What percentage do you share?

[Sisyphus]

I rarely post photos on here, and even my website and blog are limited at this point, but I am working on that. The learning curve of digital is a killer, especially if you prefer to be in the darkroom printing.

I do hope to post more soon though; I have liked a few of the photo threads, and wished I could have posted to them--the portrait thread for one.

Maybe in the future . . .

:s:

 

[rbiemer]

I just can't think of anyone, alive or dead, that I would like to see much more than their top 100 photos. That includes people like HCB, Arbus, Winogrand, Frank, Friedlander. So why would I believe anyone wants to see more than 100 of mine?

Makes sense to me. Except that I've heard about a book of contact sheets from some(several?) photographers and I do want to see that, in other words, I'd like to see all of one roll and see what they edited out as well as what they thought were good enough to share. Still not 100 shots and certainly not all of the thousands of photos taken.
Rob

 

[Bob Michaels]

Except that I've heard about a book of contact sheets from some(several?) photographers and I do want to see that, in other words, I'd like to see all of one roll and see what they edited out as well as what they thought were good enough to share.

Rob: one of the best is to see the entire six photos that Dorothea Lange did for "Migrant Mother". see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Owens_Thompson for all six images. Also read about the "retouching" of this iconic photo of the type everybody screams about as the peril of Photoshop these days. Also interesting info about the actual subject and her life.

 

[novum]

I've seen some work on Flickr that I would love to look at all day, 100 minimum! Now, for the greats like HCB, of course I would love to see dozens and dozens of their images. My images suck in the main, and I edit accordingly.

Another factor: images from the early days (say mid-19th to mid-20th century) of photography can be fascinating for their historical content, apart from the photographer's artistic skill.

 

[Twigs]

Mine is below 1%, and rapidly diminishing due to older keepers failing to make the cut as I progress and become even pickier. Nowadays I would be ecstatic to have 1 good photo to keep per roll.

 

[Ducky]

1% or less for me. I just enjoy the process and, now that I am doing wet printing, I find the scanning and posting a tedious task.

 

[mh2000]

a few percent... I'm choosy

 

[rbiemer]

Thanks for that link, Bob!
Rob

 

[MartinL]

So, I'm wondering, what percentage of your shots do you post here/to flickr/to your blog etc? .

A great post, and I've been struggling with many of the same questions.

• How can I make the photos that are meaningful to me accessible to the people who I want to see them?
• How many photos do they want to see?
• How much time do I have for posting to multiple sites for different audiences?

My first answer to these questions is that I post maybe 20% of my "keepers." My audience is a private email list of about 100. My second answer can only be inferred from my new Pbase "Diary"--a work in progress. I've been persuaded by RF posters not to keep this locked but to open it to all. Occasionally, I post a single pic on various photo sites, but that's mostly an ego thing, and they're not necessarily my favorites.

 

[benlee]

2 to 3 frames per roll for me.. of those maybe only 1 that i'm truly satisfied with.

 

[Photon42]

Almost nothing presently, but I'm working on it 🙂

 

[amateriat]

It's interesting to think that the people whom many of us regard as great photographers have likely shown a tiny fraction of one percent of their work to others–in Winogrand's case alone, we'd likely almost have to rent time on a Cray crunching the decimal points on his tiny percentage. (And that's not even counting the thousands of yet-undeveloped rolls he shot.)

My percentage hovers around 1-3%. I'd say that this is less in regard of any personal wheat/chaff ratio, and more a matter of the fact that it takes time to edit, ponder, edit some more, sit on stuff for a while, reconsider what didn't quite make the cut, and so on. For many of us, I'd wager, it isn't simply a case of 98% of the lot being crap: how much of the "good stuff" have you the energy to actually present in a given amount of time, formally or informally?

For my show last year, I actually had about 16 really strong photos to show. I needed to whittle it down to 11. That's how your percentages are sorted out. I'd love to hear about what percentage of keepers youse guys actually show to people; I'll bet it isn't even 15 percent.


- Barrett

 

[kully]

As a number of people have already said - probably 40-50% are kept and <1% is shared.

No need for you to see photos of my friends and family and I wouldn't inflict photos of everything I find interesting on others 🙂

Looking at others Flickr streams and galleries - I do find the most enjoyable to be those that have been heavily trimmed.

 

[Larky]

The other question then is how do you choose what to show? From my flickr feed I've discovered the pictures I consider to be my best are never the ones that get the most views. A picture that went up by accident got more views than three of four of my 'best' combined. I find it really very interesting to see what other people like. It was noticing this that made me ask the question.

I'm tempted to post contact sheets of every picture and ask people to choose which one they like on each sheet. Nobody would do it, we don't have the time, but it would be a great experiment.

 

[rbiemer]

I think the question then becomes: "Why are we doing this for so little return?"
In my case, the number of photos I consider keepers is larger than what I actually share. Which does change the ratio some what.
And I enjoy the process as much as the results.
Rob

 

[Photon42]

I think the question then becomes: "Why are we doing this for so little return?"
[...]

err ... not everything I don't share means I don't have pleasure with 😉

 

[minoltist7]

10-20% probably (let's say 25).
I usually don't post family & friend & pets shots.

 

[chachi]

i saw or read an interview with winogrand where he said he didn't process photos till months or years after, and that it gave a distance that he really appreciated, and good photos evidenced themselves free of expectation. i really took that to heart and now do that myself. consequently, my flickr output has dropped from almost daily to almost zero.

 

[kuzano]

I post about 98 - 99%

I post about 98 - 99%

The really good shots are hanging on my walls. I only post the crap stuff to the internet. Helps me maintain my anonimity.