How many photos per roll are you happy with?

[totifoto]

If you shoot a 36 frame roll how many frames do you have to get from that roll to be happy?

If I get one that is perfect I´m happy but I wanna get at least 5 good frame from a roll.

When I shoot 6X6 I wanna get at least 3.

 

[MickH]

Blimey, if I got one in ten rolls that is "perfect" I'd be ecstatic! TBH I don't think I've ever taken a perfect photo, but I think I know what you mean ;-)

Anything above a couple of 'keeper' shots out of a 36 exp film I would regard as a good return.

Cheers.

 

[cjm]

I'm happy if I get at least one photo that I like well enough to have printed. I usually have about 5 that I will upload to my flickr account that are okay.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I always average a bit under one "winner" per roll. No matter if it is a 36 exposure roll of 35mm or 10 exposure roll of 120.

If my average got higher than that, I would begin to wonder if I am editing tight enough.

 

[tomasis]

It is Zero for most rolls it is possible to keep up continuing to shoot more rolls. Is it not what we are doing?

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

at least one excellent, if not it is considered pure a test roll (to be forgotten soon)

 

[charjohncarter]

I need 3 but if I get even 1 that is a triple A winner I would be happy. The problem is the 1 winner I get is usually not the one I thought it would be, which means I get zero intentional winners.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

5 that I don't want to delete immediately, that's a good roll.

I had a roll once with like ten that I actually LIKED. That was an awesome day!

 

[rogue_designer]

I want more the 50% to be ok technically (focus, exposure).

Beyond that there are too many variables. I get alot more "misses" (composition/timing wise) with street since I can't control much. I'd say I want to get 3-5 street shots that I'd be happy with scanning to and showing others, per roll.

If I'm shooting landscape, or architecture (or anything more formal) I end up with a MUCH higher percentage of usable shots.

Likewise, if I'm shooting 120 or large format, the percentage goes way up, since I pre-edit alot of shots before they're taken.

Winners are another matter altogether. But I know for a fact that I have an absurd number of negatives in various formats filed away (from the last 15 years of shooting, pro and personal), and my active portfolio is fewer than 25 images. So - the math is against me.

 

[Keith]

It makes me happy if I've got the exposure correct on at at least half of the shots in a roll and often I'll get a roll where ninety percent of the exposures are good. The fact that maybe there's nothing there that pleases me artistically doesn't bother me too much at this stage because IMO those type of shots are a little rare at the best of times. Knowing that I have exposure sorted is far more important than producing stunners because when the good shots leap out at me after scanning (not often enough) ... control of exposure is a real bonus and to me a poor exposure will kill a potentially good pic more often than a small focussing error.

 

[infrequent]

I had a roll once with like ten that I actually LIKED. That was an awesome day!

i know that feeling!

 

[pesphoto]

I have low standards so I would say up to 75%

 

[stuken]

It depends on what I'm shooting. If its street, maybe one shot out of every ten or 15 rolls that I would show other people. Portraits and other stuff is much higher.

 

[mh2000]

actaully, I only shoot 24ex rolls... and for that, about 3 really good shoots seems to be plenty... so I voted 5 for a 36ex... people really like shooting 36 ex rolls?

 

[colyn]

I expect to get half or more that are properly exposed/focused but am happy if 3 are keepers..

 

[irq506]

mmm.. interesting, it seems that exposure issues are a concern to quite a few of you, to me not so much, in fact as long as Im within two stops and focus is reasonably accurate, blur, grain, exposure just doesn't seem to bother me at all. Im very critical however of what is in those frames. Technically, everything is achievable, aesthetically- well thats a different matter... its much more critical, to me, to have an image that speaks, and if it speaks, then the language of technology is no barrier.
I dont know if this makes any sense to anyone other than me, but Im trying to convey a psychology that weighs toward the art and less the tech... Thats why i went back to film, because the cameras are implicitly simplicity!

 

[Rayt]

My problem is that I knew it was going to be crap before tripping the shutter.

 

[dazedgonebye]

It only takes 1 that I'd like to print to make me happy really.
On the other hand, if I don't come away with 4 or 5 that are good enough to share, I feel I haven't made the best of the situation.
It's not about wasting film so much as wasting the opportunity.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

3 keepers on a roll of 36 exposures, or slightly fewer than 1 in 10. It's late though and one reasons in this mental state at one's own peril, but it seems to me that when you read the results above that everyone who says, say "3" also has 2 and 1 shots per roll that are keepers . . .

Ben Marks

 

[Keith]

It's interesting to venture into large format where each exposure takes a little time and involves a certain routine (not good for street photography I realise) ... it makes 35mm film seem like digital does when you shoot 35mm film!