Faster digital workflow sought

Randall Ainsworth wrote in
:

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:


A wedding needs 10 pictures. More is just ripping off the customer.

Well, I did a lot more than 10, but 500 is ridiculous.


My wedding was only a few years ago. Our album has 20 prints in it. I
think the photographer shot three rolls of 120 film. They were all good
shots. It was hard enough to choose 20 prints from 36 originals. If there
were 500 originals, it would have been much more difficult to get down to
20.

I think changing the business model makes more sense than changing the
work flow. If your clients *really* want 500 proofs, let them do the
editing (the selecting of what is good and what is not) and only work
with the ones they want prints of.

I'm not a wedding photographer, but if I were I would charge more for
delivering 500 moderate quality photos than for 50 really good ones. A
lot more.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

bob writes:

Randall Ainsworth wrote in
:

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:


A wedding needs 10 pictures. More is just ripping off the customer.

Well, I did a lot more than 10, but 500 is ridiculous.

My wedding was only a few years ago. Our album has 20 prints in it. I
think the photographer shot three rolls of 120 film. They were all good
shots. It was hard enough to choose 20 prints from 36 originals. If there
were 500 originals, it would have been much more difficult to get down to
20.

I think changing the business model makes more sense than changing the
work flow. If your clients *really* want 500 proofs, let them do the
editing (the selecting of what is good and what is not) and only work
with the ones they want prints of.

I'm not a wedding photographer, but if I were I would charge more for
delivering 500 moderate quality photos than for 50 really good ones. A
lot more.

I shot nearly 500 photos just at the reception of a wedding this
spring -- none of the formal shots, just candids. I think I presented
over 300 of those to the clients.

50 "really good" photos probably wouldn't even show all the guests,
and would likely miss many of the most interesting moments of the
event. It's clearly inadequate coverage.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , 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/

I don't think presenting 300 images from five hundred is particularly
worthy of praise, but it really depends on the client.

Any idiot can hold down the shutter button. Maybe you would be better
doing video.

300 semi adequate pictures with peoples heads turned away from the
camera can't compare to 50 images that people are looking right at the
camera that were shot deliberately and achieved the desired composition
and intend look. But again it depends on what people are buying.

There certainly is merit to giving people better pictures
than more bad ones. There certainly is merit to the
photographer putting a set smaller amount organized in
the album as opposed to blitz /blanket coverage of the wedding and
having to sort organize and number a vast amount of
pictures afterwards,..... there are many way of justifying the
amount one charges, though.



In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


I shot nearly 500 photos just at the reception of a wedding this
spring -- none of the formal shots, just candids. I think I presented
over 300 of those to the clients.

50 "really good" photos probably wouldn't even show all the guests,
and would likely miss many of the most interesting moments of the
event. It's clearly inadequate coverage.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank writes:

I don't think presenting 300 images from five hundred is particularly
worthy of praise, but it really depends on the client.

I'm not a wedding photographer; I'll only do it for friends who I'm
sure understand know what they're getting, these days. For this
particular wedding, I wasn't covering the ceremony itself, and not
doing the posed shots; I believe they had somebody more suitable for
that job doing it. I was *only* providing official coverage of the
reception.

And I wasn't especially looking for praise, just citing a real-world
example.

Any idiot can hold down the shutter button. Maybe you would be better
doing video.

Nope. That's *hard*. Trying to do it for a wedding without totally
disrupting everything else just isn't on for me. (I worked assistant
camera for a 1994 movie project; my most recent serious video/movie
credit.)

300 semi adequate pictures with peoples heads turned away from the
camera can't compare to 50 images that people are looking right at the
camera that were shot deliberately and achieved the desired composition
and intend look. But again it depends on what people are buying.

You seem to be jumping to some conclusions about my pictures there.

As I said before, 50 pictures simply *can't* be adequate -- for a
wedding of this size. You can miss entire families that way. And
insisting that everybody be looking directly at the camera means you
miss *every single* interesting happening at the reception, and all
those shots showing couples (including the bridge and groom) intent on
*each other*.

There certainly is merit to giving people better pictures than more
bad ones.

Absolutely. But you're asserting a false dichotomy: that anybody who
manages to photograph the *whole* wedding must be producing bad
pictures.

There certainly is merit to the photographer putting a set
smaller amount organized in the album as opposed to blitz /blanket
coverage of the wedding and having to sort organize and number a
vast amount of pictures afterwards,..... there are many way of
justifying the amount one charges, though.

I present the candids in chronological order, so there really isn't
any need for messing with them after I hand them over. Unless they
want to integrate other people's work into that part of the album,
which I don't think is often done.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , 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/

Gregory Blank writes:

I don't think presenting 300 images from five hundred is particularly
worthy of praise, but it really depends on the client.

I'm not a wedding photographer; I'll only do it for friends who I'm
sure understand know what they're getting, these days. For this
particular wedding, I wasn't covering the ceremony itself, and not
doing the posed shots; I believe they had somebody more suitable for
that job doing it. I was *only* providing official coverage of the
reception.

And I wasn't especially looking for praise, just citing a real-world
example.

Any idiot can hold down the shutter button. Maybe you would be better
doing video.

Nope. That's *hard*. Trying to do it for a wedding without totally
disrupting everything else just isn't on for me. (I worked assistant
camera for a 1994 movie project; my most recent serious video/movie
credit.)

300 semi adequate pictures with peoples heads turned away from the
camera can't compare to 50 images that people are looking right at the
camera that were shot deliberately and achieved the desired composition
and intend look. But again it depends on what people are buying.

You seem to be jumping to some conclusions about my pictures there.

As I said before, 50 pictures simply *can't* be adequate -- for a
wedding of this size. You can miss entire families that way. And
insisting that everybody be looking directly at the camera means you
miss *every single* interesting happening at the reception, and all
those shots showing couples (including the bridge and groom) intent on
*each other*.

There certainly is merit to giving people better pictures than more
bad ones.

Absolutely. But you're asserting a false dichotomy: that anybody who
manages to photograph the *whole* wedding must be producing bad
pictures.

There certainly is merit to the photographer putting a set
smaller amount organized in the album as opposed to blitz /blanket
coverage of the wedding and having to sort organize and number a
vast amount of pictures afterwards,..... there are many way of
justifying the amount one charges, though.

I present the candids in chronological order, so there really isn't
any need for messing with them after I hand them over. Unless they
want to integrate other people's work into that part of the album,
which I don't think is often done.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , 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/

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Gregory Blank writes:

300 semi adequate pictures with peoples heads turned away from the
camera can't compare to 50 images that people are looking right at the
camera that were shot deliberately and achieved the desired composition
and intend look. But again it depends on what people are buying.

You seem to be jumping to some conclusions about my pictures there.

Not necessarily, I have no way of determining your skill,...
and i have produced as well as have seen some great candid work.


As I said before, 50 pictures simply *can't* be adequate -- for a
wedding of this size. You can miss entire families that way. And
insisting that everybody be looking directly at the camera means you
miss *every single* interesting happening at the reception, and all
those shots showing couples (including the bridge and groom) intent on
*each other*.

My point being that if the couple has specifically hired a pro
they have chosen that pro for the pro to do what the pro presented
them self as. If the couple hires the pro to insure they get
good group pictures then those are the most important, as you have
stated a lot of candid pictures get discarded. Personally I blend an
amount of candids with the expected stuff,...I have relaxed a bit on the
candids because few people order those pictures. Its also not very
cost effective when someone stipulates a package and pays a set fee
to produce xx amount of images and then I go forth and shoot a lot
more images to get a few candids worthy to be included.

The real thing I have come to strive to do is unique images, posed
but worthy of magazine reproduction, that's what I strive for, usually
just the bride, groom or both together.


There certainly is merit to giving people better pictures than more
bad ones.

Absolutely. But you're asserting a false dichotomy: that anybody who
manages to photograph the *whole* wedding must be producing bad
pictures.

Actually the dichotomy is regarding discards to keepers, back when I
worked (almost 20 years ago) in various one hour labs the goal was to
decrease the waste, the same holds true now(for me).
ly do. I've had customers tell me 75 images was too many for their
wedding. 150 prints may not seem like a lot but consider placing the
images into a small book will take about three hours, multiply that
against billing,etc etc and it becomes a big job if you do wedding every
weekend, especially when you
consider I print/reprint images the lab cannot make a good enough print
suit my taste and I shoot some B&W imagery which must be printed
sometimes three copies of. Now if you talk digital purely then its
another matter, you can put all the stuff on a CD/DVD and give a
choice for the package of whatever # of pictures to be printed.
Its a way to satisfy both ideas.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in -
b.net:

I shot nearly 500 photos just at the reception of a wedding this
spring -- none of the formal shots, just candids. I think I presented
over 300 of those to the clients.

50 "really good" photos probably wouldn't even show all the guests,
and would likely miss many of the most interesting moments of the
event. It's clearly inadequate coverage.


You bring up a good point. The number of journalistic type photos
required to document a reception depends on several factors, including
the number of guests, the length of the event, and what it entails. Our
reception had about 50 guests, was a sit down dinner, and had only a
handful of interesting moments.

Various friends and relatives also took photos at the reception. Our
professional wedding photographer took several photos at the reception,
and every one of them was a keeper. I took several photos at the
reception myself, too.

Sometimes my wife and I will page through our wedding album, and look at
each of the 20 photos. If we had a wedding album with 300 photos I don't
think we would do that.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply