DCB
Well-known
This is not a slam on digital.
This is not saying that film is the ultimate.
This is an observation...
I was just sent a link to a website of the wedding pictures of a young man who I know.
The first 2 pages were basically the same picture from different angles.
I said to my wife, they did this because they are shooting digital and can take all the pictures they want.
I know a photographer who takes 1000 or more pictures at a wedding and brags about it.
I am not saying all digital photographers do this, but I would bet most do.
With film you have to make your shots count.
When my brother was heavy into wedding photography (film, medium format) he would not take anywhere close to that many pics. The largest wedding album I saw him sell was 100 8x10's.
I am not saying that either one is better...but I know that if you have the capabilities of taking as many pictures as you want, you might just do that.
Just thinking out loud....
Peace
This is not saying that film is the ultimate.
This is an observation...
I was just sent a link to a website of the wedding pictures of a young man who I know.
The first 2 pages were basically the same picture from different angles.
I said to my wife, they did this because they are shooting digital and can take all the pictures they want.
I know a photographer who takes 1000 or more pictures at a wedding and brags about it.
I am not saying all digital photographers do this, but I would bet most do.
With film you have to make your shots count.
When my brother was heavy into wedding photography (film, medium format) he would not take anywhere close to that many pics. The largest wedding album I saw him sell was 100 8x10's.
I am not saying that either one is better...but I know that if you have the capabilities of taking as many pictures as you want, you might just do that.
Just thinking out loud....
Peace
rscheffler
Well-known
Content creation is much easier now, and that's only going to continue.
I work as a second photographer at weddings. I wouldn't be surprised if combined we often hit 10,000 images. The guy I work with edits that down to around 1000-1500. Maybe a bit more, but not a lot. The posed/controlled photos are shot in multiple image sequences, especially group shots because people blink, look away, change expressions, etc. It provides more options for 'fixing' shots in post. When trying to orchestrate multi person 'candid' moments, there can be a huge differences frame to frame as people walk and talk, even at 12 fps. You only need one or two of those, and I suppose you could get by shooting at 1 fps, but it just provides more options. Shooting more doesn't mean you create more great images. You still have to effectively observe each situation and make compositional decisions.
I shot weddings on 35mm film 10-20 years ago and you're right, there's no way I shot near that much. Maybe 10-15 rolls and my coverage style was heavier on candids than posed shots, even back then. The pros shooting medium format typically had specific shots they created/set up and that's what the packages were all about - not the 'in between' candid moments. The prints their clients consistently bought were the set-up shots for albums and frames.
For better or worse, depending on your perspective, times have changed. Clients now expect more images, more granular coverage. It's not just about producing a tight selection of artistic, 'pretty' images. It's more than just 30 photos in an album. There is an expectation for images from the whole day, as it happened.
I suppose this is a bit 'chicken or the egg.' Which came first? Photographers shooting more because it's digital, or clients expecting more? Already in the later 90s, still on film, there was a strong trend towards more candid-centric coverage styles, which was certainly more expensive to provide because it meant shooting more film.
1000 images over 12 hours of coverage is about 83 images per hour. Suddenly doesn't seem all that excessive, or difficult to achieve.
I work as a second photographer at weddings. I wouldn't be surprised if combined we often hit 10,000 images. The guy I work with edits that down to around 1000-1500. Maybe a bit more, but not a lot. The posed/controlled photos are shot in multiple image sequences, especially group shots because people blink, look away, change expressions, etc. It provides more options for 'fixing' shots in post. When trying to orchestrate multi person 'candid' moments, there can be a huge differences frame to frame as people walk and talk, even at 12 fps. You only need one or two of those, and I suppose you could get by shooting at 1 fps, but it just provides more options. Shooting more doesn't mean you create more great images. You still have to effectively observe each situation and make compositional decisions.
I shot weddings on 35mm film 10-20 years ago and you're right, there's no way I shot near that much. Maybe 10-15 rolls and my coverage style was heavier on candids than posed shots, even back then. The pros shooting medium format typically had specific shots they created/set up and that's what the packages were all about - not the 'in between' candid moments. The prints their clients consistently bought were the set-up shots for albums and frames.
For better or worse, depending on your perspective, times have changed. Clients now expect more images, more granular coverage. It's not just about producing a tight selection of artistic, 'pretty' images. It's more than just 30 photos in an album. There is an expectation for images from the whole day, as it happened.
I suppose this is a bit 'chicken or the egg.' Which came first? Photographers shooting more because it's digital, or clients expecting more? Already in the later 90s, still on film, there was a strong trend towards more candid-centric coverage styles, which was certainly more expensive to provide because it meant shooting more film.
1000 images over 12 hours of coverage is about 83 images per hour. Suddenly doesn't seem all that excessive, or difficult to achieve.
Rikard
Established
Another angle I was thinking about the other day. It has to do with the total work load with digital compared to film. Maybe people who were shooting weddings on film could chime in on this?
I have a friend who shoots weddings on digital. I suppose he manages to click off a couple of thousand shots in a 12 hour period. Then he goes to work on his computer; culling down to maybe 250 images, making back ups, post processes these images, writes a blog post on his site and creates an on line gallery, blog about everything on several different social media and monitors these posts for comments which he then answers, creates a photo book in pdf which he sends to get printed, communicates with the couple on which enlargements they would like etc etc.
My guess is that for every wedding there are about 3-4 days spent in front of the computer.
I have a feeling that in the old days the workload was not as high/intense?
People just expect you to do more, since digital is so "easy", and the photographers are quick to comply?
I have a friend who shoots weddings on digital. I suppose he manages to click off a couple of thousand shots in a 12 hour period. Then he goes to work on his computer; culling down to maybe 250 images, making back ups, post processes these images, writes a blog post on his site and creates an on line gallery, blog about everything on several different social media and monitors these posts for comments which he then answers, creates a photo book in pdf which he sends to get printed, communicates with the couple on which enlargements they would like etc etc.
My guess is that for every wedding there are about 3-4 days spent in front of the computer.
I have a feeling that in the old days the workload was not as high/intense?
People just expect you to do more, since digital is so "easy", and the photographers are quick to comply?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's all a matter of working style against cost. Even in the film days, there were those photographers who made many many many exposures to pick the right one from, and others who concentrated on making the few exposures that all had a high probability of being good.
Digital does nothing new other than to increase the numbers due to the lower cost of capture, while increasing selection time due to the increased numbers to walk through. In the film days, a lot of of the workload was simply done for me by the lab ... run all the film through process, produce proof prints ... but the selection process (light table and loupe) was FAR more tedious than the digital selection process, even though the numbers were far lower.
I shoot with a digital camera in much the same way as I shoot with a film camera, most of the time. I just don't have to think so hard about how many exposures I have left, that's all, because I know my camera cards hold a lot more than I'm ever going to shoot in a given session nowadays.
Of course, when I'm shooting with Polaroid or Hasselblad, there's a real limit to how many exposures I can make due to physically how much film I want to carry and how much money I have to spend on a session. So when I am doing a "serious" session with either, I carry a digital camera set up (actually, usually my iPhone!) to give me as close as possible to what they will produce so that I can use a digital preview to setup for the film exposures ...
G
Digital does nothing new other than to increase the numbers due to the lower cost of capture, while increasing selection time due to the increased numbers to walk through. In the film days, a lot of of the workload was simply done for me by the lab ... run all the film through process, produce proof prints ... but the selection process (light table and loupe) was FAR more tedious than the digital selection process, even though the numbers were far lower.
I shoot with a digital camera in much the same way as I shoot with a film camera, most of the time. I just don't have to think so hard about how many exposures I have left, that's all, because I know my camera cards hold a lot more than I'm ever going to shoot in a given session nowadays.
Of course, when I'm shooting with Polaroid or Hasselblad, there's a real limit to how many exposures I can make due to physically how much film I want to carry and how much money I have to spend on a session. So when I am doing a "serious" session with either, I carry a digital camera set up (actually, usually my iPhone!) to give me as close as possible to what they will produce so that I can use a digital preview to setup for the film exposures ...
G
hepcat
Former PH, USN
There are about a hundred memorable images to be made at a wedding. In the film days, I'd shoot about 180 negatives to get between eighty and a hundred images for the proof album. The finished product was an 8x10 album of between ten and twenty images. I shot in a pho-jo style, and the proof album would tell the whole story. The finished 8x10 album was less of a story, and more of an album of memories. Together they complemented one another nicely.
There may be some couples who are looking for quantity over quality, but I'm not interested in their business. The folks who shoot a thousand frames or more can have those weddings. More isn't better. More is just... well... more.
Today, with digital, I still have the same philosophy; although, I probably shoot around 250-300 images tops. Shooting a thousand or more images at a wedding means that the photographer is shot-gunning images and hoping that he gets something valuable. The other problem with shooting like that is, like it or not, the photographer is a part of the wedding party, and your presence, demeanor, and ability to interact with the rest of the wedding party and the guests can make or break the day. I spend a LOT of time interacting with the wedding party and the guests, trying to make them feel at ease and comfortable so that they enjoy the day, and that I get good images of people who, for at least a short time, consider me a friend rather than some guy with a camera who is only there to boss them around. If you're shooting a thousand or more images during a wedding, you're not interacting with the wedding. You don't have time. You're not setting 'candids' up. You're just shooting what's there hoping for something printable.
Your images may advertise your services, but the way you conduct your wedding business is what gets you referrals.
There may be some couples who are looking for quantity over quality, but I'm not interested in their business. The folks who shoot a thousand frames or more can have those weddings. More isn't better. More is just... well... more.
Today, with digital, I still have the same philosophy; although, I probably shoot around 250-300 images tops. Shooting a thousand or more images at a wedding means that the photographer is shot-gunning images and hoping that he gets something valuable. The other problem with shooting like that is, like it or not, the photographer is a part of the wedding party, and your presence, demeanor, and ability to interact with the rest of the wedding party and the guests can make or break the day. I spend a LOT of time interacting with the wedding party and the guests, trying to make them feel at ease and comfortable so that they enjoy the day, and that I get good images of people who, for at least a short time, consider me a friend rather than some guy with a camera who is only there to boss them around. If you're shooting a thousand or more images during a wedding, you're not interacting with the wedding. You don't have time. You're not setting 'candids' up. You're just shooting what's there hoping for something printable.
Your images may advertise your services, but the way you conduct your wedding business is what gets you referrals.
Scrambler
Well-known
as an outsider, I think the workload was differently distributed. I've just shot a wedding on film (not professionally). I've probably shot 250 frames. I spent a day developing, another scanning and I'm not done with the scanning yet. That's before really getting down to working with the selected images. In the day, developing and proofing was outsourced. The photographer would get their 4x6 or 5x7 proof prints back, select the keepers and sit with the client to choose enlargements. The outsourced activities were gained time but lost revenue.
jky
Well-known
"if you have the capabilities of taking as many pictures as you want, you might just do that"...
and why not? What's missing here is the editing imo.
and why not? What's missing here is the editing imo.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
In Great Toronto Area, where I'm, some weddings are 500+ guests.
Not uncommon ones.
And some of them required each guest photo with wedding couple. You are looking at 200, 250 photos at least, just for this part.
So, it doesn't makes sense to torture yourself with film in this situation.
Or I went to local event, with 100+ kids participated. I need to have at least two pictures of each kid, plus event itself pictures and organizers, volunteers pictures.
It was so nice to take it digitally
Use film for unique looking art, use digital as tool to achieve large numbers.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
David Vestal addressed this issue -
This is something that takes years of work. The process of helping your eye, vision, style, composition and technical skills evolve and grow can be helped along the path by attending quality workshops, but at the end of the day evolving and growing as an image maker demands old fashioned blood, sweat and tears - plain ol' old school @$$ busting. Nothing less will do.
You cannot buy photographic vision, an evolved, mature eye or arresting compositional ability. There is no app to buy. These photographic attributes come only from desire and years of hard work. That is not a popular message in today's "I want what I want and I want it now" world.
Quantity is no substitute for quality. anyone can go to a wedding and push the shutter release button 1000 times. Or 5000. Or 10,000. What matters is how many of those images have any amount of visual impact?
Producing crap is easy. Producing arresting images is not easy. That's why there is so much photographic crap in the world today.
Make it your mission in life to not contribute to the crap side of the equation.
In order to produce wedding photos (or any other body of images) that are visually arresting and have impact, a photographer has had to have previously spent years honing his/her craft, photographic technical skills, compositional skills and his/her "eye" (for lack of a better term) and his/her photographic vision and style.
This is something that takes years of work. The process of helping your eye, vision, style, composition and technical skills evolve and grow can be helped along the path by attending quality workshops, but at the end of the day evolving and growing as an image maker demands old fashioned blood, sweat and tears - plain ol' old school @$$ busting. Nothing less will do.
You cannot buy photographic vision, an evolved, mature eye or arresting compositional ability. There is no app to buy. These photographic attributes come only from desire and years of hard work. That is not a popular message in today's "I want what I want and I want it now" world.
Quantity is no substitute for quality. anyone can go to a wedding and push the shutter release button 1000 times. Or 5000. Or 10,000. What matters is how many of those images have any amount of visual impact?
Producing crap is easy. Producing arresting images is not easy. That's why there is so much photographic crap in the world today.
Make it your mission in life to not contribute to the crap side of the equation.
DCB
Well-known
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You have to be in good shape and healthy spirit to avoid snapshots with large quantities.
In addition to declare yourself as genius.
In addition to declare yourself as genius.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Oh for the good old days when a Rollei and a tripod and four rolls of B&W 120 film would do 4 weddings and have some left over for the next weekend. And proofs were usually delivered within an hour or two...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Scrambler
Well-known
Luxury ...
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
This is what I call "National Geographic Syndrome." When NGS photographers used to shoot film, they would shoot 15,000+ frames - 400 to 500 rolls of film - for a feature story that would publish 15 images to go with the story. Somehow, some people got the idea that shooting an @$$load of film made you a "professional" photographer or a "successful" photographer.
I was thinking about this yesterday; in a studio, 90% or more of the images made in this highly controlled environment will be usable; when you are doing street photography 10-15% will be usable. Documentary shooting will have a usable image rate of around 20-30%. I have found these numbers to be pretty accurate in my shooting experience.
Digital shooting is an enormous help, given the above. Better to have an 80% scrap rate with pixels rather than with film at $10+ per roll. Still, "spray and pray" style photographing is not the solution to anything other than producing a large volume of unusable photographs.
The term "1000 turds" should describe a cat litter box that is overdue for a cleaning, not the body of images produced by a wedding photographer.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
For me, what we're experiencing with digital photography is the result of the confluence of enhanced metering and automation, coupled with digital media storage that allows (if you want to do so) the photographer to take thousands of photos at little extra cost.
I cut my teeth on film photography in the early 1970s and, even though I shoot both film and digital, I still treat digital as if I have 36 on a roll. I've shot weddings and portraits professionally (early 1980s) as a supplement to my main career but didn't enjoy shooting to other peoples' brief.
These days, when I attend weddings and other events, it amazes me that the "pro" seems to spend their time just wandering around and taking hundreds or thousands of shots like there's no tomorrow. Ultimately, all those shots have to be filtered and post-processed and, even allowing for batch processing, I doubt the hourly rate (divide the fee by the number of hours) can be much more than double the minimum wage - unless the photographer has a "name".
I've always preferred to be a sniper rather than a machine-gunner - despite the option that using a digican offers to spray shots around provides.
I cut my teeth on film photography in the early 1970s and, even though I shoot both film and digital, I still treat digital as if I have 36 on a roll. I've shot weddings and portraits professionally (early 1980s) as a supplement to my main career but didn't enjoy shooting to other peoples' brief.
These days, when I attend weddings and other events, it amazes me that the "pro" seems to spend their time just wandering around and taking hundreds or thousands of shots like there's no tomorrow. Ultimately, all those shots have to be filtered and post-processed and, even allowing for batch processing, I doubt the hourly rate (divide the fee by the number of hours) can be much more than double the minimum wage - unless the photographer has a "name".
I've always preferred to be a sniper rather than a machine-gunner - despite the option that using a digican offers to spray shots around provides.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
What has Digital done... Instant Gratification
the Intimacy of The Moment 'In the Moment'
the Intimacy of The Moment 'In the Moment'
Rikard
Established
Digital has changed how some clients expect to get the photos, both in time and in amount. For some professionals it's not really possible to use film all the time anymore. Pretty much all reporters are forced to make due with digital image making. But for most people who don't have to deliver photos immediately, and who care about the craft and the look of their photographs, shooting real film is and will be the only option. (Ok I'm a little film biased )
)
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
We should be glad digital came along as it took all the computer experts away from film camera design before they'd done too much damage.
I don't mind a menu that gives me "Flash On"; "Flash Off" and "Fill In" and, luckily, that's where it stopped...
Regards, David
We should be glad digital came along as it took all the computer experts away from film camera design before they'd done too much damage.
I don't mind a menu that gives me "Flash On"; "Flash Off" and "Fill In" and, luckily, that's where it stopped...
Regards, David
NY_Dan
Well-known
DCB, if one bride gets X, other brides will soon want X too. What brides expected in 1970, 2004, and 20014 is completely different. 1970 -- ceremony coverage, a few couple's shots, and formals over a period of 2 hours total was the norm. Now people want 9 hours to 14 hours of coverage -- from getting ready, home exteriors, church and reception exteriors, cocktail hour and on and on. People also want engagement casual shoots that take half a day. And brides now want 2 photographers. It's out of control. What's a photographer to do? And before you know it some photographer will come up with having a remote control drone to do aerial photos -- oops that already happened. And maybe brides will want photo booths like at mitzvahs and sweet 16 parties -- oops that's happened too. And maybe brides will want pretty disposable cameras on each table -- oops that happened. Oh and someday brides will want "Zap" shooters to supply photos to plasma screens so bored guests can watch that -- oops that.... So 1,000 photos is not a lot. It's not even a start. And people want to see the photographer constantly busy, take a 10-minute break and it's not uncommon for one of the groomsmen to come over and ask you to take an unnecessary photo as a diplomatic way of conveying the couple's or parent's desire to see you always shooting and "earning" your money. This is probably the 1,000th time I've seen this observation/question posted on photo forums.
Oh and lets not forget video -- multiple camera video -- ever try to be a photographer with "Francis Ford Coppola Jr" Wedding Cinema? 3 hd video cameras with one pest shooting wide angle with on-camera powerful light standing 4 feet from couple? Oh that's fun. How about every bride wearing strapless gowns -- can you say "back fat?" It is what it is. Bob Dylan's song -- You Gotta Serve Somebody -- that sums it up. So 1,000 photos 3,000 photos -- ain't no big deal -- bride wants it, bride gets it -- that's business -- get used to it.
Oh and lets not forget video -- multiple camera video -- ever try to be a photographer with "Francis Ford Coppola Jr" Wedding Cinema? 3 hd video cameras with one pest shooting wide angle with on-camera powerful light standing 4 feet from couple? Oh that's fun. How about every bride wearing strapless gowns -- can you say "back fat?" It is what it is. Bob Dylan's song -- You Gotta Serve Somebody -- that sums it up. So 1,000 photos 3,000 photos -- ain't no big deal -- bride wants it, bride gets it -- that's business -- get used to it.
Scrambler
Well-known
I saw the wide- angle close up video for the first time a few weeks ago. I've never seen anything so intrusive. Videographer literally upstaging the bride and groom. Bet the footage is great, but do all the guests get free copies so they can see what happened?
I'll return you to your usual program now my spleen is properly vented.