Just how many Wedding Photos do you show client?

[picturesque]

There are photographers, like Brooks, who shoot 5000 shots and they are great shots. There are photographers who shoot 5000 shots and they are mostly bad, repetitive shots. There are photographers who shoot 300 shots and they are great shots. There are photographers who shoot 300 shots and most of them are bad, repetitive shots. The number of shots one takes has nothing to do with being a good photographer or bad photographer. Live and let live. Whatever works for you. If the client is happy, what does it matter?

 

To answer the original question, I shoot anywhere from 400-700+ shots at a wedding, depending on the length, what happens, and client desires. Sometimes I shoot conservatively. Sometimes I adopt more "wasteful" techniques if I'm trying to follow action, and there is action to follow. I show the client whatever number is left after editing out repetitive shots, experiments that didn't work, safety shots (if I got something better), and the usual blinkers, bad expressions, plain mistakes, etc. It varies greatly. When I shot with medium format film, I was still shooting 300-400 frames, with the same editing guidelines.

[think27]

Good point Nadine! ;-)

[david_eicher]

Ought oh! Stirred up the Mod.

Sorry about that Mary, actually to tell the truth, I am a Moderator also on a 60K + member board here in Florida. Not photography though.

I have no problems if photographers want to take however many images, but as stated about, if they become repetative, what good are they. Here in this small town I live in now, a standard wedding will last an average of 4 to 4 1/2 hours. In Orlando it was more. I just found Brooks shooting 5000 images to be a tremendous amount of images, of course he has someone else there shooting also, while I work alone. I take 15 rolls of 120 with me and find 13 rolls to be average usage most of the time. Use up to 4 medium format cameras. There is a big difference in shooting at Disney World and International Drive and shooting at a local VFW post. At the VFW, you can only get so creative. LOL

In the high end areas where the brides give the photographer time to do all these images, that would be great. I rarely see it down here. Even the churches want the photographer out with 45 minutes to an hour after ceremony is over. Hard to bang off 7 to 9 images of every shot due to that amount of time that is given. I would love to have clients be on time, have everyone present on time and be dressed on time, but really, that rarely happens in the real world.

I offer my apologies again to anyone I might have offended. Did not mean to do that. My question was answered, it is up to the individual photographer to select his or her way to shoot. It always has been. I will stick with mine, but will look for additional shots too. I don't plan on doing this more than another 5 years anyway. Too many fish out there to catch.

[colleendonovan]

Who cares??? I agree with everyone who says it doesn't matter what everyone else does. For me, for an 8 hour wedding they get 300.

[andre_k1]

I shoot 1200-1500 images per wedding, edit down to 200. I like it like that. I can be very

picky about what I show the bride.

 

Do you have any idea how many rolls of film a National Geographic photographer used to

shoot for a simple 8 photo spread back in the day when they were still shooting film?

Hundreds! Even Thousands sometimes!

 

I have never NEVER come back form a wedding and thought, oh wow, I really shot too

many photos, I can't narrow it down. I use the 8 frames a second that I can shoot to blast

away at certain points in the day, and you know what? When I do, there's always ONE frame

that is head and shoulders better than the 8 or 16 frames that surround it. Easy.

 

I use the time to experiment with light and movement and try new different things.

 

Try it, don't leave your next wedding until you've shot twice what you usually shoot, you

might be pleasantly pleased as you push yourself towards what else can I shoot and how

can I change things up a bit. Push yourself. (although I am sure I would be well challenged

to try and capture a wedding in 100 shots as well.)

[think27]

<em>"There is a big difference in shooting at Disney World and International Drive and shooting at a local VFW post. At the VFW, you can only get so creative. LOL In the high end areas where the brides give the photographer time to do all these images, that would be great. I rarely see it down here. Even the churches want the photographer out with 45 minutes to an hour after ceremony is over. Hard to bang off 7 to 9 images of every shot due to that amount of time that is given."</em>

<p>

True - I would guess. I've never done a VFW wedding but I guess even I would be hard pressed to shoot that much in that venue.

<p>As to churches and time limits... Well - I don't shoot in church but I do all the group shots (except aunts, uncles, cousins - which I do later) outdoors but I am finished within 35 to 60 min. Shooting 7-9 images of each group with two to three cameras loaded and 2 assistants to load film/batteries isn't a problem for me. This insures that all eyes are open in at least one shot and I also have them relax and interact as a group for some of the shots. I've had brides pour over the shots with a loup to pick the one shot that "all" the people in the group look the best. Inevitably you have blinkers, lip lickers, half mast eyes or someone with a weird expression. It's especially a problem when there are children in the shot - then I even shoot more!

<p>

Anyway - not to worry - you didn't create a problem here... I think some people just took your question personally. I don't think you were saying everyone that shoots/shows more than you is "ridiculous". You were just using that word in relation to your wedding and your sister-in-law shots.

[rtrace]

It's true, but National Geographic photographers have time to think, compose, reflect, interact, etc. They don't shoot it all in one day! Sometimes assignments take months! Out of the thousands of shots they shoot for an assigment, maybe only 8 get printed, but that's because they are printed in a magazine along with other stories, so space is limited. Don't think their ratio is that low based on what's printed.

 

Anyway, I just can't imagine shooting that many pictures myself. Perhaps because I have never done it. Maybe I'm slow! I just can't imagine taking an average of 3-8 pictures a minute for an entire 10 hours straight and being creative! I need to look around, ovserve with my eye, and then shoot. Sure there are moments when you HAVE to take fast pictures (or repetitive shots in case one is out of focus or whatever), but the math doesn't work out for me in the end. The most I've shot was I think 1300 or so over 12 hours of coverage (yes some weddings last that long in parts of the world :) I'll have to go look to see what I shoot on average, because I shoot more events than weddings, and the times differ - i.e. it's not always 6-7 hours or whatever. But I think I probably take about 100/hr on average off the top of my head.

 

Bogdan

[wedding-photography-denver]

I show all the images that make me feel like it covers the story well. I try not to show much in the way of repeats unless the other angle helps augment the first in an album.

 

On an average day (6 - 8 hours or so) I show about 500 +/- but don't promise any number of shots to any of my clients.

 

Best, D.

[fotografz]

Get a grip folks. Picasso was incredibly prolific. Vermeer painted less than 40 known

works.

 

Who cares how many images Brooks shoots? It's what he ends up with that counts ... and

that part is hard to argue with. So the "need time to be creative" argument is mute ... for

Brooks.

 

128 pics shown is not my cup of tea, nor is shooting 5000 ... I'd feel guilty with the

former, and exhausted with the latter.

 

My average total count has gone up over the past few years for the same reasons Mary

mentioned. My edited batch has jumped from 200+ to 500+ which I personally think is

ridiculous ... for me.

 

I think it is ridiculous ... for me ... because I don't believe the product itself has improved

as a result. In fact, I feel it masks the better work that's still there, like dumping Ketchup

on an aged filet mignon : -)

[fotografz]

BTW Brooks, remind me to never buy any used gear from you : -)

[jurmellies]

In my opinion the whole discussion here about the amount of photographs taken has to do with the style of coverage.

Before the advent of digital the common style was 'formal'. Since digital came into our world the style became more 'photojournalistic' (or a combination of both), inherently to more shots taken. What I sense is that more and more cliënts expect a lot of photos. I had an experience with a couple that where a bit disappointed with the fact I presented them with 'only' 200 photographs. Since then I include a 'fixed' amount of photographs in my packages. If they want more shots, that off course is possible but comes at a price.

[david_eicher]

Mary, for us to shoot outside in the hot, humid summer in Florida is almost a no-no. Have you ever seen a Groom sweat thru a tux before. Not a pretty picture. I wish I had your seasons.

Jur, my question was for how many shown, not how many taken.

As to Photojournalistic style causing more images to be taken. I started out working at a Newspaper. I always felt I shot a Photojournalistic style even when I started doing Wedding in 1976. Again, I think the size of venue, the availability of the Bride and Groom, what is expected of me and the length of my weddings has alot to do with image taken and then presented. We have alot of Brides that place the disposable cameras on the tables at receptions. Personally, I do not mind this as it frees me to concentrate on the main events of the reception.

[jurmellies]

Sorry David,

 

To answer your question. Nowadays on average I show the Bride & Groom a 200 photographs on contactsheets. They then select a 100 for their album.

[jake_holt]

Just gotta say that if you give any Uncle Bob or random person Brooks' equipment, and let

them shoot 5000 frames, and then pick "14% LOL," you will not get quality work. I'll take 14%

of Brooks' work over 100% of many other photographers work any day. I for one, on an 8

hour day, will shoot approx. 2400 and deliver about 600. So If I take 5 pictures in two

seconds of a "moment," like a hug, kiss, laugh, etc., I can pick the one with the most pleasing

facial expression, instead of taking one and then maybe having to toss it because someone

blinked. I didn't shoot like that with film, but I do with digital because I can. I don't HAVE to

shoot that much, I choose to because I like to deliver the best product possible. My clients

are happy with it and so am I. Your mileage may vary.

[gerund]

Jake,

 

There ya go, generalizing about "any uncle Bob". I am an uncle bob, so please keep my name out of it. If you have a specific amateur in mind when you talk about quality, please so state instead of clumping us uncle bobs into the lowest common denominator of picture taking ability. I have gotten some shots that a pro would never even know to take that will go on in the legends of my family history. Yep, uncle bob got that shot at our wedding they say.

I must admit I will never get to the practice level of pros who shoot 5000 shots or even 500-700 shots. Thats because I am fairly discrinating with the shots I do frame, and besides my less than professional grade camera would probably never last thru another wedding with that kind of volume anyway. Thats only an opinion btw as I really don't know how my camera would hold up under such circumstances having never encountered them.

 

Nuff said, I will just continue having fun with my uncle bob act.

Just be aware that some of us uncle bobs may have what it takes without continuous shooting mode.

[jake_holt]

"Uncle Bob" is meant to designate a person who shows up with good equipment and doesn't

know how to use it. If you know how to use your equipment and show up at a wedding with

it, you aren't an "Uncle Bob," you are a guest who knows how to use their camera. Unless you

get in the photographer's way, then you are an "Uncle Bob" no matter how good you are! If

you go to weddings and take better pictures than the pro, and stay out of their way - good

for you! If that's the case, then you shouldn't be offended because I'm not talking about you.

[gerund]

Jake,

It's unfortunate that us uncle bobs have been designated into an even worse class than I suspected . Gee, I always used to think that an uncle bob merely meant a dear and cherished relative of the bride or groom who knew his way around a camera and could be relyed upon to substitute for a pro because the family did not have a sufficient budget for one. I guess I will have to stay with my original interpretation until I hear different from a more unbiased source.

 

I mean after all my camera salesman said If I bought this camera I would be equivalent to the pros. Guess advertising did it's nasty little job on me. ha, ha.

[jake_holt]

I'm trying so hard not to insult you, yet you seem to really want to be insulted! I don't know

you from Adam, nor do I know anything about your skills. I said nothing about you

personally. I explained my interpretation of "Uncle Bob" and that's it. In my interpretation, if

you know what you are doing then you aren't an Uncle Bob. Even if you are an uncle and your

name is Bob.

[gerund]

Jake,

 

I am only responding thus because you have already insulted the term uncle bob by which I choose to identify myself. We merely have a difference of opinion on the term. You stated your opinion and I choose to counter with my own. Nothing to get hot under the color over, although there may have been a little baiting going on just for fun. We will just agree to disagree.

Senseohuma is the watchword.

I am sure you wouldn't want me to refer to a dedicated pro photog as an overpaid button pusher who only understands art after he's made 5000 comparisons. I know better than that and so do you.

See, sometimes it's just in poor taste to generalize because no matter what, you will always offend someone.

[david_eicher]

Jake,

 

There ya go, generalizing about "any uncle Bob". I am an uncle bob, so please keep my name out of it. If you have a specific amateur in mind when you talk about quality, please so state instead of clumping us uncle bobs into the lowest common denominator of picture taking ability. I have gotten some shots that a pro would never even know to take that will go on in the legends of my family history.

 

LOL, that's why I always say Aunt Martha instead.

 

I will be shooting digital at a football game tonight. I know I will shoot more images due to "not running out of 1600 ISO film", but I will still cull down to 10 shots sent to the newspaper. The real trend in mega-shooting of images is Digital and because of that, more images are shown to Bride. Of course with the prices I see out there today, I can see why the bride expects more images for her hard earn $$ she is spending.