Just how many Wedding Photos do you show client?

[fotografz]

"Heck, it is her wedding and she (and the groom) should be able to choose what is to go or

not go into the album."

 

"I agree ... I know we are the professionals and we know design better than them, but they

really should be able to pick the album photos, IMO ... They're paying us to be the experts,

yes, but only they should make the final decisions about an album they're going to pass

down to their children one day."

 

Different strokes for different folks. The cool thing about this business is that we work for

ourselves and can set up our product offering any way we want. It's then up to the client to

choose whether they like what you're selling. It's not like I ... TA-DA! surprise them with a

completed album after the wedding ... it part of the initial sales pitch and it's in my

contract. It's also not like they don't get the rest of the photos either.

 

So after umpty-dumpty years of doing it this way, the amount of changes requested in my

albums has been ... two images. One was because the B&G had a falling out with the

subject of the photo (they paid for the change), and the second request was because

subject person delivering a huge gift was the date of a dear friend they knew and

preferred a photo of the friend herself. That's it.

 

People hire me because of this, not in spite of it. I design ads and brochures for major

corporations, so I probably can do a wedding album ... at least my clients think so ... many

of which are Designers, Art Directors or other photographers.

 

It just requires that you pay attention to who's important and what's important to your

clients. If you think about it, it isn't brain surgery ... a vast majority of images in an album

are dictated by the flow of events. You know certain photos are required ... Dad/Bride

procession, ring exchange, 1st kiss, recession, Bridal portrait, wedding party, Parents w/

B&G, grand entrance, cake cut, first dance, Bride Dad dance, etc. etc.

 

Get those all in the album and there really isn't much left to do, and if you can't select the

best shot of each of those you may be in the wrong business. What's left after all that is

where paying attention to what else and who else is important ... and striving to produce a

great shot of those subjects.

 

Anyway, probably not for everyone but it works for me.

[al_kaplan1]

These are valid points being made about overshooting. In the heyday of the big picture magazines, Life, Look, and Paris Match, nobody shot the number of exposures that some wedding shooters are knocking out today.

[jean_marc_liotier]

<p>

Al Kaplan wrote :</br>

> In the heyday of the big picture magazines, Life, Look</br>

> and Paris Match, nobody shot the number of exposures</br>

> that some wedding shooters are knocking out today.</br>

</p>

<p>

Maybe that is because nowadays the cost of exposing lots of frames is practically only the selection time. If you can browse and cull fast enough there are practically no downsides. Of course as with many things, the number of shots taken is certainly subject to diminishing returns. But I have found that even if they are not important for the more formal aspects of the wedding, large numbers are key to bagging good candids, especially when there is more than one subject : the probability of a member of a group blinking or showing an ugly facial expression grows to the power of the group size.

</p>

[Dave Gardner]

We put about 800 shots on a DVD slide show for them....and give them about 200-400 of the best to chose from. We take about 1500 to 3000 shots depending on the wedding.

 

Some of our clients want to have a hand in designing their album...and others want us to complete it for them. All clients are different.

 

Someone said... "I agree ... I know we are the professionals and we know design better than them"....'better' them?...i wouldn't make that statement! A lot of our clients are also involved in design and have a great deal of experience. Taking nice photographs, does NOT make you a 'professional' at designing an album or show.

 

David E. I can't speak for your clients...but our clients don't get "overwhelmed" at all.

 

Dave

[david_eicher]

Well, obviously some agree with me, alot do not. I guess it was how I was brought up, "waste not, want not". We were always taught to figure how how much each photo was costing us to take, then remembering that throughout the event. So for example, every shot I take cost .85 cents. Times that by 5000 images........WOW. But of course Brooks is shooting digital and Brooks you do lovely work. I went to you blog, lots of nice shots, very little comments, so hard to gauge how you clients feel. Obviously they keep hiring you, so they must be happy. Another site had, as I stated in my "newspaper anology" overkill, of the same basic image. Why not just pick out two or three and be done with it? I do shoot some digital but not at weddings. I know alot don't agree with MY way of doing things, but it got me semi-retired at 48, so I must have done something right. I now live in a very small town, since Orlando got to be too much. (you might have noticed recently it got most murders and stress levels in the country)

No rut Brooks and no disrespect to anyone that does this profession. My intent was to basically see what the heck some of you all are supplying with that many images shown. It pretty much was want I thought, thats all. As one stated, alot of it is run and gun digital, with many good/great photos mixed in. I just can't see some of what I saw being pulled out of a purse or folder and showed to friends at work with the exictment of WOW, "look at this" all over the brides face. Brooks, if you are pulling down $4500 per wedding bless you. Great job, but 5000 images, not for me. Sounds intrusive on the Bride and Grooms day to shoot that many shots. They are there to be with family and friends too. Probably the difference of Northern vs Southern attitude also.....again no disrespect, I originaly come from NY. Maybe I am in a rut......"video killed the radio star". Guess that applies to Digital and film too. Thanks for your comment, All.

[rtrace]

"It takes me about 2 hours to edit 5000 images down to about 700 or so...Using a MacBook Pro and IView 3..."

 

A 14% keeper rate? 5000 images edited down in just 2 hours on a laptop? Whatever works for you, but I can't help but think something here doesn't seem right. Speed and safety in numbers will give you some cools shots - 14% LOL. Just the law of averages at work.

 

More power to you man, but don't knock David's point which I think is very valid just to justify the way you shoot.

 

Bogdan

[rtrace]

David,

 

You are not in a rut because of what you say. I'm only 33 and feel the same way. I made a comment on this in another thread.

 

It's common for people shooting digital to say some are in a rut or "old-school" because they choose not to shoot thousands of repetative images, etc. Being able to compose a shot and discriminate is a talent. Weeding out 5000 shots isn't... Ask yourself this. If shooting film, would you be able to shoot a wedding the way you do now? Would you even be able to if forced to change your style/workflow? If the answer is no, then no comment.

 

Bogdan - I shoot digital and film so don't ask.

[jmichaelc]

We live in a world of options and not everyone wants the same standardized service options in this industry. I'm in the Brooks camp and i'm here to tell you that there are 5000 images to shoot at every wedding, although i must admit i've never pulled that many frames at a wedding but.....they are there to shoot. Why would that be offensive to you or anyone else?

 

Put it this way, when i'm at a wedding, i'm in my element. I'm looking at every possibility, moment, scene before me and my mind is constantly at work paying attention to every detail etc.... The creativity is there to be excercised and executed. I provide services from sun up until the BG leaves for the night...10 hour days seems to be my minimum day. If you have two photographers working a 10-12 hour day non stop then what's the harm in this effort? I'd rather be capturing scenes for my own personal fufillment than standadizing on a limited preconceived number.

 

I have a good friend here in E. TN that is at the top of the wedding PJ game and his team pulls off about 3000K images at every wedding. His final story presentation is fantastic and is featured in many reputable wedding magazines such as The Knot, Tennessee Brides, Wedding Style, Elegant Bride,Marquee, Paper City, Seasons, Decision, and A! just to name a few that i know.

 

Why is this an issue to so many? At the end of the day, if your booking weddings and fufilling the desires of your market then you my friend are successful at the service at which you provide.

 

"snowballing the Bride with 500 to 700 + images"

 

Did it ever occur to you that the brides hired these photographers for this very thing David?

 

My storytelling packages begin with 150 guarenteed photos to tell their story, finished in a story telling album. My largest is 500 guarenteed photos. 60% of my clientel chooses the middle ground of around 350, however more choose the 500 than the 150.

 

It's all about choices, and my clientel chooses it this way. It's really that simple.

[jean_marc_liotier]

<p>

Bogdan said :</br>

> Being able to compose a shot and discriminate is a talent.</br>

> Weeding out 5000 shots isn't...</br>

</p>

<p>

Go tell that to the editor in the press room...

</p>

<p>

I have no problem with people having 1% or 99% of keepers - it is the end results that count, especially the emotions from the readers. I don't quite understand what the flames are about.

</p>

<p>

That said, I also don't understand what's wrong with more frames as long as ruthless editing is enforced. As the saying goes : the most useful tool in a photo lab is the wastebasket...

</p>

[daydreamsart]

I think how the pictures are presented counts for more than the quantity. I recently had a mother of one of my spring brides tell me her son had been married out of state shortly after her daugher, and the photographer gave them around a thousand images on a disc. That's what they gave this mother and she dreaded going through them to find what she wanted prints of. She was grateful that I had edited her daughter's wedding down to 175 of the best shots.

 

The way I generally do it is the first thing they see is their AV show they download which has 35-70 (depending on how long I was shooting) of the best images set to music telling the story of their day. This creates a lot of excitement for them. Then a couple of days later, I upload all the 175-400 wedding pictures (and any pre-wedding pics) in galleries online (engagement, bridal, preparation, ceremony, B&G, formals, reception) so they never feel bombarded with pictures. Then they get a proof index album (20 per 8.5x11 page) along with a full res image disc, and all finished images as 4x6 prints in boxes with bows. They are always pleasantly surprised! For a long wedding, I shoot about 1000 images, and try to edit it down to 400. A short wedding, I try to edit down to around 175. When I get stuck with much more than that, I bring in someone else (my husband's good!) to help me edit down to my goal.

[jean_marc_liotier]

<p>

Bodgan said :</br>

> 5000 images edited down in just 2 hours on a laptop ?</br>

</p>

<p>

Mmmm yeah, this sound incredibly fast to me too. That's 1.44 seconds per frame... The laptop better be a very fast one and the decisions lightning quick. My first wave of weeding out the (blurry/badly exposed/badly framed) frames may be about that fast, but then comes the non-trivial choices and then the selection of the best among the bursts, and then some harder choices to increase the average quality. That takes me much much more than 1.44 seconds per frame... I wonder how that can be done that fast.

</p>

<p>

And about the 5,000 pictures in 10 hours, one photo every seven seconds is my take for sports photography... Or maybe there really is that much action going on at those weddings... I mean no disrespect - whatever floats your boat - but I take four times less and I wonder how one manages to expose that much in a useful way.

</p>

[jean_marc_liotier]

Anyway the topic was not "how many pictures do we shoot" but "how many pictures do we show". And for that question I would say there is a much better consensus. I would say between 35 and 350 according to how small or humongous the event was. From the numbers gathered around this thread it looks like I'm not the only one...

[david_eicher]

Bogdan said :

> Being able to compose a shot and discriminate is a talent.

> Weeding out 5000 shots isn't...

 

Go tell that to the editor in the press room...

 

 

That said, I also don't understand what's wrong with more frames as long as ruthless editing is enforced. As the saying goes : the most useful tool in a photo lab is the wastebasket...

 

LOL, there is no editor in the Press Room, not unless there is a Running Change. They usually abhore ink. They sit upstairs in their special cubicals and shout orders from ahigh.

I can see your point on the more frames and the PHOTOGRPHER having more choices to show their clients, that is good. I really agree with the ruthless editing. I guess the main difference is the digital vs film battle. The ease of posting everything on the WEB for clients to see is a great idea, I just would start to find it incredible tedious after going through so many repetitive shots. Where I cull my images, it is like you are wanting your clients to do it. Surprisingly some people are also not computer literete (LOL, wish this site had spell check) or have no PC to view the images. As most have stated, to each their own. I enjoyed all the opinions Pro or Con.

And yes, I was talking SHOWN, not taken.

[gerund]

I guess I have to chime in with an opinion. Although not a professional,

I have to respect all methods and numbers to produce a final pleasing product.

I would just have to say that for myself even in my most patient days that I could never cull thru 5000 photos without giving up photography for good and probably getting ill along the way. I would become so bored with the repetitive nature of the process that I would be bouncing off the walls in a kamakazi manner. To me photography as any art form is about discrimination and that discrimination process is fatiguing as well as exhilarating. However digital has allowed the easement of the discriminating process and overkill seems to be the name of the game with professionals in many facets of photography today. Sports photography is another of the extremes. I had no idea that the volume of photos taken by professional sports photogs sometimes exceeded the number taken in a wedding, sometimes to get just one or two perfect shots. I guess that is one of the reasons that I remain an amateur. I simply am not obsessive enough to go to those types of extremes to obtain that perfection.

Sooo, I remain yours truely,

Uncle Bob

[darrel_wright]

I think before anyone else throws out Brooks' 5000 number as ridiculous, you should check out his work. It blows most of the stuff I see here out of the water and from my experience is exactly what people are looking for without always being able to voice it.

 

Obviously shooting candid and for moments means a certain amount of bracket shooting, but to say it is machine gun style, or a lack of talent at composing, or the stupid demands of brides deluded by bad marketing, or anything like that is preposterous. Again...check the results.

[jamie_thomas]

I don't see why everyone argues over film and digital. I love film for my personal art work, and I also love to do darkroom work just to step back and get away from the world. But I also love digital for weddings because; I don't get as many gray hairs. Digital is great because I can see if something is wrong and I can fix it. It also is good because we can take so may shoots. There is nothing wrong with taking a lot of pictures, this way we don't miss the little things that happen unexpected. If your way works for you thatﾒs great, I find that my clients love a lot of images and what to choose there own album. That is what sells me, and I am not about to change. By the way I give my client a proof album with any where from about 400 to 600 proofs. I shoot about 700 images of the complete day.

[rtrace]

"If shooting film, would you be able to shoot a wedding the way you do now? Would you even be able to if forced to change your style/workflow?"

 

What is the answer? I'm not saying to shoot film, I shoot digital mostly but also film, but am really curious. Because you are NOT going to shoot 5000 frames of film. And I don't think digital made photographers better, so I won't buy that as an argument. If I look at weddings shot on film and digital, the digital ones don't look better (i.e. have shots that some would say they would have missed if shooting film, etc.). In fact many times it's the opposite..Just my opinion of course.

 

Bogdan

[al_kaplan1]

Another consideration is the difference between shooting with a Leica type rangefinder or twin lens reflex, where you push the shutter release when you see "the picture" and capture it without the mechanical delay of mirrors moving out of the way or auto-focus/auto-exposure mechanisms doing their thing. When shooting bursts, whether digital or motor driven film transport, you're locked into the camera's sequence. You can't shoot the picture between the frames time-wise.

[rtrace]

I was simply amazed at 5000 pictures, because let's say you are shooting non-stop for 10 hours (more than average). That comes out to 8.3 pictures/minute as an average. Something is wrong here IMO..

 

Bogdan

[lb-]

here, this will really flip your lid..........

 

I usually shoot 10-12 rolls of 35mm film. my delivery rate is 100%. I give the client every single frame I shoot. zero editing. they get 36 shots from every roll. I'm such a nice guy, I even let them take care of the processing. Just hand over a ziplock bag full of shot film at the end of the night and say our goodbyes........

 

if brooks gets judged for shooting and editing so much I think I deserve some judgment for shooting and editing so little. at least a little pity and some condescension?

[david_eicher]

I cull and edit, obviously some of you do not or not very much. Brooks does large event weddings. When I shot at Disney World, I shot more film, as long as the Bride and Groom had the time, but using film, it is more cost-effective to gauge your shots so as to not get too repitative and thus cut your profit.

[lb-]

"but using film, it is more cost-effective to gauge your shots so as to not get too repitative and thus cut your profit."

 

my wedding clients pay for the consumables. how much film I shoot has no bearing on my profit. how much time I spend does.

[think27]

First of all - There are way too many rude comments here... I'll be editing soon and I'm not happy about the amount of work I'll have to do to read every single comment in order to do this in such a way that I don't change the meaning and/or leave responses to edited out statements. Come on people! Just because some may do things differently than your way does NOT make it wrong!

 

To the question.... First - even though not actually "asked" I do want to talk about the amount of images shot. I used to shoot only 12 to 15 rolls. Back in those days - I was slower because I was newer and I was all manual. I missed a lot of good shots! Damn. But my shots were good - the ones I did get. Now 15 years later - I have auto focus and ETTL flash. I'm faster - my equipment is faster - my eye is better and I don't miss things. Some may call it shotgun shooting - but I am better at watching - anticipating - capturing. I don't worry about cost because I charge enough.

 

I shoot 25 to 36 rolls. I edit 0 to 7 images per roll. The bride gets 2-3 and sometimes 4 huge proof albums with order sheets and the books are laid out as artistically as possible and in sequential order.

 

I shoot 3-4 rolls of getting ready. I shoot 3-4 rolls of the bride with her family, the bridesmaids and the portrait before the ceremony.

I shoot with two cameras and sometimes three. I zoom in for some fun shots of the groups during group shots. I shoot full figure and then zoom in and then fill the frame when shooting people to give them many options for the album. I shoot details etc...

 

By now I have shot 5 to 7 rolls (yes - film). I shoot the groom and the ushers and sometimes if time - the groom with the guys and the family and/or the guests arriving.. Now up to as much as 9 rolls. I shoot anywhere from 3 to 5 rolls of the ceremony depending on how lon it is. Wide angle and zoom lenses...black and white rolls and color rolls. I shoot close ups and wide angles and shoot parents and guests watching (wide and close shots) and reacting. Up to 14 or so rolls now...

 

Family groups. 6 to 9 of each group - 2-3 cameras. 4 to 8 rolls depending on how big the family is and what the shot list is. Can be

at roll 23 by now. Couple... 3-4 rolls - color and black and white.

Walking, sitting, talking, cuddling and interacting as well as a few "formal" shots. Some super close-up, some backed up a bit on the zoom and some full figure. Shooting with two cameras now..

Up to possibly 27 rolls...

 

The reception can be anywhere from 4 to 9 rolls depending on the length of my contract.

 

As to what I show them? I'm really pleased to say that my couples love all the shots they have. They are not exactly the same. They are all "moments" of the day and is as they say better than having a video. I document everything. Most say that they had such a hard time picking for the albums and reprints because there are so many they love. Most say they were going to do a 24-page book but end up doing a 36 to 60 page book because they just couldn't eliminate enough shots.

 

I was married 3 years ago. I got over 2,000 images. I wish I had more ;-) I love them all and with them - every moment of my day is completely captured for me to re-live and remember.

 

By the way - I'm not saying it is "the way". I'm saying it is "my way". For me - it works. 4 weeks ago a couple picked up an order for reprints only. $465 worth. She is sending me another order for 75 more prints - mostly 5x7's and 8x10's - Christmas presents. Greek family - very into photos. Later, she says to me on the phone yesterday, they will want to do an album sometime after Christmas.

Oh and by the way? She was married two summers ago. So much for time

restraints.. They know they have no deadline.

[robbie_caswell]

What is your setup? What percentage is flash? What percentage available light?

 

My thing is I feel flash can be intrusive and gets on peoples nerves. (one rason I'm exploring Leicas).

 

This weekend I'm shooting in and iconic, abandoned castle called Atalaya. Since its outdoors and shaded I expect 1000+ if it's an all day affair. Especially if no flash is needed.

 

Generally 800 for 8 hours. When added to the pro's take we probably shoot 1500-2000. I could see much much more in perfect lighting conditions.

 

FWIW...My boss makes me shoot JPEG.

[think27]

<em>"Sounds intrusive on the Bride and Grooms day to shoot that many shots. They are there to be with family and friends too." </em>

<p>

The above comment made in regard to the large number of frames Brooks shoots. If I shot for 10 hours - I'd probably also shoot around 5,000 frames. I usually only shoot for 5-6 hours and sometimes 7. I don't need to be there through the endless dancing. I convince my clients of this. And - although I shoot constantly? They ALL say - they hardly knew I was there. I'm guessing - except for group shots and other "formals" - they don't know Brooks is there either. So much for being intrusive.<p>

 

AND<p>

<em>"Just remember, probably around 3 to 5 years from now, if they are still married, most of those shots will probably be in a drawer somewhere, no matter how good we are."</em><p>

 

Well - I'm happy to say I get lots of nice big orders from brides 3-5 years from the wedding. Since they don't get loose prints...they are not in a drawer - but on the bookcase in the living room where it comes out every time guests or family comes over.