kkdanamatt
Well-known
During the time I was a college student in the '60's, I photographed weddings as a "weekend warrior" to earn some beer and gas money. Typically, I shot about four rolls of 36 exposure 35mm film and one or two rolls of 120 film with the Hasselblad.
Then I eliminated the out-of-focus and improperly exposed shots and made 4x6 proofs of all the good ones.
So, the bride and groom had a total of about 100 shots from which to choose. They generally picked between 24 and 36 shots for their main album and about 12 to 24 shots for each parent's album. Then, maybe they selected one 11x14 and some wallets to be used as thank-you cards.
Fast-forward to 2010. A few weeks ago I attended a medium-sized wedding and the photographer took over 3000 shots.
A wedding seminar is being taught by a prominent NYC wedding photographer who, along with his assistants, typically shoot about 5000 shots at each wedding.
Just because the wedding photographers are using digital cameras, is it really necessary to shoot so many frames ? Who can possibly have the time to examine 5000 frames in the selection process? Can anyone explain this to me? Are today's wedding albums that much better than those of fifty years ago? Yes, I know that the "reportage" style is all the current rage, but I think the sheer volume of shots fired is counter-productive....it "cheapens" the results, in my opinion.
Your thoughts?
Then I eliminated the out-of-focus and improperly exposed shots and made 4x6 proofs of all the good ones.
So, the bride and groom had a total of about 100 shots from which to choose. They generally picked between 24 and 36 shots for their main album and about 12 to 24 shots for each parent's album. Then, maybe they selected one 11x14 and some wallets to be used as thank-you cards.
Fast-forward to 2010. A few weeks ago I attended a medium-sized wedding and the photographer took over 3000 shots.
A wedding seminar is being taught by a prominent NYC wedding photographer who, along with his assistants, typically shoot about 5000 shots at each wedding.
Just because the wedding photographers are using digital cameras, is it really necessary to shoot so many frames ? Who can possibly have the time to examine 5000 frames in the selection process? Can anyone explain this to me? Are today's wedding albums that much better than those of fifty years ago? Yes, I know that the "reportage" style is all the current rage, but I think the sheer volume of shots fired is counter-productive....it "cheapens" the results, in my opinion.
Your thoughts?
MartinP
Veteran
Some might say that the three to five thousand shots approach is something analogous to monkeys+typewriters=Shakespeare. I wouldn't go that far, but I have spoken to someone earning their daily wages with a camera who relied totally on the auto metering and was unable to understand or use exposure-compensation.
Having worked in a lab on the printing of 120 rollfilm (35mm was not used for something as important as a wedding at that time, of course the colour films were worse a couple of decades ago) it's a bit baffling as to how the photographer can cover the expense of his or her time in the post-production tasks with digital, as opposed to delivering selections from eight or ten rolls worth of 120 proof-prints.
Having worked in a lab on the printing of 120 rollfilm (35mm was not used for something as important as a wedding at that time, of course the colour films were worse a couple of decades ago) it's a bit baffling as to how the photographer can cover the expense of his or her time in the post-production tasks with digital, as opposed to delivering selections from eight or ten rolls worth of 120 proof-prints.
david.elliott
Well-known
No. I cannot stand the "style" in which the photograph is taken at an angle so everybody looks as if they are sliding off the face of the planet. Fifty years ago nobody was sliding into a pit.
5k shots is absurd in my opinion.
John Lawrence
Well-known
Often it's a case of quantity over quality.
John
John
Peter R
Established
Weddings must have turned into elaborately staged photo shoots. It might be part of the 'celebrity princess for a day' fantasy, or part of the sales process - perceived value etc. Personally, I'm struggling to comprehend how anybody could enjoy a wedding with a lens permanently in their face.
There's probably a niche in wedding photography offering more discreet photography by experienced people who shoot less, and my hunch is that's a premium service these days
There's probably a niche in wedding photography offering more discreet photography by experienced people who shoot less, and my hunch is that's a premium service these days
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Frances and I have been known to shoot 1000 pics -- 30 rolls of 35mm film -- at at a wedding. We shoot only as a wedding present, starting with the preparations (the 'bride dressing' shots are Frances's, obviously) and going on until the end of the party late at night. The camera isn't permanently in their face, nor are we shooting an elaborately staged photo shoot. Quantity over quality? We hope not, and the responses we're had (over mercifully few weddings) seem to bear that out: the few couples we've photographed have stated themselves much happier with our pics than with what they've seen of their friends' wedding shots.
Of course this isn't the same as making commercial sense. Several hundred quid in film and processing; a day's shooting; and at least a couple of days post production (Frances normally does some hand-coloured B+Ws as well); we'd need to charge maybe £3000 to £5000 to make commercial sense. But one of our friends had exactly that sort of package price, and the most she ever charged was £9000.
Both Frances and I have been married twice. At our wedding, the pics were taken by friends; at my first wedding, by another friend, an advertising photographer of mabe 20 years' standing; and at her first wedding, by her father, a keen amateur. Better to spend the money on a honeymoon... But then, Frances and I held our wedding reception at home. Same reason: we've got each other, so why waste money on showing off?
Cheers,
R.
Of course this isn't the same as making commercial sense. Several hundred quid in film and processing; a day's shooting; and at least a couple of days post production (Frances normally does some hand-coloured B+Ws as well); we'd need to charge maybe £3000 to £5000 to make commercial sense. But one of our friends had exactly that sort of package price, and the most she ever charged was £9000.
Both Frances and I have been married twice. At our wedding, the pics were taken by friends; at my first wedding, by another friend, an advertising photographer of mabe 20 years' standing; and at her first wedding, by her father, a keen amateur. Better to spend the money on a honeymoon... But then, Frances and I held our wedding reception at home. Same reason: we've got each other, so why waste money on showing off?
Cheers,
R.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
5000 shots on a wedding shoot is not uncommon today. Very little thinking by the photographer. Most pop shots one after the other. I was quite amazed at a recent wedding.
mw_uio
Well-known
Some brides shop for a package based on price and number of photos which equates to them 'value'. Some photographers have turned their marketing to follow this trend.
However, other niche wedding photographers will do what they want and clients will follow to them. Read an interview by Jeff Ascough.
Wedding photos should tell a story.
Mark
Quito, EC
However, other niche wedding photographers will do what they want and clients will follow to them. Read an interview by Jeff Ascough.
Wedding photos should tell a story.
Mark
Quito, EC
Paulius
Newbie
YES. To me this is a must.
totifoto
Well-known
Sadly that´s true.
I shoot wedding for a living now and almost all the clients ask me how many pictures they get from there wedding day and almost all of them ask: "you´ll shoot a lot of pictures don´t you?"
First when I started I just selected 35-45 pictures from the wedding day and put in an album but almost all my clients asked if they could get a cd with all the pictures I took.
At first I was shooting about 200 frames per wedding but clients started saying that a friend at the wedding shot 1000 pics and so on. So I started shooting a lot more for the client.
It is the most boring part of the job I think when people are more happy about the 1000 frames they get on a cd straight from the camera rather then the 50 pics I picked out and worked on and put in an album.
My dream is to shoot only film at weddings but I know I would get less gigs.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
I attended the wedding of friends last weekend - not the official photographer - and made about 20 decent photos.
Last edited:
Brian Puccio
Well-known
There's a lot of getting ready to shoot and most people want a photographer taking pictures of the bride and the second shooter with the guys. Next you've got the ceremony, not a lot going on there. Then some people still like the staged formals, bridge, groom, bride + groom, bride + bride's parents, groom + groom's parents, bride + groom + all parents, bride + bridesmaids, etc, etc. So assuming 2 or 3 for each (because let's face it, someone always blinks and the second or third doesn't cost more) and you're easily at a few hundred. And then you've got the posed action shots (e.g., bride and groom wandering through the park, looking in each other's eye's while the photographer takes their photos and walks backwards (almost always tripping at least once). There's the groom with the groomsmen goofing off and being "dudes". So by now you're at 1000 at least.
Assuming you've got 250 people at the reception and the photographer is not only taking group shots of each table, but also getting candid shots of all those attending this event, you've got 1000 there.
Throw in the events at the reception like cutting the cake, a few toasts, the daddy/daughter dance, first husband and wife dance, throwing the flowers, etc and I can easily see how you get to 3000 photos.
Then throw in the detail shots of the rings, her shoes, the invitation, the just married sign on the back of the limo and all that. Plus now some people are asking for "a few shots of the food" either because they consider themselves foodies or because they are spending a lot of money on it, so they better at least get a picture to remember it by.
Assuming you've got 250 people at the reception and the photographer is not only taking group shots of each table, but also getting candid shots of all those attending this event, you've got 1000 there.
Throw in the events at the reception like cutting the cake, a few toasts, the daddy/daughter dance, first husband and wife dance, throwing the flowers, etc and I can easily see how you get to 3000 photos.
Then throw in the detail shots of the rings, her shoes, the invitation, the just married sign on the back of the limo and all that. Plus now some people are asking for "a few shots of the food" either because they consider themselves foodies or because they are spending a lot of money on it, so they better at least get a picture to remember it by.
dannyt
Member
The last wedding I did, a small, intimate wedding, with the receptions in their home, I shot about 200-300 frames (mix of film/digital) I selected 85, and made the album with ca 50 pictures. I see no sense in shooting thousands of frames, making it hard for both me and the customer, to select the keepers.
You can see the pictures here: www.dannytwang.com/heidi_robert
Mix of 1DS III and Leica M3
You can see the pictures here: www.dannytwang.com/heidi_robert
Mix of 1DS III and Leica M3
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Sensible mix really.
I quite like shooting weddings, but not for money. The most I've ever shot (fro a paid gig) was just over 1,000 frames on digital and shooting all day and into the evening. Albums generally run to 50 ro 80 pics, but smaller is better if the client has the sense torealise. A friend can just be told
mike
bmasonoh
Established
I happen to agree with your sentiments. I shoot between 6-10 wedding a year and find that brides have been trained to expect a lot of pictures. It is unfortunate because it does put quantity over quality. With digital its easy and inexpensive to shoot thousands of images. However, the time spent going through and culling those thousands of images is never recognized nor is the time spent post processing the files.
An interesting aside, brides these days like to use lots of keywords like they're looking for a "photojournalist" style or they want black and white images but when it comes down to it most want traditional wedding images. I can't tell you the number of times I've presented black and white images only to be asked if they could have color instead. Or the times I've been asked if I would do the posed group shots at the alter despite their insistence that they didn't want those types of shots. Or the time I was asked, what about all the other pictures I took?
I've also noticed more recently that there is an interesting trend of photographers going back to FILM to differentiate themselves from all the casual snap shooters out there who hold themselves out as professionals. It's an interesting angle and one that I'm seriously considering myself.
An interesting aside, brides these days like to use lots of keywords like they're looking for a "photojournalist" style or they want black and white images but when it comes down to it most want traditional wedding images. I can't tell you the number of times I've presented black and white images only to be asked if they could have color instead. Or the times I've been asked if I would do the posed group shots at the alter despite their insistence that they didn't want those types of shots. Or the time I was asked, what about all the other pictures I took?
I've also noticed more recently that there is an interesting trend of photographers going back to FILM to differentiate themselves from all the casual snap shooters out there who hold themselves out as professionals. It's an interesting angle and one that I'm seriously considering myself.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I have two friends who shoot weddings (separate businesses) and in January one of them, with her second shooter, took the shots at my daughter's wedding. As father of the bride I was forbidden by my daughter to even think about taking my camera. The cameras were not in anyone's face, really. They each had two full frame DSLR bodies fitted with large zooms of different focal lengths, battery packs and integrated flash units. Heaven knows what they must have weighed, and it was a hot day - 43C at the time of the ceremony. I swear their legs were inches shorter from carrying the weight all day!
The principal photographer (who was also there as a guest) shot just over 1000 frames. The second one shot over 2,500. The final album ended up with 38 images. About 1% usage rate!
I understand the need to get a few shots off when Aunt Maude blinked or turned her head but this sort of shooting seems to be a scattergun approach. The only adjustments they made was to the zoom - everything else was on automatic and "oh, we'll fix that up in post processing - they were shooting RAW. It took a few weeks for them to produce the album.
Fast forward to last week when I attended a seminar run by a very successful portrait photographer. For a portrait session she shoots around 70 frames in different poses and settings within the studio, using natural light only. She immediately culls 50% leaving her with 35-40. They are run through automatic batch processing in Photoshop using presets she's found suitable.
Depending on what package the client has purchased - either 6, 10 or 20 7x10 prints - she chooses the best 6, 10 or 20 then spends no more than two minutes on each one in post processing. Then straight to the printer with the files, and into a handsome presentation box. In the client's hands in two days.
Low res copies (suitable for on-screen viewing) are burned to a CD for the client. The others never see the light of day. She charges $1200 for the six-pack, $2000 for the ten-pack and $3000 for the twenty. Those are the only choices. Individual prints are $275 each but only sold as extras to a 'pack'. If a client wants an 11x16 print it's an extra $450 each and there's a $100 charge for mounting and matting.
I think there's something to be learned from this approach, compared to what I see and hear some wedding photographers are doing.
The principal photographer (who was also there as a guest) shot just over 1000 frames. The second one shot over 2,500. The final album ended up with 38 images. About 1% usage rate!
I understand the need to get a few shots off when Aunt Maude blinked or turned her head but this sort of shooting seems to be a scattergun approach. The only adjustments they made was to the zoom - everything else was on automatic and "oh, we'll fix that up in post processing - they were shooting RAW. It took a few weeks for them to produce the album.
Fast forward to last week when I attended a seminar run by a very successful portrait photographer. For a portrait session she shoots around 70 frames in different poses and settings within the studio, using natural light only. She immediately culls 50% leaving her with 35-40. They are run through automatic batch processing in Photoshop using presets she's found suitable.
Depending on what package the client has purchased - either 6, 10 or 20 7x10 prints - she chooses the best 6, 10 or 20 then spends no more than two minutes on each one in post processing. Then straight to the printer with the files, and into a handsome presentation box. In the client's hands in two days.
Low res copies (suitable for on-screen viewing) are burned to a CD for the client. The others never see the light of day. She charges $1200 for the six-pack, $2000 for the ten-pack and $3000 for the twenty. Those are the only choices. Individual prints are $275 each but only sold as extras to a 'pack'. If a client wants an 11x16 print it's an extra $450 each and there's a $100 charge for mounting and matting.
I think there's something to be learned from this approach, compared to what I see and hear some wedding photographers are doing.
bwcolor
Veteran
I stopped shooting weddings right after going digital in 2002 and wasn't particularly accomplished at that. That said, I recently had an employee, non photography related business, purchase her first DSLR (never owned a film camera) and within two weeks she was putting up her website advertising her services. Watch that shutter count when you buy your next DSLR from a "pro".
user237428934
User deletion pending
She must be really good that clients want to pay a ridiculous amount of 1200$ for SIX photos that were done with standard setup and standard postprocessing. When you can offer standard service for a premium price you know that you made it.
gavinlg
Veteran
http://josevillablog.com/
That's what I would consider a good wedding photographer. He shoots a contax 645 so I highly doubt he'd shoot 5000 frames a wedding!
Hes consistently rated one of the best wedding photographers in the world by the way.
That's what I would consider a good wedding photographer. He shoots a contax 645 so I highly doubt he'd shoot 5000 frames a wedding!
Hes consistently rated one of the best wedding photographers in the world by the way.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
She is, and obviously her clients don't see the amount as ridiculous.
Undoubtedly she's at the top of her market, but it makes you realise how cheaply some photographers sell themselves - often because they don't know their market and what it will bear.