Wedding Photographers, Then & Now [Archive]

kkdanamatt

07-25-2010, 09:39

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?

MartinP

07-25-2010, 10:04

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.

david.elliott

07-25-2010, 10:14

Are today's wedding albums that much better than those of fifty years ago?

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. :D

5k shots is absurd in my opinion.

John Lawrence

07-25-2010, 10:25

Often it's a case of quantity over quality.

John

Peter R

07-25-2010, 10:41

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 ;)

Roger Hicks

07-25-2010, 11:19

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.

35mmdelux

07-25-2010, 11:30

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

07-25-2010, 11:43

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

Paulius

07-25-2010, 12:06

Wedding photos should tell a story.

YES. To me this is a must.

totifoto

07-25-2010, 12:10

Often it's a case of quantity over quality.

John

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

07-25-2010, 12:24

I attended the wedding of friends last weekend - not the official photographer - and made about 20 decent photos.

Brian Puccio

07-25-2010, 12:25

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.

dannyt

07-25-2010, 12:47

sojournerphoto

07-25-2010, 12:57

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 (http://www.dannytwang.com/heidi_robert)

Mix of 1DS III and Leica M3

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

07-25-2010, 13:24

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.

Leigh Youdale

07-25-2010, 14:08

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.

bwcolor

07-25-2010, 17:16

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".

tom.w.bn

07-25-2010, 22:52

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.

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

07-25-2010, 22:58

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.

Leigh Youdale

07-25-2010, 23:33

She must be really good .......

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.

tlitody

07-26-2010, 02:42

gavinlg

07-26-2010, 03:03

Roger Hicks

07-26-2010, 03:11

5000 images. So you put them on a CD for the bride so she can look at them.
5 second an image to load it and view it. So that's 5000 * 5 = 25000 seconds which equals 7 hours to just flick through the images. And so how much time is your post production taking on each image? 5 minutes an image? that's 17 24 hour days. Should be obvious that anyone doing this is a complete amateur who is conning the bride by giving bad advice or just pandering to stupid requests for thousands of images.
If you can't communicate the days story of a wedding in 50 pictures you are not a good photographer.

Yeah, but the stupid request comes from the person with the money.

Looking at every image for 5 seconds? Hardly. Post production at 5 minutes an image? For all 5000? Hardly. And 5000 pics is a tight fit on a CD. As Gavin says, there's a good deal of (very quick) editing before the client sees anything.

How many weddings have you shot? Especially at £5000 (6000€, $7500) a time? There are plenty who charge that. I'd be astonished if they shot 5000 images, but equally, depending on how they're working, I'd not be especially surprised at 2000.

What is 'the story of a wedding'? And how is it told? The seventeen syllables of a good haiku can say more than a bad 1000-page novel. But a good 3-volume novel can say more (or at least, more about more things) than a haiku.

I'm ever more hesitant to tell anyone exactly how to do anything, barring purely technical information ("Don't put the fixer in before the developer") and ideas/inspiration ("Have you tried...?") Telling 'em they're flatly wrong, or worse still, insulting them, is rarely much help.

As I said earlier, I've shot very few weddings, and always as gifts; but I've known enough high-end wedding photographers, some a good deal richer than I, not to question their methods. Or at least, not to try to tell the rich ones their business.

Cheers,

R.

sig

07-26-2010, 03:45

Well said Roger!

tlitody

07-26-2010, 04:00

Yeah, but the stupid request comes from the person with the money.

Looking at every image for 5 seconds? Hardly. Post production at 5 minutes an image? For all 5000? Hardly. And 5000 pics is a tight fit on a CD. As Gavin says, there's a good deal of (very quick) editing before the client sees anything.

But thats the point. The numbers being banded around these days are ridiculous. Cut the viewing time or number in half and you are still looking at 3 1/2 hours. That's ridiculous. Edit 2500 images down to 300 and that takes time. Then 5 minutes post production in each of 300 images is 25 hours. That 3 solid days of post production plus all the addditional time of sending to print and constructing an album etc etc. The numbers just don't make any kind of sense. Fact is most albums are 30 to 50 images and you simply don't need to take 3000 images to get 50. That's 1 in 60 sucess rate. So much for the decisive moment if you need to take 60 images to capture it. It's spray and pray pure and simple.

NathanJD

07-26-2010, 04:22

Wedding photographs are a product and the customer provides the demand. When a trend in a particular direction takes hold, those making their bread and butter must adapt to fit. Yes, there are those who are able to 'specialize' and produce what we as photographers are aware is a finer and more exclusive product but in the 21st century 'bang for your buck' is more important than having a refined product. I would suggest that those who do take somewhere along the lines of 5000 images simply batch apply auto correction settings and then maybe choose a decent amount of showcase images to pay closer attention to.

While it would be nice for the general public to admire the beauty of a handful of exquisite images in the way that we do, sadly the majority do not and instead their concern is coverage.

I've only shot one wedding professionally (and I use the term loosely) and I did it for free because i wanted the experience more than the money. We shot the preparation, the service and the obligatory family shots and didn't hang around for the post-party and took 500 images between us. It was exhausting and at times a little frustrating but it was a good experience to have had. Conversely, I attended a friend’s wedding last year and took the M2 and 3 rolls of HP5+ for no real reason than to satisfy myself although despite being humored on the day for shooting with and ‘that old camera’ I produced images that the bride and groom prefer to those shot by the designated photographer.

It just goes to show that in a lot of instances people don’t know what they want until they see it and in most cases they will go off and ask for exactly the wrong thing.

Roger Hicks

07-26-2010, 04:29

But thats the point. The numbers being banded around these days are ridiculous. Cut the viewing time or number in half and you are still looking at 3 1/2 hours. That's ridiculous. Edit 2500 images down to 300 and that takes time. Then 5 minutes post production in each of 300 images is 25 hours. That 3 solid days of post production plus all the addditional time of sending to print and constructing an album etc etc. The numbers just don't make any kind of sense. Fact is most albums are 30 to 50 images and you simply don't need to take 3000 images to get 50. That's 1 in 60 sucess rate. So much for the decisive moment if you need to take 60 images to capture it. It's spray and pray pure and simple.

I'm not disagreeing for an instant that the numbers are ridiculous, or that (like you) I can't see how the hell you can make it pay. Nor can I see how anyone can face the excitement of checking 2500 pics of someone they don't know.

I'm not so sure about 'spray and pray', though, because there's an old photojournalistic assumption that you never know when you're going to get your last good picture. It might be the first insurance shot, or it might be the tenth of (say) the bride and groom at the altar. There's no sense in shooting obviously inferior shots, when you're reasonably confident you have at least two good ones to choose from, but even if you've five good ones (better each time, you hope), the sixth is worth shooting if it might be even better.

In other words, a photojournalistic wedding is completely different from the traditional all-posed affair, where most people look as if they have been badly stuffed (some will be, of course, later). Often, there's one picture from a very similar set that jumps out at you: a particular smile or gesture or juxtaposition, whatever. If it's an all-day shoot, from preparatory shots to the end of the reception, it's probably (I don't speak from experience) quite easy to shoot 2000 digital shots.

The only wedding I shot digitally was for some neighbours, friends but not close friends, and I think I took about 250 pics from their arriving at the Mairie (if you want a religious wedding in France you have to have a civil ceremony first) to the break-up of the reception (not the dinner afterwards). Frances shot about 4 rolls of film. If we'd known them better, and been shooting all day, I can (just about) imagine hitting 2000 shots, with 10 rolls from Frances (360 shots): close enough to 2500.

I shoot DNG and process in Lightroom. While they're loading I can be doing something else (after 5 minutes set-up time). Then, running through the DNG files in Lightroom means that many pics can be dismissed in a second or less. Even the ones I like are unlikely to occupy me for 5 seconds. Post processing shoud be negligible if I've got the white balance, exposure and framing right. I really don't think it's quite as time consuming as you suggest, though (once again) I agree that it's time consuming. It's probably quicker, though, to put 200 (or more) final pics on a CD than to present 40 wet-processed proofs.

Cheers,

R.

Livesteamer

07-26-2010, 04:53

This reminds me of 1976 when, as an active college photographer for yearbook, newspaper and other, I just had to have a motor drive under my Nikon F. Wall street camera charged me $400 for a used F 36 and I burned a lot more film but it did not increase my number of good shots. I am finally learning there is something healthy of only having 36 shots and making them count. Joe

bobbyrab

07-26-2010, 05:53

tlitody

07-26-2010, 06:02

One thing that is being missed here, usually a couple do have an album with say 50-150 prints depending on the type of album, so a couple in the past wouldn't and couldn't have had a nice image of most of the guests [say 120 people] at their wedding included in their album, however now a lot of the viewing is done on a computer monitor by both the couple and friends and family, so most couples are delighted to have coverage of their guests, details, table details, getting ready, arriving, ceremony, drinks, dancing, speeches, formal groups, oh and some of the couple themselves. A challenge to do in 50 images me thinks. With the utmost respect to members here, and I think the forum has a high standard of work, but unless you've shot weddings over a period, in a variety of places and with variable lighting conditions, then you haven't got a real idea of what your talking about i'm afraid.
There are regular posts here, where someones been a guest at a wedding, taken a couple of rolls of film and are happy with a handful of them, some are quite nice but they're often dull and unflattering, but the consensus seams to be what a delightful alternative for the bride and groom to the undoubted rubbish the official photographer will have produced. I've been doing this for fourteen years, film and digital, so I know both and how things have changed, and I wouldn't normally get involved in these discussions, but do tire of the, 'must be crap if you shoot more than 60 images' brigade.

I'm not suggesting that you can do it in 60 images but rather 300 should be plenty. 10 rolls of 35mm max and less if the bride only wants an album of 30 images or you are doing some MF as well. That can be edited down to 150 for proofs from which they can select. The numbers are then sensible from everyones point of view and they can always order one offs from that 150 if they so desire. The ridiculousness is in shooting 3000 to 5000 images. Have you ever looked at 5000 images of yourself in one go? You'll be bored before you get to 500 and probably have seen enough after 100 (unless you are self obsessed which may be the case for some). But no one seems to consider this when touting big numbers. It's called over selling. It's a cheap marketing ploy. Brides beware.

bobbyrab

07-26-2010, 06:44

Roger Hicks

07-26-2010, 08:10

So you've got 150 proofs, that doesn't leave you a great deal of room to get shots of the guests given there are 120 of them, perhaps you'll cover them with a few big group shots. So if you limit yourself to 300 images taken, as a point of principle would you refuse to use any for detail shots? Have you ever actually photographed a wedding as the main photographer or is this all just in theory.

In fact, it's not just individual guests. Often, it's the combinations that are most important. At the last 'big' wedding we shot, a very important picture for the bride's father, and his mother, and me, was a picture of the three of us with his mother in the middle and Hayes and me either side of her, her arms around our shoulders.

In the 1960s I was at boarding school and spent a LOT of time at Hayes's house, and then and for years afterwards, June was almost a second mother to me. As the picture was taken, she was saying, "Didn't the boys do well." She died a couple of years ago...

This is something else the hired hand can't know. All he can do is shoot as many likely looking conversations and combinations as possible.

Cheers,

R.

swoop

07-26-2010, 08:21

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.

Was I working that wedding?

I recently did some wedding work as an assistant/ 2nd shooter. Mostly because I need the money after dropping my M9. Anyway, the photographer I work with, I don't know what her deal is or if she's one of those photographers that offers a minimum of pictures to her clients, but I was sitting down as dinner was being served. I just got done taking a bunch of pics of people on the dance floor. And everyone left to go eat. And she comes up to me as I'm sitting saying she needs me to be taking pictures. I'm like WTF. I say "of what?" and goes "people." Everyone siting down eating, there are no pictures to be had. No one wants to have their picture taken while eating, and no one wants to look at pictures of people eating. It's annoying to the subject, and it's gross to look at.

Sjixxxy

07-26-2010, 08:31

If you can't communicate the days story of a wedding in 50 pictures you are not a good photographer.

Love the quote.

Gumby

07-26-2010, 08:37

Fast-forward to 2010. A few weeks ago I attended a medium-sized wedding and the photographer took over 3000 shots.

... and then posted them to a web site for review, and delivered a CD. The world has changed!

KenR

07-26-2010, 08:39

My son got married almost two years ago. Going thru several volumes of proof albums to look for the 20 pictures for our "parent" album was not an easy task. Most were minimal variations clearly done by holding the shutter down for a second to get 4-6 shots of the same pose. If the bride was looking away in #1, she was looking away in #2-6 as well. A waste of everyone's time going thru this. Definately take an "insurance" shot, but four?

Andy Kibber

07-26-2010, 08:41

Everyone's an expert! :)

tlitody

07-26-2010, 09:11

John Lawrence

07-26-2010, 09:22

I'm a member of one of the pro societies for wedding photographers, and a common lament from members is that couples are just not hiring pro photographers for their weddings in anywhere near the numbers they used to be. When couples were asked why this was, they replied that they couldn't tell the difference between the umpteen zillion shots taken by the hired pro and the many hundreds or so taken by Uncle Albert, Aunty Maud etc.

Isn't there an old saying, 'quality will out'?

John

pachuco

07-26-2010, 09:30

Was I working that wedding?

I recently did some wedding work as an assistant/ 2nd shooter. Mostly because I need the money after dropping my M9. Anyway, the photographer I work with, I don't know what her deal is or if she's one of those photographers that offers a minimum of pictures to her clients, but I was sitting down as dinner was being served. I just got done taking a bunch of pics of people on the dance floor. And everyone left to go eat. And she comes up to me as I'm sitting saying she needs me to be taking pictures. I'm like WTF. I say "of what?" and goes "people." Everyone siting down eating, there are no pictures to be had. No one wants to have their picture taken while eating, and no one wants to look at pictures of people eating. It's annoying to the subject, and it's gross to look at.

This is exactly the same experience I had as a second shooter. I was a second shooter for a very successful wedding photographer for about a year and a half and then quit because it was killing my desire to pick up a camera. You are always shooting and shooting allot. When the wedding party is forking over 6K or more for "Perfect" photos (and you charge for post-processing) it can be a viable business. Certainly not my cup-o-tea.

chris91387

07-26-2010, 09:54

a buddy of mine shot 3 weddings in one weekend a little while ago. he had 18,000 shots from two cameras.

crazy.

Gumby

07-26-2010, 11:05

crazy.

I think so too. But if he and his customer is happy, then all is well.

Andy Kibber

07-26-2010, 15:13

I think so too. But if he and his customer is happy, then all is well.

The trick would be making the customer happy and only shooting a few hundred photos. That'd leave more time for drinking coffee, riding a bike, playing basketball, etc.

This thread reminded me of this poor chap: LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3cvsImyIZA)

dmr

07-26-2010, 18:53

Bride to be was a graphic designer and insisted that it should be photographed on transparency because that was the best quality film you could get.

LOL! :)

As I've said, I don't think there's enough money around to convince me to be a wedding photographer. :)

However, a couple of weeks ago a girlfriend discovered a long-forgotten set of 35mm slides taken at her wedding, ca. 1972, by her uncle. She brought them in and from a quick inspection for that bas-relief, they turned out to be {drum roll -- tat-a-tat-a ...} Kodachrome! :)

Of course she wants to see if we can do some nice prints of them.

The challenge is twofold here. First, these slides were not stored under anything close to ideal condition, just a (decrepit) rubber band and lost in a box for decades. Major dust! (see attached)

I'm sure we can clean it up more. What you see is just a generous blast of canned air.

But, the real issue -- and this is almost a cliche of weddings shot on slide film, the contrast! If you look at the example I'm attaching, the details of the jacket and the ascot are lost in the mud! :( Using the eyedropper sampler, the tux is way down in the single digits, roughly the same as the unedited border. :(

Now as for the highlights, it's not the dress in this case (stark white taffeta) but the cake! The frosting is way blown out, as if on the surface of the sun!

However, there may be a silver lining in this cloud. Had these been shot on the Kodacolor of the day, the prints would have been long faded, and the negatives most likely shifted badly. :( Since these are Kodachromes, I'm reasonably confident that with a little careful cleaning and some TLC in re-scanning, we'll be able to produce a number of reasonably decent prints. Not ideal by any means, but quite passable and quite memorable.

So, there may have been an unexpected advantage in that well-intended but naive choice of Kodachrome for the uncle's shoot. :)

semilog

07-26-2010, 20:26

...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!... 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.

I'll take a portrait by Elsa Dorfman (http://elsadorfman.com/prices.htm) over any of 'em, any day. Two shots; you choose one. $3000.

sper

07-26-2010, 20:35

The style is completely different now. Staged shots are part of the wedding, and you probably shoot like 100 frames. But now there is a documentarian approach, and a aesthetics that are more off the cuff. You shoot a lot because you can, and at the end of the day you have probably like a 10% success rate. Also consider that if you were a weekend warrior shooting weddings for gas and beer money, today with a proper rate you'd be a highly successful photographer. At 3 grand a wedding before the album and print you gotta bust your ass out there. 3 or 4 rolls of film and some medium format don't cut it.

dmr

07-26-2010, 21:18

I'll take a portrait by Elsa Dorfman (http://elsadorfman.com/prices.htm) over any of 'em, any day. Two shots; you choose one. $3000.

Okay, I've been looking over that site for the past 20 minutes.

I'm obviously missing something ...

Leigh Youdale

07-26-2010, 22:11

Well, a slight change of pace here. For my second (and most recent) wedding some 35 years ago we were on a pretty tight budget. Small country church ceremony, buffet lunch at a nearby bistro/wine bar with a guitarist in the corner, I took all the photos myself except for the ones in the church when I handed my camera to my uncle. Probably took about four, maybe five rolls of 35mm. Got everyone who was there, mostly in table groups or chatting at the bistro. Great fun, cheap and we have some nice memory shots but very few of the "Fairy Princess" style and next to none of "Prince Charming" variety.

JohnTF

07-31-2010, 07:53

Amused I used "quick reply" feel free to skim and go to the last two paragraphs.

I have shot more than 100 weddings, over a significant period of my life.

First wedding was 40 shots, had ten film holders, and went home to swap out the film.

It was a big leap to go to 35mm film from MF, I was so used to doing almost everything that is now done automatically I had to test and trust things were working properly, and in a sense it was my first digital wedding as I had the film scanned by a pro lab hi res tif's during processing. They were on a tighter than some folk's budget, so an edited CD + double copies of smaller prints were what they wanted. BTW, I put up a couple shots of her made with a Hasselblad in the park, her name is Lisa.

I do not recall the number of shots, but it was sometime like 10 rolls, and I had a feeling that anything more at this occasion would be making the day more about pictures than the wedding.

Once you shoot completely digital, you may have a mind set change, it's only another image on a card and if it is bad you can delete it. (I of course deleted the ones where either I failed, or the people just did not look good in to, the trash can-- actual, nor virtual). When I hand my G9 or 10 to someone for a snap of my friends with me hiding behind them, I always tell the guy to shoot several, it's only digital. ;-)

Also, when I used a camera in which I could see the image at the time of exposure, RF or more likely a TLR, I could often spot when something was wrong and re-shoot.

Groups -- you always re-shoot-- someone can always look bad. If I am in the group, well, you just have to hide me and hope for the best. Always help to have a good looking B&G, but you might have to bring them with you. In reality, most are young and look pretty good, some look like pro models.

The feeling I get now is that all numbers are doubled or more at the minimum, just because it is digital.

The numbers of shots can be inflated if somehow they expect a shot of everyone there or each table as you will more than likely shoot two or three of each of those.

So, (that's for Roger), the number of shots inflate. The quality of the inflation is up to you, but I do not care to dominate the day with flashes.

I am considering doing yet a few more, for friends, but though it would be much more convenient with TTL and a Zoom reflex, I am thinking M8.

I would think numbers in to the thousands would be the hallmark of inflation and not in any positive way, and an amateur. As well stated, the final story of the day should be in the neighborhood of 50 final images, 5000-- well that is a stop motion video.

Regards, John

JohnTF

07-31-2010, 08:00

PS-- unless they are buying thousands of images and paying a huge price, they may conclude the photographer is not good enough for their $50K wedding.

This is a "Quick Reply", my apologies for the longer post, but well, that's me, I assume you guys read quickly.

J

antiquark

07-31-2010, 08:05

http://elsadorfman.com/prices.htm

Okay, I've been looking over that site for the past 20 minutes.

I'm obviously missing something ...

Maybe the point is, you can brag that you spent $3000 on a family portrait?:confused:

Steve_F

08-15-2010, 05:26

I took some for a friend last October. They wanted informal ('cept for a few) and I took no more that 250-ish. It was then whittled down to about 60 on disc.
The idea was to tell a story, as has been mentioned. Some of these are on my website.

http://www.stephenfell.net/page7.htm

Steve.

Sjixxxy

08-15-2010, 09:56

I declined the last request of a friend to photograph their wedding. Bride to be was a graphic designer and insisted that it should be photographed on transparency because that was the best quality film you could get.

Yikes! Only if they provide the film and vouchers for development up front.

I'm shooting a wedding for a friend in a few weeks. The requirements are a few medium format color portraits for her, and at least three nice candid black & white photos that look like Weegee's work them for him. This should be fun.

cliveward

05-31-2011, 04:42

Interestingly 10 years ago our wedding photographer who was on the cusp of retirement and just got into digital predicted that the future would be a photographer would turn up, take hundreds of pictures and just give them all to the customer on a CD to sort out their own albums, etc.

Cheers

Clive

dave lackey

06-02-2011, 06:02

a buddy of mine shot 3 weddings in one weekend a little while ago. he had 18,000 shots from two cameras.

crazy.

And he expects to post-process all of them? Spray and pray.:rolleyes: The most I ever have done in sports photography was an average of 1200 frames per soccer match, etc. The PP and editing drives me crazy.:p I don't do these or weddings for that matter anymore.

TaoPhoto

06-02-2011, 09:15

I think, too, that how a wedding is shot, and how much work you end up doing, depends highly on who's calling the shots. I don't imagine that fine art wedding photographers like Riccis Valladares and Jose Villa sit down and let the bride dictate the shots, number of pictures to be taken, form they will come in, poses, etc. They are artists who have their own concept of how the wedding should be captured. I don't know for sure, but I also imagine that they think too much of themselves to sit for days reviewing thousands upon thousands of pictures.

A wedding from hell or an expression of your art, it's all in our self-concept, as in most things.

_larky

06-02-2011, 12:11

Last wedding I shot 100% digital and took only 300 shots. Out of that they chose 50 keepers. I was very proud with that ratio.

If only I could manage that on the street.

dave lackey

06-02-2011, 13:54

No one has ever told me how many pictures they want or how to do it. I have always done it my way and it has always been successful. Wedding are just not any fun, or interesting to me. Sports are about the same after so many, they all blend together.:p

The final editing of either is the most time-consuming whether it be film or digital...as it should be.:angel:

hellomikmik

06-09-2011, 14:34

5000 shots? depends how many guests.

Richard G

06-09-2011, 17:14

I take an interest in the photo.net wedding forum precisely bacause of the professionalism of so many of the regular contributors there. Back up cameras, backup shooters, L glass, 35 primes on full frame, exhaustive planning including pre-wedding site visits. And they all shoot manual. I would have no concerns about high end teams coming up with a a reliable portfolio. Often budding wedding photographers on the forum ask questions about their forthcoming first gig, and they are sometimes scarified for their thinking they could go with one camera or any one of 20 other plans that are deemed by the experts to be criminally irresponsible etc etc. I've learnt a lot reading through these discussions, and have a new repsect for the wedding photographer. And I did a weeding myself nearly 20 years ago with two Leicas, a 50 Summicron and a very hazy 90 f 4 collapsible. I was happy with the result and so, I think, were the couple. But knowing what I know now I would not even consider doing a wedding.

jljohn

06-09-2011, 17:39

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

06-09-2011, 18:25

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

06-10-2011, 06:09

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".

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6043/oldweddingcamerasonline.jpg

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

chris91387

06-10-2011, 06:34

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

06-10-2011, 08:33

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

06-10-2011, 08:45

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

06-11-2011, 01:37

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

06-11-2011, 09:42

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

06-20-2011, 08:23

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