- This topic is empty.
How many?
-
I like your photos Rog, but yes, personally I was hoping for wedding images.
What has Rog’s opinion of how many shots should be takin at a wedding got to do with showing or not showing his work here :roll:
As far as I can see he just made some opinions, maybe a bit firmly but so what, why is every body getting on his case?
Peter
A weird but interesting thread….
I think Rog is entitled to his opinion what ever that might be. Some lovely pictures Rog
I do laugh myself though at digital photographers shooting 1000 pictures at a wedding, does seem like allot of grabography. Are you not just making more work for your self having to sift through so many shots. Everyone has their own way I suppose of capturing pictures though, what ever works for you and all that….
I work slowly myself not taking a whole lot of shots and trying to make every shot count, maybe that’s the discipline and confidence that film photography works into you. I don’t take pictures for a living though so maybe if I did I would take more pics as a sort of insurance policy…
M
To help put this 1000 number into perspective how many photos would a sports shooter take at a football match? What about a 2 hour fashion shoot? I approach a wedding as an event and there’s lots that happens at that event.
Martin – I’m not sure if you’ve ever photographed a wedding, but in my experiences there’s no working slowly making sure every picture counts, at least not how I shoot weddings. If you work slowly you miss the shots, that’s all there is to it. I try and visualize things before they happen, but it’s not an exact science.
I appreciate the discipline of being a film photographer – but who said we’ve never been film photographers? I assure you there is a large % of wedding photographers who take 1000+ images a day used to work film. I think the fact that I can shoot 1000+ photos a day without needing to worry about the expense associated is liberating.
I just cant imgine sitting down to edit 1,200 images I know you will say well I dont edit them all, but you still have to look at them and give them a careful once over to see if that image is a keeper or not, and if you dont have to consider each and every shot why are you taking it in the first place? if you break it down lets say four hrs actual shooting time lets look at some numbers
an image every 15 seconds = 4 images a minute that = 240 images an hour x that by four that only gives 960 images, lets trow in another hr at the same rate of an image every 15 seconds it totals out at 1.200 images.. so 1200 images breaks down to one image every 15 seconds for 5 hrs WOW lets double the time to ten hrs its still an incred’ 1 image every 30 seconds …. at one image in 30 seconds rate is there any time to set up special shots any time to chat to the bride and Groom the guests I really doubt and maybe im wrong , but i doubt that there is a quality image being turned out every 30 seconds and if its not really a quality image whats the point of taking it , but im sure you guys know whats best but WOW thats alot of wedding photos
In my own experience, its not about a quality image every 30 seconds. When I am taking group shots in particular I might take 20-30 shots inside one minute. This would be to ensure that I get at least one high quality keeper – bear in mind you will have blinks, grimaces, people not looking at the camera. One of the biggest problems on the day is lack of time and between getting a group together in the first place and keeping them smiling etc. you might only have a minute or two per group so you have to make it count.
So, if so a standard wedding with say 10 formal group shots (siblings, extended family, aunties/uncles etc.) you might have 10-15 minutes to work on these on the day but (again my own personal experience) I could end up taking 200+ quick fire shots and still only present the B&G with 20 shots for their review.
One of the prime concerns of B&Gs these days is that they don’t want to spend too much time getting photos taken – personally I would prefer to keep them happy on the day and put in the extra time at a later stage.
Just as an aside, I started taking wedding photos using a Mamiya C330 TLR, then moved on to a Bronica GS1 so having come from a film background I find that the ability to take a large number of the one group shot is brilliant, I can be fairly sure that I get at least one high quality keeper rather than waiting for the films to be returned from the labs with the final result.
Kevin
I agree with iTom, a lot of photographers are blinking mad shooting 1,000 -1,200 images personally I would shoot between 200-250, then edit them down to around 90 for the B&G to choose 30-40 for their album.
A lot of people are talking about editing all the images they shoot?
I may get between 800/1200 shots from myself and the second shooter but i dont edit all of them i pick the best 200/250 and crop if they need it thats about it!
Then i pick about 15/20 detail shots for backgrounds etc through the album. The clients pick between 60/100 shots depending on the size of the album and then i carry out my post production on these.Saying that, its mostly story books at present which involves being there from before the B&G are even dressed right through till the first dance and if there is 10/15 miles between the two houses ya need a second shooter!!
Taking am at a wedding for up to 10hrs, 200 shots would be 1 every 3 mins !!! needless to say a lot would be missed and your not guarenteed a perfect shot every time shooting a wedding no matter how good ya are.
Its been intersesting to see how different people work, even if it did get a bit heated along the way lol
The biggest problem with Weddings these days is everyone wants their wedding to be better than the last.
If I were Taoiseach or Minister for Finance I’d impose a Wedding Tax whereby anyone getting more than 20 photos in their Wedding Album would have to pay a tax on each additional photo.
If their cake was over a minimum height or weight they’d be taxed too.
If the brides dress cost more than €500 then the VAT would double.
If they use too many flowers they’d be taxed.
I’d send a Warden to the church to fine anyone caught throwing confetti.
Any back-handers to the priest and/or alter boys would be taxed.
Anyone with Irish Dancers or Bagpipe players would be taxed.
We’d get back to real weddings… where the bride borrows the dress, they get married in a registry office and everyone got tanked and had a good time in the nearest watering hole.
Did I mention that any brides found to be illegally wearing white would be taxed too.
nfl-fan wrote:
Did I mention that any brides found to be illegally wearing white would be taxed too.
Not be to many white dresses any more then..lol
Sean.
David Ziser takes at least 2000 photos at an wedding..but he is David Ziser and I presume 1800 of these photos are perfect straight from the camera. In my case only 5 would be ok straight from camera :shock:
that’s the thing, like I said some of the BEST wedding photographers in the world shoot 1000+ images a wedding. The “how many” question gets asked at every seminar / workshop I go to. The answer is almost always in the thousands. David Beckstead for example said he’ll get 2000+ images.
Again, to each their own. I’m not saying because they do it it means everyone has to do it, but I think most of the people who react to hearing 1000+ photos a day have not been in the situation where they’re working as a photographer for 8-12 hours strait. Combine that with all the usual list of shots (couple,family,wedding party,guests) and it’s very easy to get 1000 shots.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
