Yeah, but Shel, I am mainly referring to when shooting weddings etc, where you need to punch out a high volume of usable prints per roll. Having only a couple of shots per roll that you "keep" from a wedding is just not feasible. If referring to portraits etc, I would say that the average is higher as I generally have more control over the situation and am not trying to shoot so quickly etc. When it comes to still-life and product shots, such as flowers etc, then I would be more inclined to say hope for around 10 really good shots per roll of 24 as I am much more particular about those results... I still very much have a ways to go before I am happy with my "strike rate"...
tan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:20 AM Subject: Re: Just one tip > Wow! Back in the late sixties, when I was hanging out with a lot of photogs, > the general consensus was ONE keeper from a roll of 36. Maybe we were looking > for different things then, hard to say. Looking at the contact sheets of some > great and current photogs, as well as some from the fifties and sixties, it's > interesting to note that often only two or three shots from a roll are chosen > for publication or exhibition or some other useful purpose. > > 18 keepers per roll is darned good, imo. > > Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > > I guess this is why I still don't believe that I have a great "strike rate" > > with my photography. I am averaging probably 18 exposures per 24 roll that > > I consider to be "keepers". When I get up to 22 "keepers" per roll, I'll be > > happy. > > >
