Consistency?

[veritasimagery]

There have been many threads that ask "when can I go pro?", or the like. Very often, one of the guidelines given is to be able to "consistently" take good shots. So here's the thing, I was reading this article: The Biggest Shoot Of Your Life - Digital Photo Pro | DigitalPhotoPro.com in the most recent Digital Photo Pro magazine and a couple of things jumped out at me.

"I literally just shot straight through for six hours until the sun went down."

And then this:

"In the end, Whaley added a half dozen iconic images to her portfolio..."

So what I'm reading is that for six hours of shooting, she got six images. Basically one image an hour. I guess that doesn't seem very consistent to me. What do you guys think? Does that line up with the "consistency" that makes a "professional photographer"?

I know that in the old days, back when I first started, it was often stated that you shoot an entire roll of film for one image. I also know that I am real happy if I can get a 50% "hit-rate" of good images.

[Niresangwa]

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

So what I'm reading is that for six hours of shooting, she got six images. Basically one image an hour. I guess that doesn't seem very consistent to me. What do you guys think? Does that line up with the "consistency" that makes a "professional photographer"?

I know that in the old days, back when I first started, it was often stated that you shoot an entire roll of film for one image. I also know that I am real happy if I can get a 50% "hit-rate" of good images.

I read the (very long-winded) article. I think you have to place it in context.

Just because they only placed 6 images from the shoot in their portfolio, doesn't mean there weren't a whole slew of others that weren't 'keepers'. We all know that you wouldn't flood your book with images from the same set.

If this were a client-commissioned shoot, I would guess they would have several dozens for the editor to choose from.

On a different scale, but same idea, from both shoots I did this weekend, I'll use maybe 1 from each to add to my website, I used maybe 30 for their slideshow, and their gallery will have double that. Out of maybe 120-150 images I had for each, there are dozens more that are acceptable, but will just languish on my HD for the rest of their days...

so my point is, how many images 'make the grade' depends on their intended use. For my own book, less than 1% made it. For the slideshow, 25% make the grade. For the clients it was about 45%. If judged solely upon my own expectations for exposure, composition etc, about 80+% make it...

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

I read the (very long-winded) article. I think you have to place it in context...

So, then, does "consistency" become situational? Or subjective?

I guess what I'm asking is that in all the advice given that says you should be able to give consistent results before going "pro", what does "consistent" look like? Are we talking 20%, or 80%?

I get confused because, like I said earlier, back in the '80s when I first started out, the pros were saying that they were looking for one or two good images out of every 100 they shot. That's a 1-2% "hit rate". Has the digital era helped us all improve that much?

Ever think that maybe... just maybe, you're over thinking this?

[ArmySoldier777]

I haven't been around photography as long as a lot of people here, and I never claim to be a pro. But I do have an opinion on the last part of your comment. I don't think the digital era has necessarily helped everybody "improve", I think it's just made it easier to get what you were already reaching for in the first place.

As far as consistency goes, sometimes I'll go out and take a few hundred shots, or maybe even 1000+ if it's a really big, multi-day, event, and I find myself keeping less than 50%. Not because they were all bad "although I do occasionally get those shots that I don't even have to give a second glance before I know they're going in the trash bin" but because there may be 2, 3, or even 4 other images that already portray what I was trying to get in that scene, so there's no longer a need for them.

But those are just the opinions of somebody who's only been into photography for a couple years


David

[Niresangwa]

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

So, then, does "consistency" become situational? Or subjective?

I guess what I'm asking is that in all the advice given that says you should be able to give consistent results before going "pro", what does "consistent" look like? Are we talking 20%, or 80%?

I get confused because, like I said earlier, back in the '80s when I first started out, the pros were saying that they were looking for one or two good images out of every 100 they shot. That's a 1-2% "hit rate". Has the digital era helped us all improve that much?

I rather think that the "consistency" that is referred to when it comes to advising people on their "readiness" refers to can you deliver consistent 'quality' from shoot to shoot to shoot regardless of circumstances, environment and various other factors that are commensurate with your portfolio?

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

Ever think that maybe... just maybe, you're over thinking this?

Probably.

But if pros are going to tell newbies that they must be able to "consistently" create good images, shouldn't we be able to measure that consistency? Again, for the person just starting out, that is looking at going pro in the future, how are they going to be able to tell if they are "consistent" enough to make the next step if "consistent" is variable and subjective? I guess what I'm saying is that if advice is to be given, it's a whole lot more helpful if it isn't vague. Kinda like giving driving directions: "Well, you go down this road aways, and then you turn right. Then go that way for a bit and turn left. Continue for a little bit and you will be there." Not very helpful.

So, for all the pros out there (especially those of you who have actually given the "consistent" advice), what do you consider "consistently creating good images"? What is your standard of measure?

[Hill Country Hack]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

I rather think that the "consistency" that is referred to when it comes to advising people on their "readiness" refers to can you deliver consistent 'quality' from shoot to shoot to shoot regardless of circumstances, environment and various other factors that are commensurate with your portfolio?

Niresangwa hit it on the head on my thoughts on consistency. The ability to produce quality product in varying circumstances in a timely manner.

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

I rather think that the "consistency" that is referred to when it comes to advising people on their "readiness" refers to can you deliver consistent 'quality' from shoot to shoot to shoot regardless of circumstances, environment and various other factors that are commensurate with your portfolio?

This is good, but still a bit vague. For example, I know that I can get one really good image each time I go shoot. But, really, is one good image each shoot enough to be "consistent"? And what is "quality"? Like you said earlier, that can vary depending on what it's for.

"For my own book, less than 1% made it. For the slideshow, 25% make the grade. For the clients it was about 45%. If judged solely upon my own expectations for exposure, composition etc, about 80+% make it."

So again, this makes it very tough on the beginner to measure their "readiness", as you say.

This is not to be nitpicky, but I hate vagueness when it comes to giving advice. And I;m probably not the only one. I was just hoping that someone (a pro) could actually give something concrete, something measurable. Though I understand that with art, concrete is not always a commodity.

[RLucas]

I don't look at it like, "keeper rate= consistancy". I think I would drive myself mad if I thought that way. I think there are just too many variables involved that could make or break a shot to take that in to consideration.
I think consistancy should be more about stylistic other than technical choices. Of course technical issues play a big part, but I think style needs to be defined before you start hanging a shingle. That's kind of where I stand at the moment. I am in style limbo, and can't nail down what I really want to do.