Labor Day recently passed. That means you may have received a shared photo album from a friend or relative. You know the type: It’s usually dozens (or hundreds) of shots of vacation fun.
But you’re not into it. Now, it’s not that you don’t care; It’s fun to peek in and see what happened. But who wants to sort through a glut of 200 photos of someone else’s vacation (or baby photos or whatever)? What actually happens: You wind up deleting the email with the link and don’t even bother seeing any of them.
The power of editing
It’s about the power of editing. What if these people picked out the five best shots instead? The five photos that are the cream of the crop. The five that undeniably kick ass.
Then the whole thing shifts. Instead of it being a chore to see how their vacation went, it becomes a pleasure. It only takes a few seconds. Plus, that means they can just attach the photos to the email, instead of forcing you to visit (and sometimes register) at some random photo site. It’s only five photos, no big deal.
36:1
I had a photography teacher (Richard Stromberg at The Chicago Photography Center) tell me once that if you get one good shot on a roll of 36, you were doing good. That’s the ratio: 36:1. When you edit ruthlessly like that, you come out with great results. People think you’re better than you are. It’s not that you became a brilliant photographer, it’s just that you started exercising taste and restraint.
It’s one of the biggest challenges in the digital age: When you can bombard people with everything, it’s tempting to do so. That’s why taste, restraint, and editing are so important. Sometimes it’s about throwing out the 35 bad shots and revelling in the one great shot.
Omit, then submit
What you leave out is often what turns good into great. What you leave out is the difference between something that is either 1) never seen or used or 2) simple, clear, and actually digestable. It’s true for photography. It’s true for features in software. And it’s true for plenty more too.
P.S. Fun bit about Stromberg, the photography teacher I mentioned: He required all students to purchase a fixed 50mm lens for their camera. Students would invariably ask if they could use a zoom lens instead. His response: Every lens is a zoom lens. Just walk closer or further away to zoom. I always loved that.
Related
Eureka: We’re editors [SvN]
Ask 37signals: Is it really the number of features that matter? [SvN]
Mike Woodhouse
on 05 Sep 08I always thought 1 in 36 was a good return too. I wonder if the ratio is any different with digital? I suspect I may be getting slightly more keepers, particularly since my SLR became able to store several hundred shots on a card. The thing is, although you shoot more indiscriminately (if you’re a relatively poor photographer like me) you miss fewer opportunities because you’re not concerned about conserving film.
The cost in materials goes down, while the cost of time spent culling several times more bad shots goes up. Unless you’re my wife, of course, who insists on keeping everything.
While I mostly use zooms, my fastest lens my far is my 50mm. I probably learn most when I stick to that one.
GeeIWonder
on 05 Sep 08Instead of it being a chore to see how their vacation went, it becomes a pleasure.
This is where your post starts to go wrong. It’s still a chore.
I do agree with the larger point that editing by deletion is important though—I’m not sure who would disagree.
Bud Parr
on 05 Sep 08Hemingway’s “iceberg” theory (from, I believe, his ‘58 Paris Review interview) is akin to your 36:1 theory. Only 1/8th of the iceberg can be seen (read), the other 7/8s are what you know, but cut.
Kyle
on 05 Sep 08Ansel Adams: “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.”
Paul Leader
on 05 Sep 08Reminds me of one of the problems that the moon landing conspiracy nuts point to: “why are all the NASA moon photos so good, especially when the cameras were mounted on their chests?”.
The answer of course, is that NASA never released the photos where Buzz had a pole sticking out of his head, or no head at all, or where the focus was all wrong, etc…...
Avon Blake
on 05 Sep 081 in 36 is almost too good to be true. If I get one shot per 2gb card then I am happy. Ok, I’m a perfectionist but there is something really special about getting a shot that is in focus, has appropriate depth of field and correct exposure that makes me smile.
Bud Parr
on 05 Sep 08The Beauty of the Web: Hemingway – “I always try to write on the principle of the iceberg. There is seven-eighths of it underwater for every part that shows. Anything you know you can eliminate and it only strengthens your iceberg. It is the part that doesn’t show.”
Read the master: Paris Review Interview with Ernest Hemingway
Matt
on 05 Sep 08My first photography teacher also had the 50mm fixed philosophy as well. For the length of the class we couldn’t use anything but that lens. It really makes you embrace the constraints. It certainly made me a better photographer because you have to look at the situation in a new light.
Brandan Lennox
on 05 Sep 08People think you’re better than you are.
Too true! I’ve especially noticed it with photos on Facebook, where most albums are just a dump from someone’s memory card after the weekend. My friends are always impressed by my sub-mediocre photography, and I tell them they need to see the other 250 photos that I didn’t post.
Julian
on 05 Sep 08“I had a photography teacher (Richard Stromberg at The Chicago Photography Center) tell me once that if you get one good shot on a roll of 36, you were doing good. That’s the ratio: 36:1”
Wouldn’t that be actually 35:1? 35+1 = 36
GeeIWonder
on 05 Sep 08Oh come on. 36 taken to one selected is a 36:1 ratio. 35 rejected to one selected is a 35:1 ratio. Does that really ‘add value’? Does this? I dunno
Justin
on 05 Sep 08One question I have for everyone is—do you just edit by deletion for publishing, or do you permanently delete? I’m always unsure if I should just nuke the, um, less than good shots that fill up my iPhoto library. A part of me wants to keep them for posterity, but seriously, am I ever going to want to look at a bad photo?
Adrian Short
on 05 Sep 08When using photography in print, the number of shots selected is necessarily constrained by the available space. Many news stories run with a single photo. Whether you’ve shot two great pictures or 20 or 200, only one will be used.
There are two reasons to learn photography with a single lens. The first is to underscore the fact that most pictures can be taken with any kit and good pictures can be taken with any kit.
The second is to learn the individual characteristics of that lens. Every focal length has its unique angle of view. Lenses vary according to maximum aperture and other more subtle characteristics. If you’re going to learn photography you need to cut down the variables at first to learn the specifics, then branch out to other things where the difference can be appreciated.
A knowledgeable photographer using a zoom lens won’t zoom to frame the subject as they want it if they have the option of moving themselves. Instead, they’ll choose the focal length that gives the angle of view they want and move to get the correct framing. The maxim is “move your legs, not your lens”. Zoom lenses are not bad. Zooming to frame is bad where avoidable.
Thibaut Sailly
on 05 Sep 08Couldn’t agree more. Last year I decided to experiment a delay of 6 months between the moment I shoot, and the moment I post a pic on my flickr stream. I’m quite happy with the results, and my hard drive space too. On top of that, I take way more pleasure to shoot. 6 months is probably not necessary, but I guess a week of delay can make a difference in your judgement.
Benjy
on 05 Sep 08I’m trying to figure the ratio from our honeymoon pics we send around last month… I think we ended up about about 10:1.
I had it down to about 150 photos from 12 days, but the new wife insisted on adding another 200 or so.
Lyndon
on 05 Sep 08I love the quote from your teacher on the fixed 50mm lens. I’ll have to use that one, anytime someone asks me why I bought a lens without zoom :)
Rob Cameron
on 05 Sep 08While working with a 50mm lens is a great way to teach you to work with constraints, moving closer or farther away from a subject is NOT the same as a zoom lens. There are differences in the depth of field, compressed perspective…most portrait photography is done with a 70-80mm lens—faces just “look better.”
One of the major benefits is the intrusion factor—it’s much easier to get natural photos of people when they don’t feel so self conscious because you’re 3 feet away from them at all times.
nickd
on 05 Sep 08The ratio is absolutely no different with digital – if anything, 36:1 is a very high ratio, because I (and probably many others) tend to shoot very fast, on drive mode.
Personally I believe that 1 in every 30-40 shots that I take is usable; and of those, 1 in every 100 is a truly interesting, great shot; and of those, I would qualify 1 in 5 as one of the better shots I’ve taken, something I would put up in a gallery and portfolio and be proud of.
YMMV on the actual numbers, of course, but the point is that ruthless editing and criticism ultimately results in pushing you to be better in any field, photography or no. I learn something new out of every bunk shot that I take – often just as much as the great ones.
Wow
on 05 Sep 08That was a truly awesome post :)
You guys are masters at making people think outside the box. I love it :)
SteveK.
on 05 Sep 08Just came across a great quote that dovetails nicely…
“The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.” -Linus Pauling
Grant
on 05 Sep 08I have always struggled with editing when it comes to my photography. I fall in love with the story of the photo, and so it makes it harder to weed out weak crops or angles of the same subject because I feel like something is lost. But the more I work at it, the better my results are.
Also, my 50mm is my favorite lens to shoot with – that just doesn’t seem to change.
Benoit
on 05 Sep 08When sharing photos with friends, the quality of the shots is probably not that important. Why are you sharing your photos? Probably not to demonstrate your skills as a photographer.
It’s more likely (or it should be) because you have something to say: “I’ve been in a very nice country, look at that, you should go there too” or “Our vacations were very fun, I wish you’ll join us next time” or “Your grandson is growing”.
You can post a hundred photos if you have a lot to say… but it will require a lot of ‘editing’ to catch your audience for more time. From my point of view (and as a poor photographer), ‘editing’ is equally: choosing the photos, writing the captions, ordering and making a good cover (it can’t be a page full of thumbnails).
David
on 05 Sep 08I just had a similar conversation with a friend who uploads 100 baby pictures at a time, while I do one or two. Going through his logged-in photo page can be rough, while you go to my open page and every shot is pretty decent. Other people don’t need 30 shots of one action or pose or scene.
Stephen James
on 05 Sep 08That’s what TAGGING is for! You upload 500 photos to Flickr or your own Gallery and tag your favorite. When you send your email out, send two URLs, the favorites and the all groups. Photos are like email, you want to keep them all, but you don’t want have to look at all of them in your inbox.
Dan
on 05 Sep 08Not to be a grammar troll but it should be farther away, not further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ql-i6hyvvQ&feature=related
Around 3 minutes.
Gary R Boodhoo
on 05 Sep 08My shooting ratio is significantly lowered when I just slow down. I noticed that when traveling especially I felt something like anxiety, hoping to “capture it all”.
Just like a design project, research & previsualization make a significant difference. Slowing down once I’m actually shooting really helps, and gives me the chance to see before I press the shutter.
Tim Walker
on 06 Sep 08@GeeIWonder – “This is where your post starts to go wrong. It’s still a chore.”
Ahh, come on – looking at a couple of well-chosen photos from a friend? The other day my pal sent around an e-mail with 4 cute photos of her newborn baby attached. It was a treat, not a chore, to see them. The fact that YMMV doesn’t mean that Matt’s “go[es] wrong.”
@Justin – re permanent deletion: if it’s really a bad photo, it’s not going to get better with age. Delete it without compunction. Forgetting any technological considerations, it’s a good mental habit to be in.
@SteveK – I love that Pauling quote; it backs up a lot of what I’ve read and experienced about innovation and idea generation. Bad innovators think that you wait and wait and wait for a good idea to strike; good innovators know that you fiddle with stuff all the time, keep tinkering, experimenting, and implementing, and then from that process great ideas emerge.
@Stephen James – Again, YMMV, but I think the idea of keeping all the e-mail you receive is madness. Most e-mail is inconsequential in anything over the short run, and ought to be deleted fairly soon. Plenty of photos, likewise, should be deleted while they’re still in the camera. What’s the point of uploading 7 very slightly different shots of all the kids crowding around the birthday cake, if one of the shots is clearly superior to the other 6? Delete the duds, keep the quality. Or, at a minimun, send out one link, to only the favorite shots, as a way of respecting your friends’ time. (They’ll figure out how to see the whole unedited set if they want to.)
Jorge Bernal
on 06 Sep 08Hmm, my ratio is somewhat lower than that, but I definitely agree.
Usually, when I do concerto photography I arrive at home with 400600 shots and the challenge is to reduce that to 2030
Last one was 650 to 34
Jason Chan
on 06 Sep 08Agreed. Back in the film days, I’d be happy with 1-2 good exposures per roll of 36. With digital the way it is and the ability to capture thousands of images per memory card, one has to exert a fair amount of discipline when it comes to editing. I just read a piece on how Sports Illustrated Olympics photographers (10 of them) shot a total of 300,000 images of which they kept 17,000. That’s less than 1/2 of 1%. That’s the way to keep quality high.
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/27/how-much-did-i-shoot-in-beijing/
Marc
on 06 Sep 08Loved this post. I’ve always believed in the 1:36 ratio, but it’s harder to do with digital. I just shot 1200 photos at a wedding. A typical coffee-table album uses about 80 photos. I would love to weed it all down to about 300 and THEN let the bride and groom select, but with each photo you have doubts like—yeah, I don’t like it, but maybe they would. I usually need an assistant to push me into hitting delete.
Jared
on 06 Sep 08I really like this post. I’m not a photographer by any means, but I can see it being applied to a lot of different things. Wouldn’t the web be better if people only blogged 1 in 36 ideas? Or tweeted 1 in 36 tweets?
frank
on 07 Sep 08Love the post because it is SO TRUE!
Problem is that i’m the one that posts to many pics at times. Lesson learned: stop, edit and only share things that people will enjoy (and not waste peoples time)
http://twitter.com/franswaaAndrei Maxim
on 07 Sep 08When you’re a great photographer it’s really easy to edit ruthlessly. Most photos are beneath your skills so they aren’t really keepers. But if remember you have a camera only when you go on a trip or on your son’s graduation day, few photos that bad that you want to throw away.
That’s why so many people take lots of photos one right after another: they saw something that they’d like to capture so they are trying to photograph every single moment hoping that one picture will be good enough.
I like basketball, but I’m European and I’m more into football (or soccer), but sometimes I watch the highlights and it’s really fascinating: usually there are around 90 points for each team, but they show you only the most important 20-30 points. That’s less than a sixth of the total number of points, but you can imagine the way the game was played. Which team dominated which quarter, who scored the most points and so on.
However, those highlights have a commentator. There is a story told that fills the gaps between the images. Here’s where I think most fail when taking photos at an event: they forget to tell the story. It’s so easy to grab a couple of excellent photos and throw them on a website. It’s a lot more difficult to write a couple of lines that tie those photos together.
I remember seeing a rather poor shot of a lion (or was it a bear) in a National Geographic “best wildlife photos” album. It was blurry and you could barely understand what was going on. But the caption underneath said that the photographer was taking this photo while the lion was attacking him. And that made it a great photo.
Marko Bijelic
on 07 Sep 08We have this idea when we created Four Travel Deals affiliate tourist deals site.
Tom G
on 07 Sep 08I couln’t agree more with your post – but it does make me want to throw out an additional idea…
In the early days of photography, each plate was costly and the best photographers took a great deal of time to carefully plan their photographs.
Technology today encourages people to snap away with abandon. I am as guilty as the next guy when I’m taking snapshots at the family reunion.
There are other times though that I plan very carefully; e.g. product photography where I approach 3:1 ( I always bracket exposure).
My suggestion: think before you click.
Unless it’s an action or candid shot where you’ll miss something if you hesitate, take a moment to compose the shot and study the frame to see if a different perspective or exposure will improve the image. Use the 37 Signals philosophy and simplify – eliminate needless things in the frame to focus on the subject matter.
Generating a mountain of pictures and sifting through the rubble works for some things – but only rely on photo mining when you have no alternative.
Steve R.
on 07 Sep 08My first ‘real’ job was as a photojournalist, and I kept taking photos long after I changed careers. I wish I could get a 36:1 ratio. I have fewer than 20 photographs I have taken that I think enough of to grace the walls of my home – and I started in 1989! I do get good snapshots, though. For those who want an immediate improvement to your ‘party pictures’, google the ‘rule of thirds’ and apply it. You will see results immediately.
Ryan
on 08 Sep 08I couldn’t agree more. Excellent post.
DanGTD
on 08 Sep 08Nice article, and can be applied perfectly with software. Goes hand-in-hand with the article about features being a one way street. Once you add them, you cannot remove them. So choose well.
DanGTD
on 08 Sep 08“The essence of genius is to know what to overlook”
- William James
Shaybay
on 08 Sep 08This works great. Everything is step by step as DanGTD said is does go hand in hand witht eh perviously one way street posting.
Tarek
on 08 Sep 08Just remember that a 50mm lens is “normal” on a 35mm frame, so for a digital sensor, you’re looking for a shorter focal length (28mm on a Nikon DX sensor)
A complete summary, as always, here:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens
Thomas Marlow
on 10 Sep 08Imagine being in the wedding photography industry, where is common for photographers to “dump” 800-2000 images on their poor clients. I’ve never really understood that. When I shoot a wedding, I shoot an average of 1700 images during the day. Its a bit trigger happy, but would rather have their eyes open on a great picture than half closed like they are drunk. As I edit a client’s wedding, it gets down to anywhere between 250-350 images and that is what I deliver as the finals.
And let’s not forget what Henri Cartier-Bresson said, “1 in 500 is a good record for me.”
And I agree with Stromberg, a 50mm is the perfect lens to start out on, because ones composition will improve faster on a 50mm. It forces you to come up with alternatives, like squatting down to take a photograph, and therefore better compositions. Compositions won’t improve if the zoom is relied on. Whenever I have someone starting out in photography ask my opinion on a camera to buy, I always recommend they get a 50mm, no matter the camera body. I’ve taught a few people on a 50mm as well, and they all hated it, but finally saw the benefit later on.
This discussion is closed.