1147 over about 9 hrs, completed images totaled 1116, I amazed myself at being able to fully edit the entire wedding in less than 24hrs mainly due to amping up my lighting and careful shooting and I guess my recent upgrade to my LR has increased my productivity after only using it for a little over a week.
OlafSiebert wrote:
I shoot as with film, may be one extra just to be sure. My D700, which had 10 weddings done, had 1700 clicks (indeed 2 zero's).
Shooting is not the problem. The editing and PP afterwards is killing.
That said, I also switched off my screen. It's black. I know I have a shot or not ...
How can you possibly know if you have a shot or not if you havent taken 50 of one simple thing and chimped it for good measure? You must be a mind reader.... like we all apparently must have been back in the film days.
Clearly the skills everyone had not so long ago makes the Johhny come latelys that have never had to rely on skill rather than technology, feel very threatened and insecure. Hence the exaggerations they make up in defense of their own way of doing things which would have simply been impossible back in the film days. It was probably their parents we were photographing in a way they now maintain is impossible.
Nice to see there are still some people that can think for themselves without having the need to join the boys club and follow internet mentality and convention.
Weddings haven't changed and we managed to get perfectly good shots that were every bit the equal of what people so aggressively assert is a nessicity now days in a fraction of the frames.
I'd really like to see some of the loudmouth 5000 frame shooters here put their albums up against one of yours and have a group of clients judge them and see who had the most prefered albums.
I feel very confident the less is more theroy would be well proven.
But, if others feel more secure and comfortable doing things so much more inefficently, no skin off our nose.
I need to stop reading this post, I'm getting picture sick, wtf you guys been shooting? 4k images in 15 hours?
That's like taking 1 image every 12 seconds?
ZachOly wrote:
3/6FPS...blast off during family formals. Much quicker to find a photo with everyone's eyes open then having to do it in PS after the fact.
This I understand and do myself. These group shots cannot always be perfectly timed but the parts of the wedding where you would do this do not add up to multi thousand shots. There are only so many group shots that need to be covered and even when rattling off a bunch to make sure you have the eyes open etc, it still falls a long way short of what some do.
As a matter of interest, say of the whole bridal party group, how many shots would you typicaly do of the one setup?
Also totally spraying and praying during the dances (as much as the flashes can keep up).
I have noticed that some seem to have a thing for shooting the dancing very heavily.
Unlike many, I do albums rather than just dump the pics in drop box or something so perhaps that gives me an insight others don't get. When people I work with are looking at what pics to put in a printed album, ie, their favourites that tell the story, they choose Very few Dance shots. Sure they have the bridal waltz and the couples dancing and the B&G with mum and dad or a grandparent, But as for anything after the formal dances, they just don't put them in. What I hear the majority of the time is they have been given heaps of shots like that by friends or that they have video of it and prefer that.
I don't do a lot of the dancing but what I do apart from the formal dances as such barely gets looked at because it's not a priority for the couples I shoot. For those that still do albums and cover the danceing with hundreds or thousands of pics, I'd be interested to see how many or what percentage of the albums feature pictures of the dancing?
Aside from the formal dancing of the B&G ( although that would be interesting to know, ) how many dancing pics would you do as a ballpark figure.
Culling 4100 images down to 750 takes me about an hour while watching YouTube/CL/TV/Music.
Firstly I'd have to say you'd leave me for dead at that rate.
Second thoughts are if you can do it so easily and with a degree of distraction, the pics you keep must really stand out and I would therefore think not at all be hard to time or predict when shooting them in the first place.
Despite the defensive rantings of those that feel threatened by timing the shots with their transparent ' get everything in one shot" retorts, the fact is a lot of the things of a wedding are relatively static and are predictable. I don't understand why people would need a whole bunch of pics of things like the ring exchange and cake cutting and a bunch of other things. The idiotic supposition of one shot is that, an idiotic defense but the things you do take mulitple pics of don't add up to the numbers many suggest nor are they so difficult to predict and catch a "moment" or the peak action many speak of.
Perhaps there is a lot more padding out in the dancing than what I realise but then again, when people say they take 50 Pics of one speech maker..... maybe not.
true but harsh.