Wedding now adays - Why 400+ images

[joel_stowe]

I want to thank everyone for the response on my last question, it gave me alot to think about.

Now this is not meant to be flipant, it is just things have changed and I am needing a different way of thinking it would

seem in shooting a Wedding in this new day and age, even if it has only been 4-5 years.

Why so many images, I seem to see from 400 to several 1000. When I was shooting the bride and mothers

complained that they had trouble picking out photo's when they only had 100-250 for instance to choose from, now of

course this was in the context of purchacing reprints and then getting a free 11x14 or getting a upgrade to a 16x20

for a certain amount of reprints ordered. I remember every wedding having at least 3 camcorders or more going during

the entire wedding, and then the family and friends had their cameras also. So why are the photographers now the

candid masters, where before we were the posers of the couple and we were counted on as getting the quote money

shots.

Oh ya, I have looked into the assistant mode again, but still will need digital to get this position. Like I said it is a

whole new world it seems and I loved doing it before and would like to get back into it again.

Thanks for the responses, Joel

[l_e]

you still have to get the money shots, but it has several meaning now.

 

Part of the change is the digital era - instant access to an overload of information. In all honesty 100-250 photos would be more than enough for today's brides and grooms. BUT, they think they need more because photographers are giving more and everyone else is getting more. Photos are like money, you might not NEED as much, but you want to have it just in case.

[photo_dark]

yep. I typically "Deliver" about 500 - 750 Digital proofs (depending on whether or not I shoot the reception, etc) out of usually 1200 shots or so that I take at the wedding.

 

Out of that, people usually order about 100 prints or so (mix of 4x6's, 5x7's and 8x10's or 11x17's). If I told people I would be taking 100 shots outright, they wouldn't be picking me though. Go figure.

[tana_d.]

Wedding photography has changed a lot. When my sister was married this year, I had a friend (who is a

photographer) shoot along beside me, and she gave us a CD of 70 photos. That felt really skimpy, we were left

wanting to see more. (I still had not gotten around to proofing my photos).

 

This is such a change from my best friend's wedding, which was shot about 10 years ago. She had a very

traditional photographer, and had a very traditional (boring) album full of mostly formal shots - bride with mom,

bride with bridesmaids, bride with grooms family, etc. Some first dance photos, cutting the cake, the bouquet

toss, and that was about it from what I remember. There were probably 50-75 photos in her album altogether.

 

Fast forward to today, and brides want the getting ready shots (putting on make up, putting on the dress), the

formal shots even if they say they want candid shots, all the details - the shoes, the dress, the flowers, the

place settings, the get away car, etc etc.

All that stuff is pretty standard today, where years ago it was mostly formals. Today the details and candid

shots of the wedding are as important, if not more so, than the posed photos of yesterday. We've moved away from the

traditional bride-posing-with-wedding-party photos, and more toward the artsy contemporary story telling shots.

Brides still want formals, but the difference is they want formals and details.

[steve_c.5]

Joel, the old business model of film photographers was very different. When we shot film, we shot much fewer images, and most of them were posed and group shots, very formal and traditional. You might also shoot the processional shot, the kiss, and recessional. The negatives usually remained with the photographer (because it's impossible to duplicate them with full quality, and photographers made money on doing the print packages. When the mother and bride tried to pick photos to fit in a package, 200 photos seemed like a lot to go through.

 

Now, many of us are providing the images on disc (either as part of the package cost, or at additional cost). We can duplicate digital images with 100% quality, so they don't just have to live with the photographer. With digital, we're free to do creative and experimental shots, to document every little cute glance and subtle detail of the wedding day. We get reaction shots from guests, we do creative posing shots, we create romantic and artful shots of the couple, we do all the fun dancing and reception shots, so consequently, we're shooting many more frames now than ever before. Brides want these moments documented, whether they ever print them or not. Many of these are used in magazine-style coffee table albums with graphic layouts, produced by an album publisher, instead of stuffing prints into matted albums like the old days (some still do this).

[joel_stowe]

I love the forum, now what is being discribed above seems to cover what I did before, now maybe I did more than the normal photographer at the time, and this with a manual Nikon FE2. But in looking over the brochers that I have seen the Wedding event is now being shot with 2 photographers instead of one. Is this where you are getting more of the candids that are being looked for, while the main photographer is handling the bride and groom per say?

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Joel, please invest a few bucks in the training DVD that I recommended for you. There's never been a more exciting time to be working in the field and the digital lab allows for printing processe that would have taken hours or would have been just about impossible a few years ago. I would also suggest getting this: http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=WEDTV2025&Category_Code=DVD it'll knock your sox off!

[karl_knographer]

Joel I read your earlier post and I feel your pain. Like you, I was photographing the the occasional wedding that came through the door via my commercial work, and stopped a few years ago for family reasons primarily. Now, this has changed and I've been taking a look at doing it again, but the market has changed dramatically and I'm not sure I like where it's gone. I used to deliver mainly B&W from film, wet prints and window albums by Queensberry. Now, I wonder what percentage of customer has a clue about what that is. The market is what it is, of course, and I have no axe to grind with flushmount. But just the sheer volume of images that's the norm now is off putting to me. A lot of people seem to be averaging 2000-3000 captures or more, and if that puts a moderate take at 1200, that still isn't the way I prefer to work. 800 or so good photos seems enough to me. The wedding shoot has become a fashion shoot. Theater. And it makes we wonder if B&G's ever cry uncle along the way? I always tried to maintain a balance between my work, the religious ceremony and rite of passage that was unfolding, but now there seems to be little balance, just constant capture for volume's sake.

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

"The wedding shoot has become a fashion shoot. Theater. And it makes we wonder if B&G's ever cry uncle along the way?"

 

And Brides love it. They get to be in front of a professional photographer twice in their life maybe, so why no make it more than just some traditional poses? They can use toe opportunity to feel glamorous, and if people cant see how brides would enjoy that, then there's not much more to say.

 

A bride still has the option to have only 200 photos in her Wedding collection. Its called the delete key. Funny how they dont delete them... maybe some people are forgetting that the brides and their tastes drive the market.

 

To the OP Joel:

I'm not entirely sure what problem you're having exactly. If you are just looking for people to be nostalgic with you, then mission accomplished. If you are trying to absorb the changes that have happened in the market, take the suggestions you have been given so far, exhaust the information, and come back to the forums when the additional info prompts additional questions, and then use the search function to review volumes of wisdom already spilled out across the forum every day. The info is all here, so you've got some catchin up to do!

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Well said my West coast twin ;-)

[duncanholmes]

So far I have been at the 6-700 photos taken and 2-300 proof stage. This is for a full start to finish mid sized (40-70 guests) wedding. I winkle out the blinks, distractions, clutter and the ones that just don't work, get my wife to review my selection of proofs as she has a harder eye and reduces it another bit. Then I make sure the top ones are right at the beginning and the so so ones at the end. With digital you can take the shots you might not have wanted to risk with film, there is not the same sense of the "wasted" frame. At the same time you are still looking to get the best shots you can.

 

This is proofs. The album/photobook is another thing entirelt.

[fotografz]

What has change is not just shooting candidly ... it's story telling with stills. A documentation of key "frozen moments" that

tend to just blow by in a video ... a dramatic sequencing done with a quick eye and sensitivity to the emotional peaks of a

wedding. When done in concert with technical skill and artistry, the end result can be not only emotionally captivating but

also aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>...Then I make sure the top ones are right at the beginning and the so so ones at the end....</em></p>

 

<p>Why include the so-so shots? Do they really have a place in the final deliverable? Hypothetical question: If you were

the client would you prefer a tight edit of 400 perfect moments presented as a powerful and coherent story of your day?

Or would you prefer 1000 moments of variable quality - some of them priceless - but many of them possibly distinctly

ordinary and of so-so quality. Which would make the better impression?</p>

 

<p>I guess it depends on what you think you're hired for, and there's no right answer - everyone has to decide for

themselves. Myself, I would prefer to be hired as a teller of stories, not a shooter of many images.</p>

[neilambrose]

P.S. Duncan - I took your comments out of context. I know you're talking about the proof book only - apologies. But I'll let my

hypothetical question still stand.

[hassy501]

Your business model will dictate how many images you deliver. If you deliver QUALITY, it won't matter how many you deliver.......inherently there will be more images because we are now capturing MORE stages of the day........whereas as in the past years of medium format, every shot was carefully scripted.....and images of brides and grooms getting ready were not standard, as well as so many candids during the day that we just didn't do with medium format.

 

Since we aren't paying for each capture (except in our post process time, but that's another beast), our mentality is to shoot whatever we want to shoot and if it works, then great, if not, then just delete it.

 

Also, some photographers sell the fact that they DELIVER "1200" images.............brides see that and their eyes light up...........they may be average images, but in the brides mind, 1200 images is an awesome deal...........she's expecting every single image to be a wowwer !

 

Marketing is so important in what you want to sell......develop your own style, sell your own style and you will have your own market.

 

You probably have the classic posing skills and experience in place and that is something most new age photographers just don't have................the "money shot" skills...........and combine that with the PJ skills and you have a winning overall coverage.

[uk]

I recently shot a wedding and supplied 500 proofs after confirming with the Groom that he was happy for me to do the

initial cull.

 

The Bride later calls and asks what happened to the rest of the images ......... including the one I took of the sister-in-law

with a gold fish bowl on her head ( I kid you not !!). Apparently, the S-I-Law have viewed the DVD and was disappointed

the (her) highlight of the wedding had been deleted !

 

Regardless of me explaining that some images were just not important/duplicates/blurred, I had to go back to the original

RAW files to satisfy her want for the lot.

[steve m smith]

The album from my wedding probably has about 60 images in it. That's plenty as far as I am concerned. How often does it get looked at anyway? Practically never in my case!