How many photographs do you take?

[uk]

"However 3000 images shot by one person over 8 hours means 375 shots per hour! That's

one shot every ten seconds on averge. To me that means you are likely missing something

somewhere else."

 

Is that with flash, or not ?

 

If so, single or multiple ?

[Jerry_]

Six rolls of 36-exposure film should cover a 'normal' wedding (up to four hours.) Some bride's have a problem with the burst of light every 2.4 seconds, so slowing down and composing a shot now and then doesn't hurt a thing _ :)

[wedding-photography-denver]

Ha ha. I can't manage 3100 alone either. For the larger weddings I have 2 assistants and I give them each cameras and let them shoot whatever they wish. In the case I quoted, it was the most I have ever had to deal with. Following that one, my 1st assistant and I were both laughing about how the other was out of control. Seriously, I don't generally shoot more than about 800 - 1000 alone, but when you have 3 shooters it can add up.

 

I would love to use a video camera though. ;-) (kidding)

 

I think that with film I shot less and was more critical about the shots. With digital I have (not intentionally) transitioned into a method of shooting that means more shots per wedding. But not an excessive amount more IMO.

 

For instance, an average wedding (8 hours) shooting film rendered about 300 - 500 shots. The same day with digital renders about 800 - 1000. If I am not mistaken, any here who shoot digital completely take similar #'s of shots and it is an increase from the days of shooting film, right?

 

Get what you need + what you see as great shots, what ever the # of shots you end up with are. If you are even thinking about the # of shots you are getting while shooting, I think you are doing a disservice to your clients.

 

BTW, in defense of those who shoot 'too much' at one wedding I offer this: The best response to any shoot/gallery I have had to date was to email I received from that father.

[wedding-photography-denver]

should read; "was THE email I received from that father"

[Spearhead]

It's pretty easy to see from the portfolios of some of the prolific shooters how well they can do with 1000 shots in a day. It's harder to tell with people who have no portfolios. Look at the portfolios and draw your conclusions.

 

Although it wasn't for a wedding, Araki shot 6000 frames of film in two days for Noshiki Hishinuma's 100 Flowers campaign. These were edited down to 100 shots which were used for the campaign. The shots are quite beautiful and consistent in style with much of Araki's other work, which is probably not shot nearly as prolifically.

[jaimie blue]

Then compare this to Ansel Adam's famous moon over farmer's field shot, he nailed it once. Sometimes a great shot can only be had once.

[Spearhead]

If you think that's a valid comparison, please shoot just one shot at the next wedding you shoot.

[Spearhead]

I will add that Moonrise was exactly one shot of a two month shooting excursion, so it was really just one of many taken over two months.

[matt_needham]

National Geographic says 1 keeper in 10,000 exposures. Good thing they aren't shooting weddings. Then again, when I ask brides what they want from the wedding photography, a very common answer is "I want one good photo of us."

[jaimie blue]

Jeff it was not meant to be taken as a literal comparison just as a thought... no need to get nasty.

[lb-]

totally depends on the wedding. last weekends wedding was 12 guests in one location.

shot 200ish total over 4 hours and delivered 150 or so.

 

the one before that was 200 guests with 3 locations. shot more. go figure.

 

doesn't reallly matter how many pictures you take or deliver as long as it's consistent with

the expectation of the client.

 

yesterdays commercial client was thrilled that we pullled off 15 shots in 17 hours of

shooting. she only expected 12.

 

as long as you meet or exceed the expectations of your client in both the quantity and

quality of your work who cares how many shots other photographers make.

[tholte]

Susan, "But I have shot 3000 images in one day with two photographers. I would say that 90% is of great quality and it stays!!" I think National Geographic should get a hold of you pronto!

[david_schilling___chicago_]

It varie some depending on length of coverage, number of locations, size of bridal party, family and guests. If you are really curious, you can go to my website, click the "View recent event" link and look over about 15 full weddings....averages around 500-600 images presented online and to the clients. You can add about 20-25% that are culled from what was actually shot.

[lovcom_photo]

Question for the Experienced Vets out there....Nadine, Ben, Marc, Mr. Shilling....over the coures of your wedding careers, what is your trend? In general, do you shoot more or less?

 

Hey folks, lets all get 1D Mark II's and take advantage of the 8.5fps...yea, yea, that's the ticket! ;-)

 

About Ansel's Moonrise....well come on folks, his negative looked not half as good as his final prints....he had to Photo-Shop them, yes I did write Photo-Shop them....there was such a thing before computers ya know.

 

Taking nothing from old Ansel, shooting landscapes are a heck of a lot easier then shooting weddings...relatively speaking of course.

[lovcom_photo]

Tim, to be fair....is is possible that National Geographic's minute keeper rate has little to do with tons of bad images and everything to do with the limitations of a 100 page glossy magazine? I mean they can't publish all of them, yea?

 

Isn't it true that often we throw out images because we already have that composition covered? I've thrown out many that were technically sound, no blinking eyes, good exposure, good flash work, etc...Sometimes I over-shoot the same shot/subject/etc. Sometimes the back ground is too sharp, that sort of thing..

[laurenm]

It seems you all vary greatly in the number you give to the client. I like Marc's way best of shooting "as many as it takes" and I assume "presenting as many as it takes"? Having recently shot my first solo wedding, over 4 hours, I shot almost 600. I am showing the client 336. I had a hard time getting down to the 336. I found many duplicate shots that I had trouble deciding on which to show. I can only imagine a bride as indecisive as me trying to choose out of those for an album, (which is partly why I persoanlly would want a 4x6 proof album along with the formal album.

 

Since "going digital" I have found in my photography for personal use, I am struggling with trying to NOT shoot too many. In one way, I get to choose the best, but on the other hand, I'm ending up with tons of similar shots and if all are good, its hard to choose.

 

As someone else asked, for those of you shooting 2000, what are you using for flash?

I tend to fire before waiting for the flash to be ready as it is, especially if a fast moving important moment (not that they aren't all important moments)

[picturesque]

I used to shoot about 300-400 medium format frames on an average wedding of about 6-8 hours. Not much was culled. Maybe "dead moments" where I was following an action and kept shooting hoping for a better and better image. Closed eyes, flash misfire or plain old mistakes. Of course you were more careful because each frame used to cost about a dollar. With digital, I am up to about 500-600+ frames now, not thinking about frame costs when I am following action. Some action, you need to shoot a lot. Some action, you wait for THE moment. Don't know if the count will rise. Plus, I want to keep shooting medium format too.

[savagesax]

I am so surprised! I've been shooting weddings in Los Angeles since 1987 and have never shot over 700 prints. With digital I do shoot more compared to 2 1/4. My average for what it's worth is about 350 per shooter.

[uk]

Lauren,

 

"As someone else asked, for those of you shooting 2000, what are you using for flash?"

 

My previous comment was a little tongue in cheek. :-)

 

4000 flashes and the bride gets a sun tan she doesn't want.

 

In my limited experience, DSLR's more than quadruple the number of images I take with

film and more shooting can be a good thing. However, if I didn't nail 120 shots for an

ablbum wedding in 1000 shots, I wouldn't nail it in 4000.

 

I recently shot 150 digital and a roll of 120 for a client. I submitted 1 from the 150 and 7

from the roll and 2 of the 7 were used really big and in their brochure. That result

stopped me in my tracks as I suspect the digi was being used as a safety net used on the

basis of it will be useable, if not quite good enough. The 120 was used when the shot was

right. Maybe, without the first the second wouldn't have followed.

 

I think there is still room for the decisive 'moment' and if it's surrounded with 3000 extra

shots there is more work to do for the same result, at best.

[fotografz]

Hey Nadine, B&H has Fuji NPH 400, 220 on sale for $2.99 a roll. Doesn't say it is short dated

either.

 

I'm ordering a 100 rolls for this summer's weddings today : -)

[uk]

ULuckyB !

 

That stuff is $11.80 a roll here !!

 

Just bought some short dated stuff for $6 a roll. :-((

[35mmdelux]

Many of "old Ansel's" fotos go in excess of $60,000/per. Show me an instance of a wedding foto selling for that much 50+ years after the fact.

[35mmdelux]

Thanks, Marc. Bought 40 rolls. sweet..

[think27]

Dan - I've been shooting weddings for 15 years.. I shoot more now then in the earlier years. Used to shoot 12-15 rolls in an eight hour period...

 

After a few camera or flash glitches I learned to shoot almost everything with two cameras. Too important to miss moments due to technical problems so this is my insurance. Additionally - over the years I'd hear regrets like "wish I had thought to ask you to get a shot Aunt Maggie.. there is not one shot of her in the whole set of proofs...Not your fault but..."

 

Also - after shooting a whole roll of my self-portrait and only liking 1 in 35....I decided to give the couple and the bride (for her portrait) - lots of choices. Women especially are so picky about the slightest flaw - the chances of having a nice handful of great shots of the couple and the bride are increased with a bigger selection. I also notice the album sizes are double or more than double what they used to be because the couples always say - "there are too many good shots and I just can't make the album smaller"... Music to my ears.

[picturesque]

Thanks for the tip, Marc.