Wedding Photography (digital)

[Grimace]

Hey all, I just had my first gig as a wedding photographer!

It was moved indoors at the very last minute and there wasn't much light so I ran to the store and got the f/1.8 50mm mkII. GREAT lens!

I use a 4GB and 8GB CF cards and never thought I'd burn through that much space. I did!! I only had 47 shots left on my 8GB when we were all done.

Does anyone else that does event photography shoot this much or do I just have an itchy trigger finger? (I used burst most of the time).

 

[iGary]

I shot 1,200 frames during the last Blue Angels demo.

I also usually take 800-1,000 frames during a regular sailing regatta.

It's easy to do with digital, but I often try to reign myself in and just take better shots, but when something happens, I just hold down the shutter to make sure I get something and I am often quite pleasantly surprised (luck is awesome!).

I love Aperture for this very reason - so easy to compare and cull through all these shots.

Not much on weddings myself, never even tried. I like to be outside or hanging off of planes.

Congrats on the gig.

 

[beavo451]

How many total shots did you have?

I shoot about 400 to 500.

 

[spicyapple]

Does anyone else that does event photography shoot this much or do I just have an itchy trigger finger? (I used burst most of the time).

A guy named ecker shoots over 10,000 photos during a single wedding. At that rate, he should just shoot his weddings with a high definition camcorder.

 

[beavo451]

A guy named ecker shoots over 10,000 photos during a single wedding. At that rate, he should just shoot his weddings with a high definition camcorder.

How many are good (as in somebody willing to buy a print)? 10,000 photos for say an 8 hour wedding is 20 frames per minute! I think that is extremely excessive. Might as well be a videographer.

 

[Grimace]

I took about 1500 shots. Probably 3 hours total --

 

[Abstract]

Not that I'm a good photographer at all, and so it seems strange for this n00b to criticize, but if a wedding photographer takes 10000 photos at a wedding (that's only 1 day long and not over the course of a week, I'm assuming), then he's probably not a very good photographer, and wants to take that many shots in order to have better odds of getting great shots. I can sort of understand 1500 shots, because things happen so fast, and there's so much emotion that you want to capture everything. You also want to increase the chances of getting a good photo. That's fine, because luck and probability is part of the game. However, 10000 photos is a completely overboard. He'd have to buy a new camera every 7 weddings or so because his camera shutter would break from overuse.

I know it's the digital age, and we have the freedom to take boatloads of photos without worrying too much, but show some restraint, look through the viewfinder, THEN shoot the photos. Shoot in continuous mode if necessary, but 10000 is too much.

 

[beavo451]

Not that I'm a good photographer at all, and so it seems strange for this n00b to criticize, but if a wedding photographer takes 10000 photos at a wedding (that's only 1 day long and not over the course of a week, I'm assuming), then he's probably not a very good photographer, and wants to take that many shots in order to have better odds of getting great shots. I can sort of understand 1500 shots, because things happen so fast, and there's so much emotion that you want to capture everything. You also want to increase the chances of getting a good photo. That's fine, because luck and probability is part of the game. However, 10000 photos is a completely overboard. He'd have to buy a new camera every 7 weddings or so because his camera shutter would break from overuse.

I know it's the digital age, and we have the freedom to take boatloads of photos without worrying too much, but show some restraint, look through the viewfinder, THEN shoot the photos. Shoot in continuous mode if necessary, but 10000 is too much.

I would agree with that. I think 1500 for 3 hours is a little on the high side as well, although since it is your first it makes it a little bit more understandable.

I knew a traditional wedding shooter that had and exact number of frames for each wedding he shot (something like 288/8 rolls of film). He knew exactly what shots he wanted, when to get them, and would shoot each photo twice. It seems with the coming of digital, there is alot more "spray and pray" type shooting that is relying more on luck than skill.

Enough about ethics... lets see some pictures!

 

[seany916]

pick & choose your moments

Or as you're shooting away at something insignificant, you'll miss something important. Illusion is more important than reality. It's your job to filter reality for your lens based on the decisions you make.

 

[Phil A.]

I do a fair bit of wedding photography, and the number of shots I take depends on several factors - how long I'm there, whether the couple want any reportage style shots, etc, etc.
For a short wedding with just "traditional" posed shots I take about 350 shots. Yesterday, I did an 11 hour shoot (everything from the brides house to the first dance) with reportage and posed groups, and took just over 1100 shots.

 

[Mike Teezie]

A guy named ecker shoots over 10,000 photos during a single wedding. At that rate, he should just shoot his weddings with a high definition camcorder.

The Becker is the man as far as wedding photography goes. He's in the very upper echelon of SoCal (buissink, etc etc) wedding photogs, which says a ton.

 

[PBGPowerbook]

yuck, i followed that becker link and found exactly what i hoped not to

boy is the essence of bad digital photography, hideous images with no lighting control, incredibly blown out, and you can tell every frame was one of a sequence of forty. this is why i dont yet own a digital camera

shouldve imagined people in OC would pay for this shxt

please dont point to him as the best of anything those images are godawful

 

[ChrisA]

I think the better photographers take fewer shots. Know what you want then go and get it. It a way digital is "free" but it takes your time to rummage through 1,500 exposures for the very few sellable shots.

 

[Abstract]

yuck, i followed that becker link and found exactly what i hoped not to

boy is the essence of bad digital photography, hideous images with no lighting control, incredibly blown out, and you can tell every frame was one of a sequence of forty. this is why i dont yet own a digital camera

shouldve imagined people in OC would pay for this shxt

please dont point to him as the best of anything those images are godawful

He'd be farked if he were shooting film.

I shoudn't be one to say it, since I may be part of the problem, and I have never used an SLR with film, but at least I try to get the shot right, or "sort-of" right, even if I'm shooting in digital. This guy ruins photography. He's just a point and shooter, it seems, and calls himself professional when he ends up with a few good shots. I can film the weddings in HD format and screen capture later as well, and would end up with great "photos", I'm sure.

Maybe he buys cameras with an 8 fps buffer and just holds it and walks around.

On the other hand, maybe he does get a lot of great shots and gives his clients what they want, which is all that matters (for him). Maybe he doesn't claim to be a great photographer at all.

 

[virividox]

first off all you guys shouldnt be criticizing his work, did you check out his actual website as opposed to his blog? his work on the site is far superior to the snapshots he puts on his blog. 2nd if he wishes to take 10 000 or 20 000 pictures thats up to him. results are what matter, if he gets the job done and is making money, why bash the guy?

 

[Abstract]

Because we're all oh so jealous of this guy.

I did see his main website before I posted the 2nd time, and while most shots are OK and some are fantastic, the fact that I know he takes 10000 shots to get these photos takes something away from what he does.

But like I said, if he's taking 30 shots per minute on average and giving his clients what they want, then that's OK. He's not really saying how wonderful a photographer he is (although his website name is "The" Becker ) and how brilliant his photographs are. He is a wedding photographer, has clients who pay him money to shoot weddings, and gives his clients the results they want, so in a way it doesn't matter how he does it as long as he does.

 

[virividox]

god, u people need to read. he said that he went to kenya to a wedding there and shot 10 000. he doesnt claim to shoot 10 000 frames at each wedding he goes to. read b4 jumping to conclusions please

 

[Mike Teezie]

Exactly.

And for what it's worth - I don't really even like his photography as much as some of the other SoCal photogs, but the way he has built his business is very inspiring to me.

 

[beavo451]

god, u people need to read. he said that he went to kenya to a wedding there and shot 10 000. he doesnt claim to shoot 10 000 frames at each wedding he goes to. read b4 jumping to conclusions please

Nor does he claim that he doesn't shoot 10000 per wedding. For all we know, he may shoot 8000 per wedding. But, the fact that he shot so many at one time is not just a random occurance and it would be safe to assume that he snaps a ton of images per wedding. Just because he is well known, highly paid, and hired frequently doesn't mean he is "the" wedding photographer. It means that he is an excellent businessman and salesperson with some photographic talent. Some of the best photographers are not professional photographers and shoot for fun.

As I said before, digital has more or less spawned the "PJ" style wedding photographer. With film, shooting such a massive amount of images is cost prohibitive. I still prefer the traditional style shooting as the artistic and picture quality seems to be higher most of the time.

 

[Eluon]

i find it funny we're debating over mere speculation of a man whom we do not know's business methods. really.