Wedding togs only!

J

jolsterj

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,754
Edit My Images
Yes
OK A new wedding thread but nothing to get excited about. lol.
:):):)

If you were the photographer for a wedding which started at 1pm and you stayed until the fake cutting of the cake at 5pm.....[wedding and reception in same venue] ....how many photos do you think you would take and how many keepers would you get?

Do you show the bride and groom all the keepers or not?

If not how many do they see?


This is not a thread to discuss who is right or wrong just me being nosey:nuts:
 
I do 'all day' and shoot about 1500 frames, of these I will get it down to about 4-500 on the first pass, this is mostly getting rid of the blinkers and duplicates.

Between 1 and 5 I would probably shoot more than the 'timeframe' from an all dayer, perhaps 600 - 1000 and would be happy with 250 as a set.
 
dseered said:
I do 'all day' and shoot about 1500 frames, of these I will get it down to about 4-500 on the first pass, this is mostly getting rid of the blinkers and duplicates.

Between 1 and 5 I would probably shoot more than the 'timeframe' from an all dayer, perhaps 600 - 1000 and would be happy with 250 as a set.
Click to expand...



Thanks for replying ''all day'' what time span is that to you? If the wedding was at one what time would you leave?
 
Lets just say if the bride is having her hair done at 7.30 am I will be there, all day for me is just that. I will stay until about 10.30 but have been known to stay until 2am. 10.30-11 is more normal though, I aim to have everything backed up and downloaded by 2am. Wedding sorted and edited by bedtime Sunday night.
 
So all day is a 12 to 18 hr day.



1500 pics.


down to 500

happy with 250 to show bride and groom......


thats great exactly wht i was looking for...thanks



ANYMORE TAKERS ON THE ?
 
An all dayer for me is usually about 10-12 hours and I would probably take 1200-1500 of which they would see around 400-500, they select the final 150 or so for the album.
 
Hacker said:
An all dayer for me is usually about 10-12 hours and I would probably take 1200-1500 of which they would see around 400-500, they select the final 150 or so for the album.
Click to expand...

Do they keep the 400-500 photos that you show them or only the 150 they pick?
 
About 12 hours - all day for me .....

I would shoot maybe 800ish and they would get 350 or so - depends on weather and if they are photogenic - which sounds harsh but is true.

They get all the keepers and select from them for the album.

So for 4 hours - 150ish would be my ideal amount - and I'd probably take 300
 
spxxxx said:
About 12 hours - all day for me .....

I would shoot maybe 800ish and they would get 350 or so - depends on weather and if they are photogenic - which sounds harsh but is true.

They get all the keepers and select from them for the album.

So for 4 hours - 150ish would be my ideal amount - and I'd probably take 300
Click to expand...

so so so true........... [good looking smily happy people is what we want.]
 
a full day fpor us would be pre shoot , right thru to the first dance.. or beyond if were having a good time.
we dont put a time limit on a wedding though.
typicaly a full days shoot could run to 12 hrs.
a full day ,as there are two of us shooting, will take upwards of 1000 shots between us.
we have to be pretty cruel with the cut.
maybe40- 50% will be cut.
online and proofbook are sorted, and how many the b&g select is down to the album they have selected.
something like a register office wedding , then a few shots of the reception interior, dummy cake cutting etc.we may only take 200-300.
a higher proportion of these will make the proofs.(large number of proofs equals more reprints from friends and family).
and this may only take 2-3 hrs.
as to the original question.
1-5. i would expect 4-500. hopefully, most would be good enough to use.
but of course there are two of us shooting.one person wouldnt take as many.
but we'd cut a proportion of those for duplication etc.
you tend to take at least two of each posed shot. theres always someone with their eyes closed, or looking away.
or maybe something with a distracting background that you didnt spot.
 
A typical day for me is eight hours, and I'll shoot around 2500 shots, present something like 350-450 shots to the clients.

For a four hour gig maybe shoot 1250, present 200 ?
 
1 till 5 I recon I'd take 900-1000 and by the time I've removed all the duplicates, missed focus ( it happens ) and shots that don't work I'd probably give 200 ish to the couple.

Pete
 
Yesterday was 9am to 10pm, shot about 1700 frames, will try and reduce it down to around 400 for viewing.
 
Did a 6 hour package on Friday, shot about 650-ish they will see around 500-550 keepers (I guess) from that they have to choose 120 for the album, (I think I haven't got the paperwork handy).
 
jolsterj said:
[good looking smily happy people is what we want.]
Click to expand...

Not so, good looking happy and photogenic don't necessarily go hand in hand, have you seen some of the so called top models, ie Kate moss would probably look better at Crufts ouch :lol:
 
TG. said:
Not so, good looking happy and photogenic don't necessarily go hand in hand, have you seen some of the so called top models, ie Kate moss would probably look better at Crufts ouch :lol:
Click to expand...


I agree but if she was made up to be married she would look a stunner.


and smiling always helps
 
Chaz Photos said:
I have read this with interest May I ask you how many of you did wedding with Film? If so how many did you take then?
Thanks
Click to expand...

You're not comparing apples with apples - I shot a few weddings on film 20 odd years ago but it was just the standard formals after the service. Nothing like the kind of coverage that's offered and wanted in today's market.
 
In the 60's 70's for normal weddings, we would use about 3 or 4 rolls of 12 shots for the formal stuff and virtually all would be keepers. they would get a formal album with 24 10x8 prints.

A whole day booking... shots at bride and Grooms house and then after at reception was mostly done on 35 mm and presented as proofs only, in mini albums. probably less than 100 shots were taken but only half were shown.

Society weddings were usually covered with an second photographer concentrating on the informal stuff for these we probably shot more than a dozen films ( 12 exp.) But there was no limit.

How times change. we expected every shot to be technically good well posed and showing nice expressions.

we took an experienced dresser to all weddings to arrange dresses and help with poses flowers, make up etc and to help sort out groups and hold reflectors and or flashes.
most groups were taken against the light for obvious reasons.

Generally we worked very much faster than today, all the Groups and close ups would rarely take more than 20 minutes.

For society weddings, Prints of the early shots and groups would be returned and shown at the reception as most guests would never get to see the album or proofs, which would be lost to orders. Guests spend much more when soaked in champers.
 
Hacker said:
An all dayer for me is usually about 10-12 hours and I would probably take 1200-1500 of which they would see around 400-500, they select the final 150 or so for the album.
Click to expand...

Right on the nose for me as well...
 
Depends on Group size / weather / location ... but as most have said 1000/1500
we are there all day .. to first dance if required ..

Then around 500 for couple to view .. and yes alot will be similar ... different expressions etc ...
 
Chaz Photos said:
I have read this with interest May I ask you how many of you did wedding with Film? If so how many did you take then?
Thanks
Click to expand...

I did my last wedding on film in October last year. I took roughly 180 images on 35mm and 48 on 120. The final album will have 25 images. I guess when I think about it when on film it's quality not quantity, digital allows you the feeedom to take more photographs but when you use film you really are careful about what pictures you take.

There are less "duds" looking at the shots to shown ratio on what the digital people have stated in this thread. Though digital allows you the feedom of taking more pictures with a care free attitude that if the picture is **** you just delete it.
 
On film I would normally shoot 2 rolls of 36 (35mm) or on medium format 5-6 rolls of 12 or 15 (depending on camera used). Wayne
 
I shot a few on film (probably less than 20) and the biggest shoot was still only 4 x 36exp - that was then about 36exp as the more 'formals' and 72-108 as candids mostly of the guests

For me then... there were no 'preparation' or 'evening' shoots, so it was just whatever you could get of the ceremony, signing the register and the group shots with a very few taking the couple to one side - then fire away at anything until reception and leave

Meerkats

:D

DD
 
inaneredstripe said:
for a million bucks, i'd want her to sit on my f...... no, i cant say that either can i?
Click to expand...


What can't you say m8 :shrug:

FX - as in not a crop camera?

Film - as in not digital?

Fireplace - as in burn you bitch?

Face - as in.. oh :$:$:$


:D

DD
 
Cant remember how much it cost but from my 1970 wedding, covered by a professional tog, I have an album with 9 black and white prints.

My son is getting married in a few weeks. Their tog is costing £1500 so they should get lots for that shouldnt they?
 
ladysue said:
Cant remember how much it cost but from my 1970 wedding, covered by a professional tog, I have an album with 9 black and white prints.

My son is getting married in a few weeks. Their tog is costing £1500 so they should get lots for that shouldnt they?
Click to expand...

You will have paid a lot more in 1970 ladysue than you would now in real terms. I would guess ( I was only a child in 1970) that you might have paid approx £200. In 1970 there were few wedding photographers and so they could charge a premium.

Again I am guesing but if the average wage in 1970 was £20 a week then you were paying 10 times the average wage. If the average wage today is £300 then wedding photographers should be charging £3000.

My house when I was shooting weddings in a big way, back in the mid 80s was worth approx £30k. That property is now worth £300k. Again this equates to 10x

stew
 
As I said I cant remember what we paid but I dont think it will have been as much as £200. However I do remember that we had saved( during our 2 year engagement) £300 to furnish our house and I earned £12 per week running a sub post office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top