>>3186526>how many, on average, actually turn out good?It depends on what you consider "good".
When I'm doing a photoshoot with a model, maybe 20-30% end up being what I'd consider good enough to send to the model, and maybe 1-10% good enough to put in my own portfolio. But half of the photos I take in a photoshoot are duplicates or near duplicates since it's easier to double-tap the shutter than it is to try to time my photos exactly with my model's blink schedule. The rest of the throwaways are me honing in on an idea over the course of a few frames.
When I'm just wandering around taking photos out in the world, it varies wildly, but there's generally only one photo per day that I end up actually showing anyone else.
Overall, I agree with this fucking cuck in
>>3186544. If you really go out and think that every single photo you take is perfect, then (a) you're probably a shitty photographer who doesn't recognize when his photos are shitty, and (b) even if you're actually that amazing, you should still whittle those down to a much smaller number of best-of-the-best shots.
If you take 99 bad shots and one mediocre shot, only show people the mediocre shot.
If you take 99 mediocre shots and one good shot, only show people the one good shot.
If you take 99 good shots and one great shot, only show people the great shot.
If you take 99 great shots and one phenomenal shot, only show people the phenomenal shot.
If you take 99 phenomenal shots and one transcendently amazing prizewinning shot, only show people the transcendently amazing prizewinning shot.
If you can't see a difference between which of your shots are better than the others, then I guarantee you that you're on the "Bad/Mediocre" tier because that's one of the very first steps towards becoming a good photographer.
