLY but what was needed to get the shutter speed. I spend over $300 on film and development and did not get one photo that was worth a dang.

If I do macro photography I would guess my success rate is 50-75% depending on the subject and if I am playing with aperture for DOF the success rate might go lower just because I take more shots.

Successful/printable landscapes or animal images are back toward the 1/36 ratio. Or worse.

Images of kids basketball in a decently lit gym I am getting a printable rate of 32% to 47%. The first two weekends I was taking about 400 images and getting around 130ish images worth processing and printing. My workflow is to assign a "3" to a decent image that is sharp, has a full face, ball and the hoop if possible. If that image has the extra thang of movement, emotion, whatever it gets a 4.

I am not finished with last weekends processing since I took 800 images. Some of the kids stared playing games so there was more photo opportunity and I was trying out some things. The first two weekends each generated 400 images of which 130ish were 3 and 4 rated photos. About 40 images were 4 rated. So if we say that only a 4 is worthy of printing then I was at 10% rate.

For the last couple of vacations I have taken about 1200 images in a week. About 800 I have kept. Printed in some way, mugs, puzzles, photos, magnets, a core of 30-40. Used in a slide show 300-400.

"What percentage of shots are print worthy?"

It depends.

Later,
Dan

Landscape: <1%

Sports: 5%

Weddings: 45%