Wedding Photo Practices

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I attended the formal wedding of a longtime family friend last weekend. I was
pleased to learn that the professional photographer was using the same camera
body that I use (Canon EOS 20D). He was a friendly fellow and invited me to
mount a couple of his "killer" Canon lenses on my body to check 'em out.

To my surprise, I learned that literally EVERY frame he shot, probably close
to 1100, were on-line and available for order the next day.

The good ones are there. The not-so-good ones are there. The real STINKERS
are there. The frame numbers appear to be consecutive throughout.

Is this the accepted practice these days?

I have "professionally" shot a few weddings over the years (never digital) and
never considered showing anything buy my best work for ordering.

This was NOT the royal wedding of world-class dignitaries. It was an "every
day" although admittedly formal wedding. (4-5 bridesmaids & groomsmen, etc.)
Isn't 1100 frames a bit much to ask would-be buyers to wade through in order
to select prints and/or packages?

:)
JR
13 answers Last reply
More about wedding photo practices
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <jim.redelfs-37D418.19450115062005@news.central.cox.net>,
    Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

    > The good ones are there. The not-so-good ones are there. The real STINKERS
    > are there. The frame numbers appear to be consecutive throughout.
    >
    > Is this the accepted practice these days?

    A professional will cull the blinks and other unacceptable images.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
    news:jim.redelfs-37D418.19450115062005@news.central.cox.net...
    >I attended the formal wedding of a longtime family friend last weekend. I
    >was
    > pleased to learn that the professional photographer was using the same
    > camera
    > body that I use (Canon EOS 20D). He was a friendly fellow and invited me
    > to
    > mount a couple of his "killer" Canon lenses on my body to check 'em out.
    >
    > To my surprise, I learned that literally EVERY frame he shot, probably
    > close
    > to 1100, were on-line and available for order the next day.
    >
    > The good ones are there. The not-so-good ones are there. The real
    > STINKERS
    > are there. The frame numbers appear to be consecutive throughout.
    >
    > Is this the accepted practice these days?
    >
    > I have "professionally" shot a few weddings over the years (never digital)
    > and
    > never considered showing anything buy my best work for ordering.
    >
    > This was NOT the royal wedding of world-class dignitaries. It was an
    > "every
    > day" although admittedly formal wedding. (4-5 bridesmaids & groomsmen,
    > etc.)
    > Isn't 1100 frames a bit much to ask would-be buyers to wade through in
    > order
    > to select prints and/or packages?
    >
    > :)
    > JR

    We generally draw the line at the ordinary images, the "stinkers" go in the
    recycle bin. We'll put up between 400 and 600 images,depending on the
    length of the wedding, for review and ordering, and usually within a week,
    not the next day. But not weeding out the bad ones lets him get 'em up
    there faster.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <84is0f3uqa.fsf@ripco.com>, Todd H. <t@toddh.net> wrote:

    > Yeah, I'd say that's a bit much.

    1100 is WAY too many.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> writes:

    > Somehow I find the thought of 1000 + shots at a wedding something of
    > an daunting expo in itself. We shoot 300~400 and publish about 180. My
    > best album only holds 30 photos. I can't imagine the thought process
    > behind your Photographer's motives.
    >
    > The concept of wedding photography is portraiture. Formal portraits of
    > the bridal party were once only shot in a studio. Today I usually take
    > the bridal party to a bush or beach setting and do the formal shots
    > there.
    >
    > Add to these the bride and groom at their respective homes and the
    > ceremony and I can't reach 1000 shots in my mind, no mater how hard I
    > try. 20D cameras only have 100,000 shot shutter life so he'd need to
    > be charging enough to cover a new camera every couple of years or end
    > up broke.

    I've never heard of bride and groom portraits at home before. Not a
    bad idea, mind you; just haven't encountered it.

    You don't mention numbers from the reception. That's where *I* end up
    with big volume, anyway. 300-500 seems pretty common for me. (I
    don't do very many weddings; three in the last two years I think.)

    And I know that the couples are collecting digital and sometimes film
    photos from all their friends, as well; my 300-500 are *not* fully
    satisfying them, they want *all* the good ones. (And lots of the best
    photos from a wedding reception will be a matter of being in the right
    place when something happens, so I won't get all of them.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Jim Redelfs wrote:

    > To my surprise, I learned that literally EVERY frame he shot, probably close
    > to 1100, were on-line and available for order the next day.

    There are a variety of s/w packages and services that would make this a
    snap.

    >
    > The good ones are there. The not-so-good ones are there. The real STINKERS
    > are there. The frame numbers appear to be consecutive throughout.

    It means he was a) too lazy to cull the stinkers or b) his contract says
    "put em all up"

    >
    > Is this the accepted practice these days?

    Unfortunately, it appears to be practiced by some, maybe many.

    >
    > I have "professionally" shot a few weddings over the years (never digital) and
    > never considered showing anything buy my best work for ordering.

    Some people order emotionally, not by the look of the image.

    >
    > This was NOT the royal wedding of world-class dignitaries. It was an "every
    > day" although admittedly formal wedding. (4-5 bridesmaids & groomsmen, etc.)
    > Isn't 1100 frames a bit much to ask would-be buyers to wade through in order
    > to select prints and/or packages?

    Yep.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >
    > I've never heard of bride and groom portraits at home before. Not a
    > bad idea, mind you; just haven't encountered it.

    Very common these days to have "boudoir" shots of the bride getting
    ready with mother, sisters, bridemaids in attendance. May include some
    somewhat intimate shots not intended for everyone to see. (Chasseur
    D'images had quite an article on wedding photography about a year ago
    that went pretty far in this regard...)

    It is less common to have such photos of the groom (and usually requires
    a second photog as all this is happening in real time, most times).


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >> I've never heard of bride and groom portraits at home before. Not a
    >> bad idea, mind you; just haven't encountered it.
    >
    > Very common these days to have "boudoir" shots of the bride getting
    > ready with mother, sisters, bridemaids in attendance. May include
    > some somewhat intimate shots not intended for everyone to see.
    > (Chasseur D'images had quite an article on wedding photography about a
    > year ago that went pretty far in this regard...)

    I shot some "bride prep" shots for weddings I did in the 1980s, I
    remember. That was because things were mostly happening out of the
    bride's family home, and I was there anyway.

    Maybe I'll chase down that article, thanks!

    > It is less common to have such photos of the groom (and usually
    > requires a second photog as all this is happening in real time, most
    > times).

    Yeah, that darned real world thing :-).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Jim Redelfs wrote:
    > I attended the formal wedding of a longtime family friend last weekend. I was
    > pleased to learn that the professional photographer was using the same camera
    > body that I use (Canon EOS 20D). He was a friendly fellow and invited me to
    > mount a couple of his "killer" Canon lenses on my body to check 'em out.
    >
    > To my surprise, I learned that literally EVERY frame he shot, probably close
    > to 1100, were on-line and available for order the next day.
    >
    > The good ones are there. The not-so-good ones are there. The real STINKERS
    > are there. The frame numbers appear to be consecutive throughout.
    >
    > Is this the accepted practice these days?
    >
    > I have "professionally" shot a few weddings over the years (never digital) and
    > never considered showing anything buy my best work for ordering.
    >
    > This was NOT the royal wedding of world-class dignitaries. It was an "every
    > day" although admittedly formal wedding. (4-5 bridesmaids & groomsmen, etc.)
    > Isn't 1100 frames a bit much to ask would-be buyers to wade through in order
    > to select prints and/or packages?
    >
    > :)
    > JR

    Somehow I find the thought of 1000 + shots at a wedding something of an
    daunting expo in itself. We shoot 300~400 and publish about 180. My best
    album only holds 30 photos. I can't imagine the thought process behind
    your Photographer's motives.

    The concept of wedding photography is portraiture. Formal portraits of
    the bridal party were once only shot in a studio. Today I usually take
    the bridal party to a bush or beach setting and do the formal shots there.

    Add to these the bride and groom at their respective homes and the
    ceremony and I can't reach 1000 shots in my mind, no mater how hard I
    try. 20D cameras only have 100,000 shot shutter life so he'd need to be
    charging enough to cover a new camera every couple of years or end up broke.

    Everyone at the weddings I shoot gets the password to my site with taht
    wedding on display. They can purchase photos or relative albums straight
    off my site and have them posted out in few days. Can you imagine the
    confussion is they have 6 or 7 of the same shot to choose from?

    Douglas
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ryadia wrote:
    > Jim Redelfs wrote:
    >
    >> I attended the formal wedding of a longtime family friend last
    >> weekend. I was pleased to learn that the professional photographer
    >> was using the same camera body that I use (Canon EOS 20D). He was a
    >> friendly fellow and invited me to mount a couple of his "killer" Canon
    >> lenses on my body to check 'em out.
    >>
    >> To my surprise, I learned that literally EVERY frame he shot, probably
    >> close to 1100, were on-line and available for order the next day.
    >>
    >> The good ones are there. The not-so-good ones are there. The real
    >> STINKERS are there. The frame numbers appear to be consecutive
    >> throughout.
    >>
    >> Is this the accepted practice these days?
    >>
    >> I have "professionally" shot a few weddings over the years (never
    >> digital) and never considered showing anything buy my best work for
    >> ordering.
    >>
    >> This was NOT the royal wedding of world-class dignitaries. It was an
    >> "every day" although admittedly formal wedding. (4-5 bridesmaids &
    >> groomsmen, etc.) Isn't 1100 frames a bit much to ask would-be buyers
    >> to wade through in order to select prints and/or packages?
    >>
    >> :)
    >> JR
    >
    >
    > Somehow I find the thought of 1000 + shots at a wedding something of an
    > daunting expo in itself. We shoot 300~400 and publish about 180. My best
    > album only holds 30 photos. I can't imagine the thought process behind
    > your Photographer's motives.

    I guess he figures someone might want to buy that one funny shot of Aunt
    Joan spilling punch on her dress, or Cousin Joe making an fool of him
    self on the dance floor?

    ALV
    >
    > The concept of wedding photography is portraiture. Formal portraits of
    > the bridal party were once only shot in a studio. Today I usually take
    > the bridal party to a bush or beach setting and do the formal shots there.
    >
    > Add to these the bride and groom at their respective homes and the
    > ceremony and I can't reach 1000 shots in my mind, no mater how hard I
    > try. 20D cameras only have 100,000 shot shutter life so he'd need to be
    > charging enough to cover a new camera every couple of years or end up
    > broke.
    >
    > Everyone at the weddings I shoot gets the password to my site with taht
    > wedding on display. They can purchase photos or relative albums straight
    > off my site and have them posted out in few days. Can you imagine the
    > confussion is they have 6 or 7 of the same shot to choose from?
    >
    > Douglas
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ryadia wrote:

    > Somehow I find the thought of 1000 + shots at a wedding something of an
    > daunting expo in itself. We shoot 300~400 and publish about 180. My best
    > album only holds 30 photos. I can't imagine the thought process behind
    > your Photographer's motives.
    >
    > The concept of wedding photography is portraiture.
    > Formal portraits of
    > the bridal party were once only shot in a studio. Today I usually take
    > the bridal party to a bush or beach setting and do the formal shots there.
    >


    A little stale, that. Today, most wedding photogs offer a mix of the
    formal set pieces plus some variant of the "pj" style. The pj shooting
    is very freeform ad lib, spontaneous, unscripted, (or at least shot to
    look that way). It has a higher blooper rate (many of which may be
    keepers for those with a healthy sense of humor). So frame counts go
    way up ... still, I agree that 1100 images, including the crud, is way
    too much.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ryadia wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > Add to these the bride and groom at their respective homes and the
    > ceremony and I can't reach 1000 shots in my mind, no mater how hard I
    > try. 20D cameras only have 100,000 shot shutter life so he'd need to be
    > charging enough to cover a new camera every couple of years or end up
    > broke.
    <snip>
    Neither can I
    $1500 divided by (100,000 shot shutter life divided by say 400 shots per
    wedding) = $6.00 per wedding / 250 weddings, 2 and a half weddings a
    week on average over two years. I don't think that "wear and tear" on a
    camera is very significant compared to other costs. I expect even
    fuel/travel costs are going to be much higher. In fact, if you are
    doing that number of weddings, then you can easily justify getting
    yourself a couple of 1Ds Mk II or D2x camera bodies, and if you run your
    business well, buy a new porsche each time you replace your camera gear.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
    news:d8rt41$bth$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I've never heard of bride and groom portraits at home before. Not a
    >> bad idea, mind you; just haven't encountered it.
    >
    > Very common these days to have "boudoir" shots of the bride getting ready
    > with mother, sisters, bridemaids in attendance. May include some somewhat
    > intimate shots not intended for everyone to see. (Chasseur D'images had
    > quite an article on wedding photography about a year ago that went pretty
    > far in this regard...)
    >
    > It is less common to have such photos of the groom (and usually requires a
    > second photog as all this is happening in real time, most times).
    >
    >
    >

    That's where my wife and I part company, she photographs the ladies, I do
    the same with the men...but I generally make sure they are dressed first!
    <G>

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
    news:jim.redelfs-37D418.19450115062005@news.central.cox.net...
    > I attended the formal wedding of a longtime family friend last weekend. I
    was
    > pleased to learn that the professional photographer was using the same
    camera
    > body that I use (Canon EOS 20D). He was a friendly fellow and invited me
    to
    > mount a couple of his "killer" Canon lenses on my body to check 'em out.
    >
    > To my surprise, I learned that literally EVERY frame he shot, probably
    close
    > to 1100, were on-line and available for order the next day.
    >
    > The good ones are there. The not-so-good ones are there. The real
    STINKERS
    > are there. The frame numbers appear to be consecutive throughout.
    >
    > Is this the accepted practice these days?
    >
    > I have "professionally" shot a few weddings over the years (never digital)
    and
    > never considered showing anything buy my best work for ordering.
    >
    > This was NOT the royal wedding of world-class dignitaries. It was an
    "every
    > day" although admittedly formal wedding. (4-5 bridesmaids & groomsmen,
    etc.)
    > Isn't 1100 frames a bit much to ask would-be buyers to wade through in
    order
    > to select prints and/or packages?
    >
    > :)
    > JR

    Personally, with the digital aspects of my wedding work, I work up between
    30 and 60 images that tell the story of the day, and send them to print
    (ofoto, or adorama). I also take these "for print" images, resize them for
    email and save them to a separate folder. I do delete the "stinkers", as
    you say, but take all the rest--original files, for print files, and email
    files--burn them to CD, and give those CDs to the person who hired me. I
    also take the digital images and put them on an SVCD with simple fades
    between each image and the "first dance" song playing throughout (easy to
    do, once you've got it figured out, and they love it). For the non-digital
    aspects of my wedding work: I shoot the formals with big lights and medium
    format film, get prints from each, toss the blinkers, but give them
    everything else, including negatives. I also reserve the right to use any
    of the images in advertising, etc.

    --
    Regards,
    Matt Clara
    www.mattclara.com
Ask a new question

Read More

SLR Photo Canon Systems Cameras