Amount of images per wedding

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by rocky_g., May 30, 2010.

  1. I am a newbie wedding photographer with eight solo weddings under my belt. I am always looking at other photographers sites to get ideas about pose, shoots, and even pricing structure. One thing that I have noticed, some very experienced and quality photographers guarantee huge amounts of images (500-700) with there packages. After retouching and editing down a wedding and reception, I usually have around 200 images. Should I be handing over twice the amount of images. I know if I do I will be handing over many uninteresting images and plenty of different variations of the same shoot(lots of filler). Im also concerned that a lager album wont hold peoples attention. Do I go with my gut and continue to give the same amount of images, or is it the industry standard to produce twice as many as I do? And if it is the industry standard to provide my clients with 500+ images, do I need to follow it?
  2. Have your clients been happy with 200 images? Are prospective clients asking for 1,500 photos when they interview you? I think it's good to know what others are offering, but you have to carve your own niche and play to your strengths.
    I have a 40-page wedding album from my own wedding, and I'm happy with that. Showing more than 40 photos would drive our friends away :)
  3. It would also depend on how many photographers are available. I too offer 200 printed pics in a proof book, this includes portrait groupings, reception line pics.... I shoot more than that and offer different versions of the same picture (black and white, or spot color for instance). As a solo shooter, I wouldn't be able to offer 800 pics. Certainly not good ones.
    If there is a second shooter and maybe a third, who knows how many images and angles could be available. Especially if they're working from the time that the bridal party is preparing all the way through the party that evening.
  4. When you open a story book, there's a first page, last page and a varying amount of pages between the two - whatever is appropriate to convey the given story at hand.
    I used to worry about "quantity" and would catch myself spending a lot of time sprucing up a mediocre photo (even a reject) just so I could add one more to the "pile".
    I do know some photographers that do indeed imply 500+ images simply because they always have 2nd shooters and that's their style. The end result would probably not win any awards but they provide a nicely documented story of the entire day and this is perceived as a good, solid value by their clients.
  5. There is nothing wrong with doing things your way. It is a big world with room for lots of options.
    I shoot lots of photos, 500 would be low for me to give a couple. I let them choose what is good. Their reasons for liking something isn't always the same as mine.
  6. I routinely deliver 500-800 or more images after a wedding, The wedding album can contain anywhere from 30-70 of the best shots to tell the story but there's no reason for you to cull 50-80% of the images for the day. There's also plenty of images that will appeal to family and guests that the couple may not want for their own personal collection from the day. Personally, I think it's rather arrogant to cull images so heavily....simply allow the couple to pick out their own final 200 (or whatever number is promised in the package). If your "keeper rate" is less than 50% then I suspect that you're taking more shots than you need and your technical ability to make good captures is lacking.
    Established studios that I've worked for routinely deliver 85-90% of the images taken at the event. Suggest tat you do a search on past threads, this question gets asked frequently and the answers rarely deviate much from thread to thread.
  7. I, and probably others like me who are within the less expensive range (sub $1k for 6-8 hours), provide between 800 and 1000 photos or more for any given full wedding day. I shoot as many as 2000+ but the culling process deems many of them duplicates or otherwise not necessary/acceptable, and so the number shrinks.
  8. Mr Schilling, I am not trying to be arrogant I am only trying to deliver the finest product I can to my clients. As I said I am a newbie so I am always trying different things that may or may not work but I can't always make that call until I see the images on a big screen. This work is going out with my name on it and I only want my best work to be shown. I wish I was a good enough photographer to use 90% of my images but right know I am not of that level. I could however include many images that I see as mediocre (not bad just a little boring ) as filler but I am not sure if that is good business practice. Most of the weddings I shoot are between 2 and 50 people.
  9. IMHO, one's culling rate or total frames shot has very little to do with what one delivers, or chooses to deliver, to the client. The latter is dependent upon being able to attract and satisfy clients with what one promises in one's product offering. There are some legitimate methods that require multiple frames to be shot that have nothing to do with one's skill level.
    Shoot as many as you see fit. Cull as many as you see fit. Deliver what you promise to deliver, and if you can keep attracting new clients, and satisfy your present clients with that number, why worry about it? There is no norm. The day a client protests about the number of images they get, or a prospect passes on you due to that number, is the day you can start questioning how many images you include.
  10. With all due respect to David Schilling (who I do respect), my own reason for culling isn't (I think) arrogance. Actually I've wrestled with myself on this one. But I keep coming back to the idea that more is less and less is more. I want my clients to have a small number of photos from their wedding that they can, well, treasure. If I give the client 800 images, the inevitable truth is that most of those 800 images are, well, let's just say they can't all inspire viewers to say "Wow!" And I think that the best photos in such a large group get lost in the crowd.
    What I'm starting to do is a compromise but it's worked so far: I distinguish between my picks and what I call "extras". My picks get processed carefully, and I try to come up with about 100 or a little more. Actually I think THAT number may be too high. I can then provide another couple hundred "extras'. These are photos that are decent—correctly exposed and focused and reasonably composed—but just not as appealing as the picks.
  11. When I have 5 similar photos I give em all 5. Our eyes and their eyes are not the same. I have sat with customers often enough and seen them say this is my favorite, and me not believe it. They are coming from a very different perspective than we are.
  12. Besides shooting for myself, over the past 17 years I've shot for 5 solid, established studios in the Chicagoland area. Each of those studios have culled out the clunkers, eye blinks, and technically challenged images (such as flash didn't fire, OOF, unacceptable motion blurr, etc..). This leaves about 85-95% cull rate, from which the clients can vote for their favorites using their package credits or checkbook. Granted, they all make some money from reprint sales and the do not employ a "churn & burn" business model.
    The B/G may not select the image of Aunt Ethel doing the chicken dance but the MOG may include it as one of her all time favorites and a "must have" in the parent's album.... Shawn's comment about the different perspective of clients is absolutely correct. An image that some photographers might see as mediocre or boring could be a priceless catch by someone in the bridal party. IMO, to presume that anyone can spot and cull the best of the best is rather arrogant.
    Rocky, I never said that you were arrogant, I understand that you and many others reading this thread are newbies and want to do a good job for your clients and want to have a good reputation for your work. Unlike many others with opinions, I offer mine based on 17 years of pro experience, shooting over 500 weddings, and having experience shooting with 5 different studios. Also, judging from recent Wedding POW critiques, my guess is that many forum contributors would be likely to include more images rather than less.
    Bottom line, suggest that you consult with some established peers in your market and find out what they do. And/or apprentice with an established studio to see what works for them. Then if you want to deviate from the norm, do so based on experience and knowledge. Again, suggest that you do a search and read past threads on this same topic.........
  13. This reminds me of that retirement investment commercial, "What's your number?" I'm not a PJ shooter, I don't shoot anywhere near the numbers you're all talking here. I don't think I could look at that many images of anybody's wedding. Thank heavens for film....
  14. I think you need to watch what you shoot. Your deleted images are way too much. Shooting 700 images or so and giving the clients around 200 quality images is a bit strange in my opinion.

    None of us shoot the same or even want to shoot like everyone else. Thats why we are all artist, seeing something differently than others.

    I pretty much reject images as I shoot, such as blinks, people looking the wrong way, whatever the case may be. Once I upload everything to the computer I only discard about 10 or so shots. The clients get somewhere around 500 to 1000 images. Weddings should tell a story through your photos. Regardless of the amount of money the people pay I still cover all of the weddings the same.

    I don't feel 200 photos are enough for most weddings. Perhaps take more shots, I worry about brides wondering what happened to all of those photos you took.
  15. shoot and deliver what you think works for you and ignore what other people are doing.
    If clients are booking you for what you deliver, then why do you care what others do. However, if you are loosing clients to the other photographers, then you should revisit what you give vs what you charge.
    I would say 500+ images is fairly common these days... with digital most clients expect you to give a lot more images than back in the film days.
  16. One more point, when you first meet with the B/G you can tell them that you'll deliver 200 images and they'll likely say that sounds good........then, add that for about every 10 shots that you take, that the bride will never see 8 of them and tell me how she reacts to that piece of news. Then, just for fun, while the bride is getting ready and you're taking shots, announce about 20% of the time which shots are "keepers" and 80% of the time tell her that you'll likely trash those particular images. That way you can manage her expectations and she won't ask about all the missing photos a week after the wedding.
  17. While it is true that some experienced wedding photographers deliver a lot of images, it is also true that some do not. In his P.Net interview, Jeff Ascough shared a trick he uses if a client questions the delivery of "only" 200 photos ... he scatters 200 prints in front of the client to make the point of how many 200 actually is.
    I think it may come down to a simple difference in philosophy ... and because this IS a creative endeavor, there will be differences of opinion.
    Perhaps the primary difference here could be summed up: do you pick, or do you let the client pick?
    It is absolutely true that a client may have a different criteria as to what may be precious or beautiful. My question about that is: what is the primary purpose of photographing a wedding?
    Can a photographer focus on capturing the most magical and revealing moments, or truly get the best angle for a specific person without some trial and error while shooting? Yes, experience can eliminate some of that, yet without stretching one's experience is there the danger of becoming formulaic and delivering a cookie-cutter result?
    Should those images that lead to the one you wanted be given also because someone may find them "cute" or whatever? Some say yes, some say no. Personally, I say no for the simple reason that the client need not know how the sausage is made ... how I get to the results I deliver is simply my methodology and no one need know the math behind my decisions.
    Personally, I still shoot to much ... or better put I do not edit enough of what I do shoot. I honestly do believe that copious quantities of images is a commodity approach that dilutes the quality of one's product. IMO, it is a cultural extension of the "Super Size" me where a heafty bag full of french fries are thought to be a good value even if one cannot eat them all : -)
  18. More than 200-300 proofs for the B/G just gives them a major task picking the ones they want in an album etc. Also that number gives the photographer a good discipline in culling down to the very best images. Photographers that give more than that are, in my opinion not giving the B/G the best of their talent, but leaving it to them to do a lot of the culling.
  19. In the film days I would deliver about 100 images. Film was expensive and looking through the images was time consuming. Digital has changed all of that. I only deliver about 500 images now only because the clients expect it. Their friend got married and got 1000 images, why can't I deliver that many is a common question.
    I have seen one person posting on this board that indicates they take 8,000 images for a wedding. Good for them. I think that is insane but I am not them. 8K images over 6 hours is 1.3K images per hour on average. 22 images per minute. about one every three seconds on average. There will be slack moments so during peak times it could amount to 3 or four images a second. At that rate I suspect redundancy is rampant.
    Take what you need to convey the event. Don't worry about others. If your clients are happy and you are happy, then what I or others say does not matter.
  20. I think the problem with the majority of wedding and event coverage is too many images shown in the final result. Compared it to how magazines use photos to illustrate a story. Hundreds or thousands could be shot for a story, yet only a few are selected that best illustrate the story. That's how a quality article is made - by throwing away anything that can be thrown away without leaving out an essential part of the event or story. If there are two or even five similar images - it means both a lack of creativity from the photographer (inability to make unique images both from a visual and content point of view) and lack of ability to edit (to choose one, so that this particular type of image is presented just once (if at all), to avoid making the whole repetitive). I think a measure of how good a set of images is how often it gets looked at, not how many images there are. The fewer images, usually the better. Otherwise no one will want to wade through it after the initial excitement fades. If on the other hand, every image is visually rich, unique in the album, and contains the essential feelings of a key moment of the day, then we're onto something. That kind of images are what people will want to look at time and time again. And IMO if you're trying for anything less, then you're just making more of the same, leading to a more boring and forgettable world.
  21. I have found that the B/Gs that I work with appreciate fewer, better quality images. Too many photos can be overwhelming. 200 great photos is very nice and easy for everyone to work with. But make sure that you communicate with you clients that is what they will probably get. Managing expectations and giving them more than they expect, is the KEY to client happiness!
    As you do more weddings, you will take less photos that you throw away. And you will take more photos that you keep!
  22. In the 1970's it was common to shoot about say 6 rolls of 120/620 or about 3 to 4 rolls of 220 in Vericolor II; 10 rolls to 12 of 12exp would be for a bigger wedding.

    In the 1960's some folks used 4x5 for formals and 120 was for candids and one shot a few rolls.
    I recently scanned a couples entire negatives from a early 1960's wedding; it has a single roll of 120 6x6cm and two 35mm roll for candids.
  23. When I shoot weddings (I'm a solo shooter), I offer a finished product, that is, a wedding album. However, I also offer a DVD with as many of the original, unedited photos (though I will resize them). The final edited and retouched images will also be on the disc. I don't charge much for this service, only $10-$15, since it's no big deal to burn a DVD and slap an image on it and put it in a jewel case. Couples seem to like having computer-ready files to email to friends and relatives who weren't able to attend, or to put online in their blogs or whatever.
    The last few weddings I shot I only provided around 60 images in the album and close to 300 on a DVD, and the couples were extremely happy with the final product.
  24. I really don't understand this nonsense of "limiting" the images you provide. If you have 500 and they're all good why cull out 300 of them just to deliver 200 because that's what you delivered to the last client? Now... 800 sounds like a lot to me and I really don't want to do the math on how many frames a minute this is but if I were delivering that many I'd just go back to doing wedding video.
    Regardless, we've all been to pretty bland affairs where the candids are sparse and also those weddings where a lot happens. They get what the event "gives" for the most part. No two weddings are alike for me.
    And using the, "film days" days as a shining example of what people accepted back then is not valid anymore for obvious reasons.
  25. For a while I've noticed a correlation between pricing and image count. I suspect that lower prices tend to attract clients who set a higher benchmark on quantity than on quality. Beyond a certain price point in the market, the question never gets asked because the client tends to be more interested in quality. You're judged on which pictures you provide, not how many.
    I currently shoot for around 300 in the final deliverable. I edit as much as I need to in pursuit of the strongest set. And that means the strongest set in my eyes, not in the eyes of the client. I don't hang on to a mediocre image just in case someone might find it amusing. I would view that as a huge disservice to the people who hired me.
    I'll know I've really got the hang of wedding photography when I can nail a wedding in 200 images. Until then, each wedding I try to shoot less, not more, with the aim that each and every image should be more significant, better judged to the occasion, and more meaningful to my clients.
  26. If the photographer is the artist, why is letting the non artist determine the art preferred? I think that the number of photos is also based on the number of people at the event.
  27. i have never supplied more than 300 images for a wedding. if the client wanted more, i'd tell them just to hire a videographer.
  28. 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".
    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?
    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.
  29. 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.
    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.
  30. RE"I think that digital has changed the rules of the game in that clicking the shutter a few more times costs nothing."
    You still have the cost in ones *time* to cull out the duds.
    Thus if one shoots 2000 images one could just:
    (A Hand the raw unprocessed card to the B&G
    (B) Spend time culling out the duds in 2000 images.
    Handing over raw (unculled) images the one with the best expression can be a technical dud.
    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 :).
    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.
  31. 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.....
  32. If your clients are happy and you meet their expectations you are on solid ground.
    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.
    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.
  33. 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.

    Who in really wants 1500+ images? On paper is sounds great, but in reality it becomes a nightmare for everyone involved.
  34. 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.
  35. 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? :)
  36. 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.
    That was then, this is now. 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.
    That said, IMO, it doesn't require 1000+ images to accomplish all of the above.
  37. I don't think I could look at that many images of anybody's wedding. Thank heavens for film....​
    I don't think I could either. The 60 shots in my own wedding album are more than enough.
    i switched from digital to film for convenience.​
    That's what I would do if I were going to do weddings (which I'm not!).
  38. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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" .
    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.
  39. My one and only wedding so far was a big success with only 4 rolls of Portra.
  40. If you want a lot of photographs then why not shoot video? Pretty nice photos can be made from video now.
    How many images are actually keepsakes from a wedding? How many are bought as enlargements? How many in an album?
    It's up to you after consulting/educating your clients.
    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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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 MY day...." and "Where's my walker?") I say this with tongue in cheek because I really do value the advice. One person suggested ignoring 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.
    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.
    I defy you to look at 1,000 photos in one sitting and get anything out of it. Other than a headache.
    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.
    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.
  43. I mostly do the whole day coverage and usually shoot about 2000. After sorting them out i get about 500-600 on dvd, i print about 150 pics 15x22,5cm (approx. 7x10in.). :)
  44. 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.
    I think showing 1000+ photos to the Germans was how we won the war. I'm guessing.
  45. 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.
  46. 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 be "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.
    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.
    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.
    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).
  47. 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...
    Confused? Experience - and your own style - will be your guide.

Share This Page