How many photos do you take at a wedding?

<p>I was just reading an older post where the photographers took around 7000, 8000 photos per wedding. I can't imagine taking that many myself. I would think the bride and groom would become annoyed with the constant clicking. You would have to have the camera aimed at them more so than not. Plus that's got to be a ton of time to weed through them all. Is this normal? How many photos do you take?</p>

<p>Do a search. This question gets asked a lot, and often, people argue over whether it is more righteous to take fewer or a lot of pictures, so be prepared. The general range is probably about 300 to 3,000, with some, like the fellow you describe, taking 7,000 or so images. Sometimes this is with a second or third photographer, sometimes not. There is no normal. Shoot as many images as you feel represents your best efforts at capturing the wedding--no more, no less, and don't worry about what others do. Oh--I generally shoot anywhere from 500-1000 images, depending.</p>

<p>Good answer Nadine. I guess I was a little surprised when I first read about someone taking that many. I guess what ever works best, stick with that. Some alot, some not so many.</p>

<p>Keep in mind they take 7-8k images but deliver much less (some do this much solo). If you learn to two finger edit, you can take the 7k down to 1.5k in 1-2 hours. Nothing wrong with it, to each is own. I normally shoot about 1500 images or so depending on how long the day is.</p>

<p>Up to 1500 pretty much...</p>

<p>Which is why you should ask for the shutter count when buying a used camera from some of these photographers ... LOL!</p>

<p>Around 450-600, edited down to 350-400. My camera is not an UZI!</p>

<p>This is a good question to ask within your local network of established pro shooters or to discuss at the next WPPI or PPA get-together.</p>

<p>Normally 1000-2000, on average. I try to choose my shot, to eliminate the need to too much deleting later.<br>

The B&G generally end up with between 700-900 keepers.</p>

<p>I shoot about 800 on average but my last wedding was almost 1100 when I added in the b&w conversions. I have a 2nd shooter but only used about 70 of his 250 shots in that count. I like Davids post about his camera is not an uzi. You have to edit these and the couple has to look at them all. </p>

<p>We shoot a LOT of pictures.. on average we take about 5000-6000 pictures but we have had a couple 8000+ weddings. As an earlier person said though, if you know what you're doing editing that many images isn't much of an issue. The wedding we shot on Saturday had 5,508 images (and I swear to God if someone tries to chime in with a logistics of how that's possible I'll take a freaking screen shot of the file. Sigh. Sorry, just get tired of people arguing if that's possible to do or not). That wedding is done, fully edited and everything down to 1000ish fully retouched images available in both color and b&w. I started working on it on Tuesday afternoon. If you are an expert in Lightroom and Photoshop this is VERY easy, and I'm not even rushing, every single photo is given to the client at the same quality you see on our blog (their wedding is up there right now with a slideshow of 130+ images).</p>

<p>Something to keep in mind too. Usually us heavy 'uzi' 'spray and pray' 'shotgun' shooters are very precise. The reason we take so many pictures is not holding down the entire wedding and then just picking out the good ones. (Also, it's two of us so that adds to the numbers). We keep about 80-90% of our shots. We just have 3-5 shutter instances of each one. We do this to make sure there shot doesn't have anyone blinking or hair in the face etc. We're photojournalistic shooters and we want to make sure it's perfect and when 90% of the pictures are candids we get a lot of goofy faces and halfway blinks. Becker (owner of www.thebschool.com and considered to be one of the most well respected photographers in the country and someone we have the utmost respect for, shoots WAY more than we do and makes us look conservative with our shooting. I think he said he took 12,000 photos at a wedding once with 4 shooters?).</p>

<p>In the end though it depends on how you work. We're about giving our clients an awesome collection of images that they can choose from and build their albums with (that start at 100 pages). We're extremely fast editors, weddings take us at most 8-12 hours if we're taking it easy and with our photography business, our design business, and our branding business this means about a week or two to get them their photos. We also shoot about 90% with natural light, so there isn't a blazing flash that goes along with that (we only have a single 580EXii and only go through a single pack of double a's per wedding, just the occasional rapid-firing of the shutter (it's not all the time, just short bursts at the same rate most take a single), and after the first 20 minutes the couple is used to it and don't care. I've never had ANYONE tell us to take less pictures, or complained about the amount we gave them. EVER. Mostly we do full day coverage as well, this means 9am to midnight or later sometimes. That helps with the picture count too.</p>

<p>Once again, to each their own. This is how we work and it works for us. I'm not going to get into a debate about giving too many or too few images, yada yada yada. For us it's about making sure every shot is perfect and I'm willing to work an extra hour or two to cull through a couple thousand images to do that. The results are worth it and our clients mean the world to us and we care for them like family. Our clients on average pay us between $3500 and $5500 a wedding and the day is way too important to take less shots just to prove you can or that you're perfect every time, in our opinion. So again, I'm not going to get into another debate, just take it or leave it and best luck either way. :)</p>

<p>---David

<P>

MODERATOR NOTE - Cathy - David - You may not have noticed the policy - no tags/signatures such as you did at the end of posts please.

<p>Um.....Cathy and David........5,508 images? So, if you shot for, say, 8 hours <em><strong>non-stop, </strong> </em> then you took <em><strong>11.5 photographs</strong> </em> <em><strong>per minute.</strong> </em> You might understand I'm just a wee bit sceptical.....Bob</p>

<p>Bob--- We met with the couple at 9am, and worked until midnight, non-stop. Remember this is also two people shooting here, but since I said I would show proof, here it is. Take it or leave it. Attached is an image of their folder, as well as the Lightroom Dialog folder. Honestly, it's not that difficult to do. Our clients pay us a lot of money, and we give them every single inch of our energy because we would want our photographers for our wedding to do the same, and they did. ---David.</p>

<p>And here's the other one.</p>

<p>Don't be sceptical Bob.... two shooters on rapid-fire = 6 shots per minute for each shooter. Pull the trigger for 3 seconds, take 18 shots and get a 2 minute smoke break! :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So....you are averaging an image every 6 seconds or so. I have photographed weddings for over 40 years....now recently retired, and I simply cannot understand how you can shoot a shot every 6 seconds and find time to arrange people, talk with people, guide people, pose people, etc.<br>

I can see taking that rate of pictures for the<em><strong> hot</strong> </em> instants...coming down the aisle etc.........but I cant see how you manage the quality and human side of things if you are chained to a machine-gun delivery system.<br>

Just because I can't see it does not mean it doesn't happen though......I'm just at a total loss to imagine how?<br>

Respects.....honestly....Bob</p>

<p>Bob--I believe Cathy/David said he or she (or both) shoots 3 or 4 frames (sometimes more) of each image they want--using the continuous drive function. That adds up fast. So the shooting occupies only a small percentage of actual time spent on the job--still. Plus, the reportage style means a lot less arranging and interacting, etc.</p>

<p>If you think that is a lot, think about Emin Kuliyev, a great photographer, who shoots about 7,000 images by himself.</p>

<p>Couldn't care less how many shots someone else shoots. That is their business. </p>

<p>However, implying that shooting 7,000 frames makes someone a great photographer is nonsense. Or that shooting copious quantities of images is better serving the client than someone shooting less.</p>

<p>On the technical side it does make me curious when reading about such large amounts of shots being taken in quick succession ... how does the flash keep up?</p>

<p>Other than that, my only general concern is how the industry at large appears to be moving more-and-more to a commodity mentality ... which in-turn is infecting the clients, who with greater frequency are asking how many shots will be taken as some measure of value for money. Super Size Me!</p>

<p>Perhaps just a natural manifestation of the "More is More Better" Wolf like consuming affliction plaguing the Planet?</p>

<p>Mies van der Rohe must be rolling over in his grave : -) </p>

<p>This is always an interesting question. As you've discovered, it's not unlike politics or religion :-)</p>

<p>For myself - working 100% PJ, as one of two shooters, for 14 hours = somewhere around 1,800 shutter releases combined. From that we'd expect to supply a very tight edit of around 450 images - nothing but the very best. We edit before we take the shot (using our eyes, not motor drive!) and rarely take anything that isn't interesting enough to be a candidate for the final deliverable. Reject rate is very low, edit rate is kept pretty high.</p>

<p>Marc--I didn't say shooting 7,000 frames makes someone a great photographer. I said Emin shoots 7,000 frames at weddings and he is a great photographer. Different meaning. I couldn't care less what someone shoots either, including Emin, but the fact is, he is good. Another fact is, he shoots 7,000 frames at a wedding.</p>

<p>Most of the people shooting that many frames don't use flash a lot. It isn't my style, but I see no reason to be down on number of frames just because I don't shoot that way. I don't think I'll ever shoot that way, but I could entertain the possibility of learning a thing or two by loosening up a little and shooting a bit more when and if it makes sense.</p>

<p>I think that the issue here is more about a personal style than purely how many shots are taken. Some people like to pose every shot, review it on the screen, and recompose until they get the shot.....others work more like Pj's, as mentioned earlier, and take a lot of candid's. I often take a series of shots with candid moments at weddings, or when im shooting sports. Like they said above, if you take one shot, and dont realize that a persons eyes are closed etc, youve missed the moment. I have easily taken 3000+ images at all differant events, and it IS easy to edit, because up to 10 shots can be of the same series. You simply save the best and trash the rest. Ive been saved by this tactic many times. On the other hand, if its a family picture, sure i'll take the time to set, light, compose and recompose as many times as it takes. Bottom line, we all have different styles, I tend to use whatever works at the time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Marc--I didn't say shooting 7,000 frames makes someone a great photographer. I said Emin shoots 7,000 frames at weddings and he is a great photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, he has 120 wedding shots posted here on PN, and I presume that those would be the best from dozens of weddings, with those 120 representing the distillate of perhaps a hundred thousand shots, probably twice as much, maybe more.</p>

<p>I, uh, didn't find the genius there when I went to look. I don't think that he shoots weddings with ordinary cameras. I think that he uses some kind of turbo-powered RBSG, otherwise known as a random something-or-other generator.</p>

<p>Perhaps that is his "personal style." I don't like it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Try his website.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.em34.com/">http://www.em34.com/</a></p>

<p>Although this thread isn't about defining a great photographer.</p>

<p>I've seen it.</p>

<p>If this thread does not have implications for the question as to how to become a good and possibly great photographer, then what is the point?</p>

<p>I will concede one point, however: if one shoots photos as if one were shooting a machine gun, then, if one throws enough lead out there, then one will surely hit something sooner or later.</p>

<p>His is a good case study in what not to do, in my opinion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>In addition, I have to ask what a lot of set-up, posed shots have to do with being "photo-journalistic shooters." There is a lot more Madison Avenue advertising influence rather than actually documenting a real occasion manifested in this pseudo-PJ style of photography.</p>

<p>It is certainly possible to be a great commercial artist, of course, as the examples of Marc Williams and Marc Gougenheim (Marc G.) clearly demonstrate--and, sure, there is a lot of set-up and posed work in many of (but hardly all of) their best shots, but what neither is is a random shooter.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>