Amount of images per wedding

 

<p >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?</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 :-)</p>

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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".<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with doing things your way. It is a big world with room for lots of options.<br>

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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>

<p >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. </p>

</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>With all due respect to David Schilling (who I <em>do</em> 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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.........</p>

<p>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....</p>

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.

<p>shoot and deliver what you think works for you and ignore what other people are doing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Perhaps the primary difference here could be summed up: do you pick, or do you let the client pick?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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 : -)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>As you do more weddings, you will take less photos that you throw away. And you will take more photos that you keep! </p>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> In the 1960's some folks used 4x5 for formals and 120 was for candids and one shot a few rolls.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And using the, "film days" days as a shining example of what people accepted back then is not valid anymore for obvious reasons.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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 <em>which</em> pictures you provide, not how many.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>