Wedding Photographers, Then & Now

[jljohn]

I must say that I find this whole conversation rather odd. But I have a few thoughts:

Does anyone have any sense of Winogrand's or Bruce Gilden's "hit," "usage," or "success" rate (depending on how you want to term it)? Would you consider it excessive to roam the streets of NYC and expose 10, 20, or 30 rolls of film in a single day? Does anyone know how many sheets of film Ansel exposed for every one he printed and sold? I am going to guess that there is a tremendous range of photos-taken:keepers ratios out there but, in hindsight, we don't ask and don't care, so why all the fuss about how may images the typical wedding photographer makes these days? What matter, I think, is that the Bride and Groom get a well-edited set of keepers that tell a story and several images worth printing large and presenting alone. One of the most important qualities in a photographer is his ability to edit his own work. I would think the much greater issue is how many images the bride and groom are being given and what the quality of that set is. Unless the photographer is being intrusive, why does it matter how many time he presses the shutter?

 

[Darkhorse]

I actually had two photographers at my wedding of about 45 people! I actually knew someone who did wedding photography on the side in Portland, and she said she'd come down with a friend of hers who wanted to build up her portfolio. So I got two photographers for the cost of their flights from Portland to Long Beach, their hotel and rental car. Still significantly cheaper than most pros.

Anyway, I eventually ended up with 260 photos, and printed less than that. No idea how many they shot in total. But they did a great job. I made my own album, but then I'm good at that kind of stuff.

photog 1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jennathephotog/4664026326/in/set-72157609472009147
photog 2
http://aralani.com/theblog/2010/kelly-and-phil-san-juan-capistrano/

 

[jwc57]

I just dropped weddings from my product list. Locally, clients are more interested quantity than quality...though most want both. They also want, but that is another thread.

Wedding photography is a business and post-processing has become a major in-house expense, and it seems many photographers are not taking this into account when charging the couples for their services. When I began figuring how many photos the couple expected vs. the per photo cost, things didn't add up. I truly believe that you can tell the story of the wedding in 100 images and 250 is a gift.

If you figure your equipment use, time to shoot, time to PP, and consults, not to mention most couple expect CD's of the images so they can print or make albums, you should be charging around $10/image.

A few years ago, I bought a retired photographer's darkroom...well, I thought that was all I was buying. I thought it may be a little over-priced, but not enough to argue and insult the guy. After I loaded my truck with the darkroom gear, he pointed to boxes and cases, saying "those go too". I found out I was buying his old cameras too. This shot is what made up his wedding "kit".

He shot weddings in the 1950's thru the 1970's. Could you imagine showing up for a wedding today with this gear?

 

[chris91387]

my buddy shoots weddings for a living. in one weekend a few months ago he did three weddings. between him and his second shooter (and a 3rd at one wedding) they shot over 90,000 images. 90,000!!! i was astounded when he told me. i can't even imagine the workflow on that many shots.

and what's the life expectancy of a shutter on a 1D? and how much to replace?

 

[DNG]

I used to a few a Weddings a month in the early 90's. I shot around 250-300 photos and had plenty of left over not used photos. I delivered a Wet Printed album with about 75 photo's, a mix of 8x10 to 4x6

My Dad in the 40's used a 4x5 Speed Graphic and shot around 120 photos.

If, you know what to photograph in the first place, and have a system in place for a "Photo Work Flow", you greatly reduce the amount of phonographs you NEED, (not GREED)..

If, you really can't cover a Wedding in under 500 photo, max, and deliver great results.... Re-Think" WHY can't I?

I just don't buy in to the suggestion, that a Wedding Couple wants 1000s of photos taken or they won't use you.. If, that is true, then a lot of the "New Digital Age" photographers are shooting with a limited knowledge of what to cover, and are getting distracted with too many "Non-Essential" images

You don't need 2000+ images for a PJ style Wedding IMO. 500-750 shoots should provide more than enough for "Filler Images"

If they want more, have them look elsewhere for "Less Experienced" Wedding Photographers with a BIG Nikon D3, that will charge more Money.

 

[jwc57]

I was once threatened (lawsuit) if I didn't provide at least 400 photos. That was back when we were still shooting film. The mother didn't intend for me to hear it. I was doing groups and overheard her comment to someone else. I told her that her package was 250--that is how many she would get---and besides, she wasn't on the contract and the other mother was paying me not her.

It doesn't surprise me now when someone ask "how many photos do I get" before they even see the portfolio.

I had a woman offer me $100.00 and she would buy all the film herself and have it processed so I didn't have to worry about that expense. In her mind, the major part of wedding photography expenses was film and processing, not my time. I guess now she would just offer someone $100.00 since digital is "free".

 

[NikonSP]

It is ludicrous to shoot 5000 frames. I would expect that for a large wedding with around 700 plus guests even 2500 frames would be plenty. I believe film format and digital has led to the increase in amount of frames taken. After that would be the style of shooting the wedding (traditional or photojournalistic). Lastly the photographer...the ones that can quickly compose the shot and take it or the ones that spray and pray.

 

[Nokton48]

I used to make good supplemental money shooting weddings, did almost a hundred quite successfully. Used four Hasselblads, and would shoot 300 frames, which was always more than enough. My opinion of the industry soured, when digital and the recession came along.

It was a good time to get out.

 

[cliveward]

I've just got back from a friends wedding and they had 3 photographers, a friend to do the morning before and the evening reception, another friend to do some post ceremony at a local spot they loved and finally the paid pro for the ceremony.

I had a nose at the proofs a couple of days later and the pro took 280 images and from those there would be 70 album worthy but not all necessary and a few good enough for wall hangers.

I felt so sorry for him. Unfortunately the groom had asked everyone he knew who was a reasonable snapper to take as many pictures as they could, unfortunately this was a small wedding and included most of the guests. Every time he set up a shot 10 people would dive in to take it as he walked back to his shooting position. Poor sod. I could see this going on and kept well out of it. He did a very good job and kept it all together very nicely.


Cheers





Clive

 

[DNG]

He must have been thinking that what ever he charged for his package was all he was selling, hope he charges enough to cover the lose due the other 2 photographers.