Disasterpiece saidYeah, I'd say about 15%. Although if you wanna know where you're starting from, I assume this is for further comparison and validation of progress.
Hence, you should probably get it measured for real. Because, you know, "I have 3% less body fat mass than what these random dudes on Realjock thought I had based on 2 pictures, 2 months ago" isn't suuuuper accurate neither encouraging.
Eh, less for encouragement than a) to make sure I'm not delusional, and b) to give me a moderately-useful baseline for estimating things like BMR. Exercise and diet are recreational for me, rather than me being a competitive athlete, and thus my student budget doesn't always prioritize spending the money on something with greater reliability.
You cannot estimate body fat % from a photograph. One of the problems is deep body fat, embedded within your muscles, like a cut of striated beef you get in the supermarket. Fat isn't all in visible love handles and beer bellies.
When I taught college PE I began each new semester with a strength test and body fat analysis of my students. What amazed me was that some very buff young guys had fat percentages in the 20%+ range. And yet they had 6-packs and all. Not surprisingly, those good-looking muscles weren't so strong, either, when I measured their performance. Because they were riddled with useless fat.
The simplest method is the caliper pinch test. Many gyms can do that for you. Some home scales now have electronic methods of estimating body fat as you stand on them, but their accuracy can be poor. More accurate than either is underwater weighing, but that requires special facilities, sometimes found in university athletic programs.
But eyeballing a photograph is very dubious, pure guesswork in my opinion.