- This topic is empty.
How many?
-
I took 15 shots only in few minutes during a group shot last weekend. That was a good “insurance policy” as I had to replace few heads in the shot in order to get everyone looking at the camera. 8) I always take 1000+ during a wedding. you will always be better off with more photos then sorry :)
The “how many shots” question is a bit weird really. Who gives a damn how a photographer comes up with his selection for his client?
At times, I’ll shoot like bloody crazy, and bracket too. So, I’m doing a group shot and I know it has to be fast, and if I cannot get the lighting ideal due to an awkward location and the rain is coming and I have to be fast, I’ll put the camera bracketing. So, If I want to shoot 10 photos of each group to allow for blinkers, I actually get 30 shots. (50 if I use the full bracketing facility, but lets not go there). However, it’s only 1 photograph from that “bunch” that goes to the couple.
other shots of individuals, one, maybe 2 shots of them as I have time to chimp and check for blinks, blown out sections etc.
I’ve varied between 500 shots and 1500 shots at weddings, it all depends on the light, size of groups, number of different locations / poses / groups that I can photograph. I dont think I could say which number is correct, and I dont really care how many shots anyone takes.
I do however agree that a photographer that stays behind the lens all day, and does’nt interact to help create nice poses, situations etc is losing out. Even if your shooting reportage style, it’s got to be worth suggesting where the couple might walk, or wait, or whatever. You cannot do that from behind the camera
Merv
eas wrote:
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.
I agree here. You’d be surprised how easy it is to get to 1K shots over the period of the day.
You’ll also go through the initial root through of the shots on the PC pretty quickly. I’ll have the rubbish removed from the useable in 10 minutes. From my point of view, I’d prefer to spend 10 minutes deleting unwanted stuff from 1K photos when I get home rather than trying to fix blinkers etc. from 150 carefully composed shots.
Ballyman wrote:
eas wrote:
…. From my point of view, I’d prefer to spend 10 minutes deleting unwanted stuff from 1K photos when I get home rather than trying to fix blinkers etc. from 150 carefully composed shots.
Excellent point ballyman.
Ballyman wrote:
eas wrote:
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.
I agree here. You’d be surprised how easy it is to get to 1K shots over the period of the day.
You’ll also go through the initial root through of the shots on the PC pretty quickly. I’ll have the rubbish removed from the useable in 10 minutes. From my point of view, I’d prefer to spend 10 minutes deleting unwanted stuff from 1K photos when I get home rather than trying to fix blinkers etc. from 150 carefully composed shots.
Eas
I was going to leave this debate alone, but I have to throw my t’uppence worth in now.
When I said about 1200 shots being, in my opinion excessive, I wasn’t talking about a 12 hour shoot!
I didn’t think anyone would do twelve hours for a wedding.
So, if the wedding, say, is at 2pm, you’d be shooting until 2am the next morning? Wow!Ballyman
The other point I’d make is;
Are you saying you can look at, decide wheither it’s a keeper, and delete the unwanted, of 1000 images in 10 minutes?
That works out at 100 images a minute, or 1.66 images per second, solid, over a 10 minute period. Double Wow!I honestly can’t see how that’s possible. I mean, to see wheither someones eyes are open or not in a group shot, the image would have to be at least full screen, if not larger.
If you’re talking about peoples heads missing, or something else as drastic, yes you’d be able to edit those out pretty quickly. But then they shouldn’t be there in the first place.rog
I’ve shot weddings ranging from 4 hours up to 14 hours, averaging 8.
edit – I was not referring to you in that comment if that’s why you suddenly felt the urge to get your 2c in.
Eas
I didn’t presume you were getting at me.
I’m just honestly surprised that people would want to be followed around by a photographer with a camera for 12-14 hours. I know most weddings I do, people seem pleased when I’d say I’m finished (I know, you could say the’re glad to be rid of me, and who could blame them!). But I also believe there are lots of people (me included) who regard getting their photo taken as a chore, and in the case of their wedding, a necessary evil.
Mabye I’m lucky ( or unlucky, I don’t know), but I’ve never had any BorG looking for me to capture images for anything like that amount of time. Then again, I don’t really give them that option.With regard to the checking of the 1k of images in 10 mins, I honestly find it hard to believe, and would be amazed if it could be done in that time-frame.
Rog
mervifwdc wrote:
The “how many shots” question is a bit weird really. Who gives a damn how a photographer comes up with his selection for his client?
4 page thread mate…. so its obivously am interesting enough question, which you commented on yourself ;)
Rog wrote:
With regard to the checking of the 1k of images in 10 mins, I honestly find it hard to believe, and would be amazed if it could be done in that time-frame.
Rog
I don’t time myself down to the lsat second. 10 mins is shorthand for “not a very long time” :)
Whatever way you look at it, my point still stands. I’d prefer to weed out rubbish for “not a very long time” when I get home than spend hours fixing blinkers, non smilers etc.
I use Aperture, and it doesn’t take long to sort through a lot of shots using the rating system-
Going through all of them first, I assign one star to those worth having a second look,
which produces a shortlist.Going through those allows more to be culled, and so on-
More than 10 minutes, but not very long.
What strikes me most about this thread is the inference that people are stupid if they shoot more than others.
The question to be answered was, how many do you shoot-
not such a ridiculous question,
certainly not as weird as some of the answers…jb7 wrote:
What strikes me most about this thread is the inference that people are stupid if they shoot more than others.
The question to be answered was, how many do you shoot-
not such a ridiculous question,
certainly not as weird as some of the answers…Well said !
This is what interests me, that some people think if you shoot lots of shots you are stupid or not a skilled photographer !
But if you can shoot 100 well composed and well exposed shots in the same time as it takes another person to shot 10 does that make you a smarter more skilled photographer?Surely a persons work is judged by the end result and not how he acheived it?
My shooting methods change from time to time to adapt to different clients and situations, but i know they work for me and i always get the results i am looking for! So tell me how that is wrong, weather am shooting 50 or 500 images !
jb7 wrote:
I use Aperture, and it doesn’t take long to sort through a lot of shots using the rating system-
Going through all of them first, I assign one star to those worth having a second look,
which produces a shortlist.Identical to what I do. Except I do it in Lightroom.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
