[WMBP]

will there are 3600 seconds in an hour, asuming a K10D and max resolution jpeg this only represents a little over 2 hours in continuous shooting mode, assuming no time out for flash recharge, changing batteries and memory cards.

Assuming 2 shooters, and 6 hours of events, from the brides and grooms houses to the church, to wedding party shots somewhere to the reception, 8K shots is one every 5 seconds. That, in reality is still pretty tough. My bet is the shooter(s) are running in burst mode and taking shots till the buffer is full hoping to get one with every one's eyes open, then waiting for the buffer to clear.

Lowell, I did that basic arithmetic at the time. But it just makes the feat harder to understand, because it's not simply a question of how many photos you could take in a laboratory if you just kept clicking the shutter every 2 seconds. At a wedding you have to move around, find things to photograph. You use flash and your flash has to recharge. You have to change batteries. You have to ask people to stand closer together. You have to take a break to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water. You have to change cards in the camera, or batteries, or lenses. And there are parts of the day where there's basically nothing to photograph. At many of the Roman Catholic weddings I photograph, much of the wedding Mass is declared a photography-free zone, so I reckon that for a good half an hour of the one-hour Mass, I'm not allowed to take photographs. And even during the other half hour when I am permitted to shoot, very little is happening most of the time. During the homily, for example, not a lot is going on. I do keep my eyes on the wedding party, hoping the bride's father will start weeping or something like that. (Haven't got that one yet, but I keep trying.) But that means LOOKING.

I know many photographers do this - and perhaps it is a good idea from a strictly photographic point of view - but I don't like to ask the couple to stage The Kiss afterwards, so I take pains to capture the kiss when it really happens. And I'll admit that for that one moment in the day, I may lose my nerve and take lots of shots. Sometimes I bracket. More often, I take test shots when I know The Kiss is coming, triple-check my exposure, and then take half a dozen or even a dozen shots. That is always done without flash. But I think that's the ONLY moment during the day where I just press down the shutter button and let 'er rip for a second or two. To get even, oh, 1500 shots from a wedding, instead of the 700-800 that I've sometimes gotten in the past, I think I'd have to use continuous shooting quite a bit. And I just can't imagine how I could possibly take 3000, 4000, 8000 shots. Not even if I had the help of a second shooter.

Really, I think anybody who wants to take 8000 frames at a wedding should become a videographer rather than a photographer.

As I get older - and, I hope, better as a photographer - I am more and more sensitive to the fact that the best way to increase the absolute number of "keepers" that I take away from a shoot is by slowing down and shooting more carefully. Which means taking fewer shots, not more.

Will

[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell, I did that basic arithmetic at the time. But it just makes the feat harder to understand, because it's not simply a question of how many photos you could take in a laboratory if you just kept clicking the shutter every 2 seconds. At a wedding you have to move around, find things to photograph. You use flash and your flash has to recharge. You have to change batteries. You have to ask people to stand closer together. You have to take a break to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water. You have to change cards in the camera, or batteries, or lenses. And there are parts of the day where there's basically nothing to photograph. At many of the Roman Catholic weddings I photograph, much of the wedding Mass is declared a photography-free zone, so I reckon that for a good half an hour of the one-hour Mass, I'm not allowed to take photographs. And even during the other half hour when I am permitted to shoot, very little is happening most of the time. During the homily, for example, not a lot is going on. I do keep my eyes on the wedding party, hoping the bride's father will start weeping or something like that. (Haven't got that one yet, but I keep trying.) But that means LOOKING.

I know many photographers do this - and perhaps it is a good idea from a strictly photographic point of view - but I don't like to ask the couple to stage The Kiss afterwards, so I take pains to capture the kiss when it really happens. And I'll admit that for that one moment in the day, I may lose my nerve and take lots of shots. Sometimes I bracket. More often, I take test shots when I know The Kiss is coming, triple-check my exposure, and then take half a dozen or even a dozen shots. That is always done without flash. But I think that's the ONLY moment during the day where I just press down the shutter button and let 'er rip for a second or two. To get even, oh, 1500 shots from a wedding, instead of the 700-800 that I've sometimes gotten in the past, I think I'd have to use continuous shooting quite a bit. And I just can't imagine how I could possibly take 3000, 4000, 8000 shots. Not even if I had the help of a second shooter.

Really, I think anybody who wants to take 8000 frames at a wedding should become a videographer rather than a photographer.

As I get older - and, I hope, better as a photographer - I am more and more sensitive to the fact that the best way to increase the absolute number of "keepers" that I take away from a shoot is by slowing down and shooting more carefully. Which means taking fewer shots, not more.

Will

Will, I can't disagree with anything you say. it all makes perfect sence, all I can imagine is that people are shooting in continuous frame mode until the buffer is full, and then moving on to the next shot. Stupid as both of us know this is, it is the only way to achieve this shot count even with two shooters.

I agree, in that case video is more likely the best medium although resolution would be $#!^ .

I just can't imagine it. The one wedding I did, I shot I think 8 rolls of 36 frames using 2 bodies over 12 hours. I know times have changed, but.....

I think you have the right approach, but maybe (and I will appologize in advance if this offends anyone) this is like my perception of many american resturants, people are confusing quantity with quality. Isn't it somewhere in your part of the country where you can get a 72 oz. steak

[DanLoc78]

As someone trying to break into this field, this is a very interesting thread. I've been the main shooter at one wedding, some friends/coworkers, fully knowing I am not a pro, asked me to shoot their wedding for $700 in October 2008. At that time I had a good understanding of the K10D and creating a good exposure, but I didn't understand flash photography enough. Not enough to shoot a wedding. I came away with about 400 shots, and my second shooter about the same for a total of 800. He gave me his RAW files, I processed all the shots I deemed to be 'good' and gave them the edited jpegs on a DVD, as they had requested. Selecting good pics and editing them ahead of time just seemed like the right thing to do. From what I'm reading here...seems like it was. Going back through there were a lot of lessons learned, things I wish I had done, things I wish I hadn't done, etc. They are good friends and all I wanted was to capture their day for them. I think I did an OK job, but not a great one.

The main thing I learned is that I'm not quite ready to shoot a wedding as a first shooter. I'm still not, I don't think. I will leave that to the pros, but I will gladly shoot as a 2nd or 3rd and do a very capable job. Like many of you have said, the most important thing is to capture the essence of the day, and I don't think I'm ready for that constant pressure.

[WMBP]

At that time I had a good understanding of the K10D and creating a good exposure, but I didn't understand flash photography enough. Not enough to shoot a wedding.

You sound uncommonly wise. I suspect that an awful lot of people who think they want to shoot weddings don't realize how important a mastery of flash photography is - and they really don't realize that flash photography is practically another sport altogether. Flash photography is more abstract, requires more thought and experience, and provides greater opportunities for disaster.

When I got started doing weddings in 2006, I knew I wasn't good enough with flash. I knocked myself out working and practicing before my first wedding and everything went okay, but I made lots of mistakes. After a year I achieved a sort of intermediate level of competence with hot-shoe flash. More recently I started working with off-camera flash and now I'm dealing once again with a whole new level of difficulty. It helps to be a glutton for punishment.

... I don't think I'm ready for that constant pressure.

Also wise. Perhaps I'm just not a very calm person, but in my experience, shooting a wedding involves a LOT of pressure and stress. That is still true, and I'm reasonably confident that, at a minimum, I won't completely blow it.

Will

[GeneV]

I can imagine is that people are shooting in continuous frame mode until the buffer is full, and then moving on to the next shot. Stupid as both of us know this is, it is the only way to achieve this shot count even with two shooters.

I agree, in that case video is more likely the best medium although resolution would be $#!^ .

I am the OP, and was there for the wedding. I believe Lowell has nailed it as to what happened. The photographer had a Canon rig with the flash on the end of a long bracket and a large power pack. The flash flickered so much every time he took a shot, that it looked like red-eye reduction rather than the exposure.

There were in fact approximately 5 jpegs for every shot. He even sent 5 jpegs of the side of the van that delivered the flowers.

However there is another reason for the photographer to do the initial sorting--the proof logo.

I tried to help her sort through these thousands of very similar frames, but often could not because of the watermark logo. No one has commented on this part of my original post, but not only did she get 5 near-identical versions of every shot, but the photographer protected himself with a small logo which he imposed over each shot hundreds of times. It was impossible to tell these rapid-fire shots apart with "----Photography" across faces and eyes. He could have made an initial cut on a clean frame.

[Ash]

Strange and unnecessary. She's hell-bent on protecting her work when there are better, more appealing methods for the client. Anyway, she doesn't appear to be a fine example for wedding photography standards, but Gene you could see if that's the case better than us...

[GeneV]

Strange and unnecessary. She's hell-bent on protecting her work when there are better, more appealing methods for the client. Anyway, she doesn't appear to be a fine example for wedding photography standards, but Gene you could see if that's the case better than us...

It's a he. His shots were comparable to mine, but mine were free. He drove up in a brand new Corvette convertible, so whatever he is doing is making money for him.

He drove up in a brand new Corvette convertible, so whatever he is doing is making money for him.

Marketing does get you a long way these days regardless of talent unfortunately. If he had driven up in an '85 Nissan there would be immediate negativity towards his ability before he even took a picture. The brand new Corvette convertible would have had people thinking 'boy he must be good'. Sad but true and not everyone can tell a good picture from a snapshot.

A friend of mine just sent me links for three photographers who she is thinking about for her wedding. I told her that I wouldn't pick any of them but also told her which one of the three I thought was best. The one she liked best was the one I thought was worst.

[George Lama]

Hmm... a convertible Corvette? I guess me driving up in a Pontiac Vibe must scream "daddy-mobile!" Does it matter that I have a sunroof?

The issue of watermarking is a valid one. In my opinion a watermark should be a representation of your signature which by chance happens to offer very limited protection against illegal copies. What it cannot do is become a distraction, interfering with the image to the point where you can't see it.

Jim Goldstein has a couple of great blog posts on watermarking - Very good insight into the thought process a photographer goes through as his watermarking evolves based on personal taste, acquired experience, and need at a certain point in their career.

Watermarks: Evolution of a Watermark JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography
Watermarks: My Journey With Photographic Watermarks JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography

No disrespect meant to Pontiac Vibes.


I agree with you about the watermarks but that is why it's important for the photographer to edit down the amount of photographs for the customer to chose from. That way they don't need to pick which one of the five similar shots they like best.

Hmm... a convertible Corvette? I guess me driving up in a Pontiac Vibe must scream "daddy-mobile!" Does it matter that I have a sunroof?

The issue of watermarking is a valid one. In my opinion a watermark should be a representation of your signature which by chance happens to offer very limited protection against illegal copies. What it cannot do is become a distraction, interfering with the image to the point where you can't see it.

Jim Goldstein has a couple of great blog posts on watermarking - Very good insight into the thought process a photographer goes through as his watermarking evolves based on personal taste, acquired experience, and need at a certain point in their career.

Watermarks: Evolution of a Watermark JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography
Watermarks: My Journey With Photographic Watermarks JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography

[Ash]

It's a he. His shots were comparable to mine, but mine were free. He drove up in a brand new Corvette convertible, so whatever he is doing is making money for him.

Sorry about the gender confusion. Your post has both a 'he' and a 'she' in it, I took a punt on who the he and she was referring to.

No intention on being sexist (but emphasis here was intentional...)

[GeneV]

No disrespect meant to Pontiac Vibes.


I agree with you about the watermarks but that is why it's important for the photographer to edit down the amount of photographs for the customer to chose from. That way they don't need to pick which one of the five similar shots they like best.

That was my point exactly.

I have nothing against watermarking or protecting a proof. It was just that putting hundreds of little logos turned out to be far more disturbing than a few big ones. I hadn't seen it done quite that way before.

[Gaelen]

That was my point exactly.

I have nothing against watermarking or protecting a proof. It was just that putting hundreds of little logos turned out to be far more disturbing than a few big ones. I hadn't seen it done quite that way before.

I came across this when I watermark my images from local motorsports events, there are many ways to do it that DONT impede the view of the shot but also protect your hard work.

It's a fine balance but in the end both the client and the photographer will be happier as things are much easier to work through.

[GeneV]

I came across this when I watermark my images from local motorsports events, there are many ways to do it that DONT impede the view of the shot but also protect your hard work.

It's a fine balance but in the end both the client and the photographer will be happier as things are much easier to work through.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that the end result of any professional service must please the client.

[GeneV]

Hmm... a convertible Corvette? I guess me driving up in a Pontiac Vibe must scream "daddy-mobile!" Does it matter that I have a sunroof?

I attended three other weddings this summer, and this was the only one in which I even noticed what the photographer was driving, so I think you are fine. This guy was particularly concerned about the car and parked it taking up two spaces in the lot, so it was noticed a bit more.