Complaint I'm hearing

[sfcole]

<p>Just yesterday I did a wedding, but not as a photographer--as a violinist. During the ceremony, which was in a darkened tent with no flash photography allowed, one of the two photographers stood right next to me machine-gunning to beat the band. Er, I mean string trio. Every time she shot, it was never "decisive moment--wait for it..." but generally 4-5 shots in a row. And this during a part of the ceremony that was very static-nothing happening, and the same scene for several minutes as speeches were read.<br>

What I most enjoyed seeing were the two photographers getting in each other's way, both in the center aisle, trying to machine-gun around each other and probably getting hundreds of duplicate photos. Same angles, same light, same everything. Maybe they'll press the "sepia" button and create great art. Who knows.<br>

It seems an incredibly inefficient way to photograph.</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>Yup. We are in the age of "spray and pray" era. Disk space is cheap. Shoot first, chimp later. That is why these days there are so many people clamouring for high fps rate. "Whoa! Look that D700 has 5fps! 8fps with a battery grip!"... "what? the 5d2 has only 3.5fps?! I'm switching to Nikon." <br>

What happened to compose and capture? Maybe they are bracketing everything.</p>

[nuzumphoto]

<p>I had a thought on this topic this morning. To those of you delivering 100,200,300 images, do you not take detail photos throughout the day? That can easily add up to 50 photos. Rings, flowers (bouquets and boutonnières), reception details, ceremony details, programs, guest book, etc. If you are taking detail photos, how many are you delivering? I just listed a few examples and there are plenty more.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I don't care how other photographers shoot and run their business. People love to criticize the methods of others to somehow post-rationalize their own way of doing things. Last time I checked photography was a creative endeavor, so there is no right/wrong way. Kubrick would do 100+ takes of the same tiny scene. Becker and Fagen would work for months on one Steely Dan song. Results are all that matters, so get over it and worry about your own work.</p>

[nuzumphoto]

<p>While I completely agree Ian, I still think there is room for discussion. This is after all a discussion forum. While there is no 100% perfect answer, the discussion can take place.</p>

[rippo]

<p>You're all doing it wrong.</p>

<p>Kidding of course. I shoot in the 500-700 range, and I'm doing detail shots. Probably comes from my portrait background…I only shoot the shots I see, not ones in between. I'm not making a bad movie, I'm making a good wedding album. I even keep the camera set to single focus and single frame shooting. All that racket of the mirror flapping around hurts my head.<br>

Ultimately this is a choice of when and where you decide to edit. You can edit on location (and perhaps miss a shot), or edit back at the office (and spend hours doing it). Or not edit at all, and fatigue the client.<br>

I dunno, I always thought as photographers we're supposed to cultivate a 'look' to our images. How on earth can you do that if you give the client everything? Photography is at its essence the act of editing, whether it's framing and composing in-camera, choosing when and where to shoot, or weeding out the so-so shots later on.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>i still hear more the "omg, the photographer down the street is offering me 2000 images...why are you only giving me 400".</p>

<p>i think a lot of the clueless brides out there still has the quantity over quality mentality.</p>