Sandy Vongries Posted September 16, 2022 Share Posted September 16, 2022 Talking to a friend the other day and he mentioned that his daughter, quite a respectable enthusiast photographer, was out of state photographing a friend's expensive wedding. I talked about some of the watch outs, in case he spoke to her before the event. He said she was finished had had taken 13,000 photos of the Lead up, Wedding, and Reception. I thought that was an extraordinary number of raw shots. Granted, I am still possessed by film habits, but I did around 500 of my son's Wedding / Reception before discards. Of course, they had Professionals as well. Be curious to know what kinds of numbers are customary for a wedding these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted September 16, 2022 Share Posted September 16, 2022 No idea but that would be a photo every 2.21 seconds during an 8-hour day. Shooting bursts to get expressions? Glad I'm not doing the editing and post! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted September 16, 2022 Author Share Posted September 16, 2022 No idea but that would be a photo every 2.21 seconds during an 8-hour day. Shooting bursts to get expressions? Glad I'm not doing the editing and post! Me too! My assumption is, since this was an over the top event, there was probably the Rehearsal Dinner before, final fitting, makeup before the wedding, off site shots, Wedding, and Reception. She must have been shooting burst. My yearly Charity shoot, in process now, is usually on or around 600 shots taken over several days, and that is a travail to cull and edit. Unimaginable chore, but her day job is in a family business so she has the space she needs. Thanks for the feedback! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 I don't need to tell you (but of course I will anyway), that I wouldn't want to be the one to slim this down to a nice portfolio of wedding pictures. Too many is tiresome. Fewer really good shots will always beat out a vast number of good shots. But you all know that anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleflash Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 Dunno. I was thinking final photos maybe 200. Raw photos maybe 3,000 - 4,000. But 13,000 seems excessive. I was told National Geographic photos shoot 20,000 photos for an assignment more or less. I think that # was still in the film era. I say you need to shoot a hundred photos to get a good one. (if lucky) I almost never go to weddings, but did go to one a few years ago... Dancing Queen Bride 2014 It is kinda interesting that I don't like weddings, yet I have a huge collection of archival photos of vintage weddings / brides. I find them interesting as long as I don't have to go to them. I even have a category for nosegay, which is a small floral bouquet the bride used to carry to stifle smells. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 13,000 photos ! I hope she meant 1300 because that is a quick way to wear out your camera. Depending on the size of the wedding, I usually don't go past 1600 for a very large wedding, 1200 for medium size and 300-600 for a small wedding. Unlike some photographers that treat the camera like a machine-gun, I take my time and try to get the best shot possible. This is probably from my old Film day experiences. Sitll 13,000 is a lot of photos to Cull. That might take you an entire week unless you have help, or unless you nailed each and every shot. Shooting RAW makes it even more tedious... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted September 22, 2022 Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 13,000 photos ! I hope she meant 1300 because that is a quick way to wear out your camera. Depending on the size of the wedding, I usually don't go past 2000 for a very large wedding, 1200 for medium size and 300-600 for a small wedding. Unlike some photographers that treat the camera like a machine-gun, I take my time and try to get the best shot possible. This is probably from my old Film day experiences. Sitll 13,000 is a lot of photos to Cull. That might take you an entire week unless you have help, or unless you nailed each and every shot. Shooting RAW makes it even more tedious... Heard it from her father, he is an intelligent guy, but could have heard wrong. This was apparently an over the top affair. They flew in a distinguished clergyman from overseas to officiate. I don't even care for culling and editing the 500 to 600 shots I get on my yearly charity shoot. Been procrastinating for a couple of days, rainy day, so no excuse. Thanks for your response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 Even 1300 is a lot, a whole lot.o_O 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels - NHSN Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 That is why I don’t do weddings. Even family. Scary!!! 2 Niels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnelson Posted September 25, 2022 Share Posted September 25, 2022 Heard it from her father, he is an intelligent guy, but could have heard wrong. This was apparently an over the top affair. They flew in a distinguished clergyman from overseas to officiate. I don't even care for culling and editing the 500 to 600 shots I get on my yearly charity shoot. Been procrastinating for a couple of days, rainy day, so no excuse. Thanks for your response! Been told that the bigger/expensive the wedding the bigger/expensive the divorce. But what would I know? Married in a women's clubhouse and have only been married for 51 years. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted September 25, 2022 Author Share Posted September 25, 2022 True, I suspect. 40 in December, at her Mother's House! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 28, 2022 Share Posted September 28, 2022 Some cameras don't wear from use per shot as they rely on the electronic shutter for the most part, thus you can take as many shots as you want, and they can typically do it at 20 fps no less. So it would be easy to get 13000 shots on a busy wedding with many sub-events, if one uses these capabilities. There would be no extra wear on the camera. However, one can ask the question "why" would one do that when it would result in a large amount of editing work and the photographer is surely aware of that. If one has an efficient computer for this type of work then it may not be a huge problem to just pick some of the best ones to create the set, but if one wants to be sure of which ones are the best then this can take quite a lot of time doing side by side comparisons to evaluate what feelings each image invokes, how they work together with other images etc. and finally to edit the images to fit visually with the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted September 28, 2022 Share Posted September 28, 2022 No wonder it took 6 months to get the photo album for my daughter's wedding. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted September 28, 2022 Author Share Posted September 28, 2022 Spoke to the young lady yesterday. It was 13,000! She has begun culling them. I'm pretty sure she is a Canon user. I didn't go into detail because I didn't want to come across as critical. The Wedding couple are personal friends, and she has done photos for them before so they are ok with some processing time. I can't imagine the task, the mind boggles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted October 25, 2022 Share Posted October 25, 2022 OMG ! I hope she has a nice/HUGE computer to store all those pictures... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 13k??? Really? How would even three or four photographers shoot that many, much less one? Next question is why? I think the last one I shot, two of us shot a total of about 1300. Edited down to maybe half that and didn’t miss a thing during a 12 hour day. When digital was younger I recall a friend receiving close to 5000 images of her wedding shot by a pro over three days. I think he did that just because he could, not because it was a monster event. Rick H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted November 3, 2022 Author Share Posted November 3, 2022 No idea how it could be done, other than all burst. The thought of culling and editing is mind boggling. However, she is a tough, young Ranch Gal, and I'd guess all of us tried amazing things when we were young, for good or ill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_ante Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 Do people really view the videos and dozens and dozens of photos after the wedding? 1,300 or 13,000 pictures! Just wondering. At our wedding I handed a friend my Rollei and three rolls of film and told him to enjoy himself. All BW film by the way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted November 15, 2022 Share Posted November 15, 2022 On 11/3/2022 at 3:26 AM, robert_ante said: Do people really view the videos and dozens and dozens of photos after the wedding? 1,300 or 13,000 pictures! Just wondering. At our wedding I handed a friend my Rollei and three rolls of film and told him to enjoy himself. All BW film by the way. I don't think many photographers deliver thousands of images nor would it make any sense to do so, unless the idea is to provide an inexpensive service which doesn't include editing. Editing is the most time-consuming part no doubt. It is an interesting question, of course, what people do with the photographs. Some make albums or books according to their own layout, others have the photographer provide the album or book design. I wouldn't necessarily want to design a book based on let's say 72 images captured (3 rolls of 220 film), as there will undoubtedly be some that are not good. But it would likely be sufficient for portraits to frame and display. By shooting a lot of images it becomes more likely that one can create a more complete documentary of the course of the day and select the ones that best fit together. However, there is a point of diminishing returns where increasing the number of images no longer improves the outcome yet increases the workload and makes editing very tedious. I guess one way to solve the editing problem is not to even look at all the images in full but simply pick from thumbnails the ones that are needed for the story. But then still there is the question of what to keep in back ups to the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louder Than Fire Posted November 29, 2022 Share Posted November 29, 2022 It really depends on her style of shooting. Those 13k would be a lot to me too, considering the 8 hours. However, if you're really into documentary vibe or shoot in silent mode, you tend to overshoot. It's cool to be kind 🤟 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted November 29, 2022 Share Posted November 29, 2022 On 11/2/2022 at 6:26 PM, robert_ante said: Do people really view the videos and dozens and dozens of photos after the wedding? I only view them when the mother of the bride shoves her phone in my face to make me look. Otherwise, if I get a link at home, unless something really catches my eye, I skim quickly through them so I can get back to my next HBO, Netflix, or Amazon episode. 😊 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessieJim Posted December 5, 2022 Share Posted December 5, 2022 I received about 1000 photos for my wedding, in principle I am happy with everything, 13k is wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey L.T. von Glück Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 Just saw this. 13,000 is madness. When I assisted my uncle in wedding photography back in the 1970s, we rarely shot more than 300 or 400 with the ‘blad, and maybe a dozen or so b&w with an old Speed Graphic using cut film if the couple wanted those kind of ‘retro’ shots. 13K is mind blowing! My late parents’ wedding album was shot in the late 1940s in b&w—looks like it was done last month, b&w holds up over the years. A relative who was a guest took some 35mm Kodachromes—they, too, look like they were shot last month, but the Agfas and Dufays are faded to nothing. With today’s bridezillas, so glad I have nothing to do with weddings. 2 Jeffrey L. T. von Gluck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 (edited) While 13,000 is bad, I can easily imagine it happening. Suppose your camera is set at around 10 fps, which is a good idea if you want catch best expressions. Every time you take a shot you get 10. Continue for 3 hours + it would easily add up. Particularly for a large wedding. When I did weddings a very popular question the couple asked was how many photos would I take. Quality was not the issue for most. Now you are also competing with phones, so you need a lot of shots to get everything of interest, or at least that is what some couples think. Edited March 7, 2023 by Robin Smith Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 On 3/7/2023 at 3:08 PM, Robin Smith said: While 13,000 is bad, I can easily imagine it happening. Suppose your camera is set at around 10 fps, which is a good idea if you want catch best expressions. Every time you take a shot you get 10. (snip) There are supposed to be digital cameras (I haven't tried one) that will take 10 or so frames, as noted, and then select the one with most people smiling, then store that on the card. The person (you) only have to look at one. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now