Jump to content

Amount of images per wedding


rocky_g.

Recommended Posts

<p>I think that digital has changed the rules of the game in that clicking the shutter a few more times costs nothing. It seems that many clients (and from reading posts such as this, I think is reasonable to say, US clients) equate volume with value - they know that digital costs nothing so suspect the photogrpaher has been clicking away like a cricket on heat so they expect to get a zillion photographs. Myself? I cannot imagine sitting down with an album (or a DVD) knowing there are 1,000 pictures there and going thorugh them all. And if my photographer prioritised them, I would have zero incentive to say "now let's go through the 800 mediocre ones".<br>

As for 'telling a story' - if you want to know the story of the superbowl, or the story of the Presidential inauguration, do you expect to see 1,000 pictures? Or 40?</p>

<p>But that is me - as has been said you have to manage the expectations of the client and meet those expectations. The number of photographs is often written into the contract and if you start to lose weddings because you are providing too few pictures you may want to think about changing the way you work.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I know what people mean when they say that it costs nothing to take digital photos. But it's not true. It's not precisely true even for the amateur photographer. But it sure as heck ain't true for the pro. Storage of raw files is cheap—but it's not free, especially considering that everything that's stored once, has to be stored at least once again (backed up) and more often a couple of times. And reviewing images means time, and time is very definitely money.</p>

<p>My dream is to go to a wedding, take 230 images, and deliver 200 of them to the client late the next day. Well, as I said, it's a dream.</p>

<p>Will</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>RE"I think that digital has changed the rules of the game in that clicking the shutter a few more times costs nothing."</p>

<p>You still have the cost in ones *time* to cull out the duds.</p>

<p>Thus if one shoots 2000 images one could just:</p>

<p>(A Hand the raw unprocessed card to the B&G</p>

<p>(B) Spend time culling out the duds in 2000 images.</p>

<p>Handing over raw (unculled) images the one with the best expression can be a technical dud.</p>

<p>If one shot 2K images per wedding and the shutter lasts 150K; you need a new shutter or camera after 75 weddings; that is 10 bucks per wedding for a 750 buck DRebel :).</p>

<p>With an absurd number like 2000 images; one might have to spend a lot of time to pare the quantity down; ie dump 3 out of 4 to hit 500. Thats sounds like a headache to me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>i switched from digital to film for convenience. i actually think about my shots before i take them (i know, call me crazy). i take ten rolls of film, and usually use around 7 or 8 rolls. i drop the rolls at the lab, get them back a week later on disk with high res scans already colour corrected. i simply need to put them in order and cull out the bad shots. i usually keep about 85% of shots taken. ideally, i'd like to deliver 40 or 50 shots plus family shots. i'm not there yet but maybe someday.....</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If your clients are happy and you meet their expectations you are on solid ground.<br>

For us, it would just be impossible to narrow it down to even 400 images. But we typically are covering preparations and also do a lot of ethnic events. Out of say 1200 images it would be rare for me to discard more than 30-40 images for technical reasons like bad exposure or lack of focus lock.<br>

The thing is if you are asking about number of images given to the client you need to make sure you are comparing the same type of coverage and event. A wedding is really a hugely broad catagory, more than most people realize unless they do wedding photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Quality, not quantity. Know what you are shooting, don't shoot for the sake of shooting. Let's do the math. I see some photographer saying 1500-2000 images in a day. Lets take 1500 images over 8 hours. That's over 1 image every 20 seconds!!! No one in their right mind can say that they are producing quality images when shooting like that.<br>

<br />Who in really wants 1500+ images? On paper is sounds great, but in reality it becomes a nightmare for everyone involved.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>exactly Jon. if the photographer shot 1500-2000 shots at our wedding, my wife would have found another use for his camera! back in the 70's and 80's, photogs used to take their Hassy or Bronica with two or three rolls of 120 film, and every shot had to be a winner. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a film shooting background, I still maintain that methodology. I typically shot 8 (max 10) rolls of film, and had approx 85-90% keeper rate. Now with digital, I admittedly shoot more, but I do no more than around 500. I still can't fathom taking 1000+ at a wedding but everyone's different, right? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let's face it, back in the 70s, people weren't shooting candids of every aspect of a wedding with a Hassey or Bronica. In general, the end objective was also a bit different then with a more traditional album sporting 30 to 40 analog prints.</p>

<p><strong>That was then, this is now</strong>. Clients want images to post to their social sites, use for thank-you cards, make Quick-Time slide shows set to music with 100+ shots, and to make bound coffee-table books with up to 70-100 images ... sometimes different images for the parent albums. </p>

<p>That said, IMO, it doesn't require 1000+ images to accomplish all of the above. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think I could look at that many images of anybody's wedding. Thank heavens for film....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think I could either. The 60 shots in my own wedding album are more than enough.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>i switched from digital to film for convenience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I would do if I were going to do weddings (which I'm not!).</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In the 1970's Many labs had masks for their custom cropping. I used Meisiel in Dalllas and Atlanta for a lot of work. If the end result was known to be vertical 8x10's; one had a mask one one camera like a 6x6 TLR so one got exact framing. One could elect to get premium service and get two 4x5's and on 8x10 and the one set of *culled* 4x5's was a clients proofs. If one knew the the bulk of a roll was good one just got premium service for weddings and got back great results.</p>

<p>There was even an ultra premium service where one could send in a swatch/sample off the wedding dress and have the prints color matched to the dress; this was great under oddball lighting; color matching under mixed lighting was harder then.</p>

<p>It was cheaper to just get the two sets of 4x5 (or 5x5) and one set of 8x10 (or 10x10) when the roll was processed; than get them reprinted later. One was ahead even if one had 1/3 duds; maybe breakeven at 1/2.</p>

<p>The few shooters then who shot a *mess* of candids did not use a "Hassey or Bronica"; they used a *radically* better machine made for that purpose like a rapid omega with 220 back. Some folks even used TLRS with 220 backs a lot too.</p>

<p>Customer labs had many different schemes and were your valued partner. If your images looked like you camera had an issue they called you up to alert you. If your images looked like roll #5 should have used horizontal 4x5 maskn instead of vertical masking; they called you up. If you wanted to get a package variant of two 4x5 and two 8x10 plus one 11x14 for the formal roll #3 they would "make it so" .</p>

<p>One had an era where one wa not spending a lot of time "post processing"; we often got *all* the stuff printed. The post processing was chucking the few dud proofs. Color correction on custom stuff was via sometimes we shot the first frame of a 220 roll of a color patchl; or we sent in a swatch of the dress.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you want a lot of photographs then why not shoot video? Pretty nice photos can be made from video now.<br /> How many images are actually keepsakes from a wedding? How many are bought as enlargements? How many in an album? <br /> It's up to you after consulting/educating your clients.<br>

For my associate photographer and myself we, together, make maybe 700 images from a wedding gig. Maybe 50 to 70 in an album, another couple as large prints, the rest the client can make 4/6 or whatever they desire.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>2000 clicks.. a videographer would be a better choice. I upload all my shots and ask the B/G to select their favorites.. no limit. These are the most personal and favorite images they want for the deliverable. I will add my choices to complete the story. I will then edit the set of photos that make up the total selection.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One of the great things about this forum is the prevalence of thread responses that begin with statements like, "In the 1970s, many labs had masks for their custom croppings." (I can't help imagining a room full of white-tee-shirt-wearing old guys scratching themselves, saying "In <em>MY </em>day...." and "Where's my walker?") I say this with tongue in cheek because I really do value the advice. One person suggested <em>ignoring </em>what people accepted during the "film days." Yes, technology has changed what clients expect and how they use their photos, but the film days hold valuable lessons in story-telling that I believe the 2000-image shooters are missing, to the detriment of their clients, their own development, and their art.</p>

<p>I think Neil and Will Porter articulate very good reasons to present a carefully-chosen set of 200-300 photos to the client. If your purpose is to tell the day's story, you have a limited amount of time to do so: the human attention span dictates this. People might view 100 images in detail and savor them, or enjoy devoting about half as much attention to each of 200 images, or just scan 300 images, resting the eyes on the 10 or 20 that really stand out. In each case, the photographer may effectively tell a story.</p>

<p>I defy you to look at 1,000 photos in one sitting and get anything out of it. Other than a headache.</p>

<p>David humorously suggests telling the bride you're deleting images as you go along. But in fact most brides readily appreciate the concept of culling. In my experience, a simple explanation (during the initial consultation, of course, and not as you shoot on the wedding day) is all that is necessary to transform this concept in her mind from one of destruction to one of a value-add that only a professional eye can perform.</p>

<p>Explaining that you'll carefully select and present only the best images -- the ones that best capture key elements and contribute to the story -- can be a crucial part of your brand image. It is the difference between bulk food and fine cuisine. It need not be a matter of arrogance; it can be a product of expertise and pride of authorship.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IMHO it depends on the hours, the events lined up, the guests, if their is dancing and the amount of people attending. I create two sets 1) all the photos 2) Selected photos that best tell the story of the day. I think it would be torture for anyone to view 300+ photos of ANY event.<br>

I think showing 1000+ photos to the Germans was how we won the war. I'm guessing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I could never see giving a Bride 1000 to 2000 images to look at. Most of my weddings were shot with film, but even then showing a Bride 120 to 160 images brought comments of "how am I going to choose with so many to look at?" Somehow 25 shots of a Cake Cutting, 30 shots of the First Dance and 50 shots of the Garter toss seem a bit much. It makes me think anyone showing that many photos obviously are not culling their shots.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Completely agree, David, and I think you're articulating a customer-service mindset that some overlook: give the client the set of photos that best tells the story and refreshes memories. If you think you've got "500 good images," you're missing the forest for the trees. You're looking at each individual photo and, with no sense of context, asking whether it is good on its own. Any given photo may well <em>be </em>"good," but it takes another level of discipline to remove even the good photos that will detract from the value of the whole package by drawing attention to choices among like photos rather than the whole package. I'm definitely still learning how to do this.</p>

<p>Our clients benefit greatly from a good eye to pull away the "good" photos that are mostly repetitive, and reveal a set of photos that they can comprehend from beginning to end.</p>

<p>Not to put words in Neil's mouth, but I suspect he would go a step further and say "good" is inadequate -- that he wants the limited set of photos that, all together, simply take the bride's breath away.</p>

<p>But even if you value quantity, the human attention span strictly limits the marginal value of additional photos over some number, which I estimate to be around 250 (and which others here believe is a bit higher or a bit lower).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Something not mentioned a lot here is the size of the wedding, and the culture of the B/G - if the wedding party is 18 people, and there's 1,200 guests, then 600 processed and delivered exposures may not be that crazy. Persians like TONS of pictures, as opposed to Brits. So, the variables are quite influential. Is there an average? Sure, if you constrain the question to only include standard North American WASP weddings, all the same size...<br>

Confused? Experience - and your own style - will be your guide.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...