# Formals



## elsaspet (Jul 5, 2006)

How many of you are still doing these?  I hate them to death.  I never get orders for them. (Prolly cause I hate them to death and it shows)
I just got so sick of seeing the bride and groom trying to cram everyone they ever met into one humongous group shot that a fisheye couldn't even capture.  Everyone's face was the size of a needle pin head, and even when I tried to zoom in at a zillion percent, I couldn't tell if eyes were opened or closed.
That was it for me.  I mean, besides the recession, procession, these are the least ordered shots bar none. (for me anyway)
So then, when I had meetings, I started to "pitch" against it, calling it old school and soforth, and really hammering it in how much reception time they are going to miss by calling up group shots of every second cousin twice removed.  Yeah, I have no problem with the immediate family and the full wedding party, but it gets to be ridiculous.
I'm happy to say, some of the ladies today, once you explain it to them, don't even want these stupid shots.  It's not like they are gonna hang it over their fireplace or anything.
Am I alone in this?  How many of you get orders off of these shots.  Am I missing the boat because I loathe this part of weddings?


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 5, 2006)

We do them, but we very much de-emphasize them.  About 5 weeks out from the date I email the bride a couple of different 'worksheets' to help us organize the timeline.  They're 'live' pdf documents that get automatically emailed back to us, and they explain that we usually do this certain (short) list of portraits, and we'd be happy to do any others they want, but just be aware that it's going to extend the portrait photography timeline considerably, etc.  Some brides ask for tons, some don't ask for any.  :shrug:  When we're shooting 1800 frames a wedding, a couple dozen more doesn't affect me much one way or another.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 5, 2006)

Also, to add on to my earlier thoughts...

When we started, we pushed hard that we had primarily a photjournalist style, mostly I think because that's just the current trend (no offense to pure pj shooters), but with some of the discussions I've had lately with other photogs and with Kelly about our business direction, we're starting to market more as no particular style, or if anything documentarian...I don't want us to be limited by a 'code' or anything.  I've seen some pj shooters who were so narrow minded that they had in their contracts that they would under no circumstances do any posed photography.  I'm certainly not knocking the pj style of wedding photography, in fact I love it.  I just think that if you limit yourself like that you're going to miss some spectactular photos.  Some of the others Kel and I got of that bride were 'lightly' posed, and are some of the best wedding photos we've ever taken.  If we were a pure pj style, they never would have happened.

To circle back to your original point though...the uber-traditional 'stand here, hands together left-over-right, smile, -click-.  Yeah those suck hard.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 6, 2006)

I can't see a big group shot being a big seller.  Maybe a nice addition to the album but probably not worth the effort it would take to get everyone into the shot.  To be really special, it would have to be a special circumstance.  Like if the wedding was in a remote location and these were the family & guests that made the effort to get there.  Stuff like that.

As for traditional posed formals...they seem to be the shots that get reproduced the most.  A formal shot of the B&G gets sent to a lot of the family.  The parents get a shot of them with the couple...or it's the "Bride's side" and "Groom's side" shots that get printed and given to parents & grandparents.  The shot of the wedding party all together is often a favorite of the couple and/or bride's maids & groom's men.  Individual couple shots of the wedding party are often popular as gifts.  Or shots of the bride and each of her maids individually.  

I'm mostly going from what I've seen of family weddings...of which there have been many.  (My wife has a big Ukrainian family)  

I do think that the more creative shots, like the stuff we so often see from you, Cindy, is much better than the standard "stand here" shots.  Creative shots like that are treasured by the couple but as for being enlarged, printed and displayed...it seems the family formal is seen much more often.  I think this will change over time...things can still be a little 'old school' around here...especially in a Ukrainian farming family.


----------



## markc (Jul 6, 2006)

While I hated doing them, I think at least a limited set of formals is a good idea: Wedding party, B&G, B&G + B parents, B&G + G parents, repeat with grandparents. Six formals isn't bad as a base. The rest depends on the couple.

I've only done a few weddings myself, but I liked to use a 6x7 for the formals. Three exposures of each of six poses goes on two rolls (might do three rolls worth), then I'm off with my SLR. I made it very clear that my style centered on candids. If they wanted a long list of formals, they were better off going with someone else.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 6, 2006)

If you don't do them I flat guarantee that within five weddings some one will be calling you unprofessional.  Unfortunately the bride and her family expect certain things, even if they don't want to pay for them.

I know I had more brides and groomes concerned about their wedding party shots than anything else.  Got to have my picture made with my posse' whatever that it.  This after they swore they could care less while we were doing the interview.

Leave aunt hilda from washington out, and you will hear about it guaranteed.  It don't matter that you have no idea who aunt hilda is, and that it was never discussed before.

I would have loved to go to a wedding just once and not have something pop up from the mouth of a bride's maid.  "Hey Picture man ain't you gonna do a shot of the bride with all our flowers on her train?"

"Why of course I am woman who is NOT paying me.  You set it up and I will squeeze it off."

I sure as heck didn't spend much time at it though.

Somebody push me off this soapbox please.


----------



## bigfatbadger (Jul 7, 2006)

(shoves mysteryscribe, steals soapbox, uses it to stand on whilst doing formal portraits at weddings)


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 7, 2006)

I used to swear i was going to take a three step ladder rather than take my shoes off to stand in a pew for those on stage shots....   Instead i bought the same dollar amount worth of new socks lol...


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 7, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> How many of you are still doing these?  I hate them to death.  I never get orders for them.



I'm still doing 'em.  Like Mike says, we print these the most.

I'll venture a GUESS why.  IN MY AREA (rural/suburbia), most of the area "weekend warriors" have pushed the PJ style.  The problem is they're not so good at it.  They lack any solid background in posing and lighting, so they profess that PJ is the way to go, and then deliver little more than snapshots.

Recently, a couple of brides told me they feel the trend is returning to the formal sytle.  This took me by surprise since I'm in the Midwest and it takes several years for ANY trend to filter here from the coasts.

Anyway, I still shoot formals and they DO end up above the fireplace.

I feel it's my job to do them.  THAT'S what I DO.  That's what separates me from all the guests with the Rebels.

Pete


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 7, 2006)

....excellent point...

We justified going 35mm by saying we can shoot more than just formals.  Back a million years ago, formals was about all you got.  When we went with the more versitle 35mm format we could shoot candids out the wazoo but every album included the formals as the basics.

I hear a lot about the photo journalism style and from what I have seen they are inspired snapshots a lot of the time.  Nobody I know ever hung a picture of the bride doing the electric slide over the fireplace.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 7, 2006)

The way I see it the problem...well not really problem, but maybe 'drawback' is a better word to a pj style is that you still almost always need a great location and very photogenic bride/groom with time on their own to have worthwhile shots.  Otherwise it's as mysteryscribe said...lots of the electric slide.


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 7, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> Yeah, I have no problem with the immediate family and the full wedding party, but it gets to be ridiculous.


I too have no problems with the immediate groups. But the never-ending extended family sessions can become boring. 

If you dislike it that much, consider hiring a second shooter who has experience in studio portraiture. Let him/her take care of it. Of course, they will be using your CF cards. I have seen traditional photographers who 'freelance' for several studios at a time.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 7, 2006)

So thats why my son in law keeps inviting me to weddings...


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 7, 2006)

There is no reason to do them at all when you have a certain client.  I'll take photos of the couple, posed.  No problem.  The immediate family, no trouble.
But if they want ten zillion formals, they are looking for another wedding photographer.
Sure I can do it.  Heck, I can do a lot of things.  But do I want to?  Does that sell MY art to my target client?  No.
Maybe formals work out for some of you.  Not for me.  The don't hire me to pose.  The hire me to catch a moment.  If someone could get it in a snapshot, there would be no reason to pay me.  If they put out that I was unprofessional, I wouldn't be doing 43 weddings in my first year, with bookings into the next.  I'm very professional.  Extremely so.  I just don't like formals.  And thank God, the brides I attract are pretty sick of the same old same old too.
There is someplace for everyone thank God.  
I do take offense at a few comments.  For instance that I am unprofessional.  I don't even know where to begin with that one.
I mean, where do I start?  Do we start swapping dollar amounts or what?
I get plenty of reprint biz, and no one ever has called me unprofessional.  Ever.  Half of my business is done on referral.  I've never met a bride yet who fell down and died because she didn't have a shot with Aunt Claura at the Alter.  But be sure, if she's wearing a flower, I have ten great shots of her in her NATURAL state.  This is what they order.
And the comment about weekend warriors.  What's funny is the weekend warriors calls me a weekend warrior.  I do this 7 days a week.  I do this 60 hours a week, and I know because I bill the time.  I sit in this damn chair until I think my head is going to fall off.  But I stay here, and I do the work, and I do it with a smile.  And beyond that, if anyone I know needs help, I'm right there.  No matter how many hours I've worked.
I wish I had a damn weekend.  No such luck.  
Weekend warrior?  Only if they spend the time I do on a project.
And equipment?  If anyone here has more equipment than I do, I will eat my hat.  I sold my HOME to move into a tiny apartment to pay for the stuff I have.  My husband SOLD HIS TRUCK.  I have about 40 k in equipment now, and it's because we struggled.  We worked our butts off.  We took every dollar we ever made and put it back in the business.  We sacrificed.
So in short, if I hear one more word from Mysteryscibe about not doing my time, or being a weekend warrior, I am going to go off.
I've bled for this.....have you?


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 8, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> There is no reason to do them at all when you have a certain client. I'll take photos of the couple, posed. No problem. The immediate family, no trouble.
> But if they want ten zillion formals, they are looking for another wedding photographer.
> Sure I can do it.  Heck, I can do a lot of things.  But do I want to?  Does that sell MY art to my target client?  No.
> Maybe formals work out for some of you. Not for me. The don't hire me to pose. The hire me to catch a moment. If someone could get it in a snapshot, there would be no reason to pay me. If they put out that I was unprofessional, I wouldn't be doing 43 weddings in my first year, with bookings into the next. I'm very professional. Extremely so. I just don't like formals. And thank God, the brides I attract are pretty sick of the same old same old too.
> ...



I've gone back through this thread a couple of times now, and all I can think is that I missed some stuff in other threads, because I didn't get a lot of what you did out of this thread.  Was any of this directed back at any of my comments?


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 8, 2006)

No.:hugs:   Just tired and grouchy I guess.  I was kinda stung by some of Mysteryscribes words, but I get like that sometimes.
Sorry for the tanty.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 8, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> And the comment about weekend warriors...



That was me.  Cindy...  above all, I first want to apologize if you thought I directed this comment toward you.  I have nothing but respect (maybe some envy) for you and your work.  I hope you know that.  You and your work have been my greatest inspiration in recent years.  So before I can even think about any more discussion on "formals," I have be sure you know how sorry I am if I offended you.

Pete


----------



## JamesD (Jul 8, 2006)

I was going to reply, but I don't think I'm going to now....


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 8, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> No.:hugs:   Just tired and grouchy I guess.  I was kinda stung by some of Mysteryscribes words, but I get like that sometimes.
> Sorry for the tanty.



No apologies necessary for the rant.  I don't think anyone was meaning to criticize your work (certainly not me...I think your work is spectacular).  I think the pj style is just so hard to quantify, that the line often blurs been mediocre pj and snapshot.  It's only when you come across a brilliant pj shooter that the style really comes into its own.  I'm nowhere near brilliant with the pj style (though I do think I'm pretty far above a snapshooter), so we rely on more of a hybrid style that's heavily pj, but still has posed and detail shots.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 8, 2006)

Let me join in... I didn't call you unprofessional at all... If you feel that I did I apologize. This is what I said 

"If you don't do them I flat guarantee that within five weddings some one will be calling you unprofessional. "


and I meant if you don't do formals at all... That was the feeling I had from you post maybe erroneously I often do that... 

Again I'm sorry if I offended you I did not do it intentionally. Nobody likes to stand in a church shooting endless friends of the bride... I personally have never been able to say no at the wedding. If you can I have great respect for you.

Again Im sorry if you feel that way and congradulations of the high number of weddings your first year.

by the way in addition the inspired snapshot wasnt meant for anyone in particular and I havent seen enough of your work to just YOU personally the comment was

I hear a lot about the photo journalism style and from what I have seen they are inspired snapshots a lot of the time. 

Please not the alot of the time not all the time.... and if youi haven't seen shots from weddings by others here that meet that criteria then I guess I'm the only one..

Again I'm sorry I offended you .


----------



## Alison (Jul 8, 2006)

Formals. Ugh. Mostly.

I find the request/desire for formals shots really depends on the region you work in. In Minnesota where I used to live the majority of couple saw each other before the ceremony and formals were done then. I actually really liked this rather than the rush after the ceremony which is typical here in NH. We did a shoot in MN last year and the formals were a ton of fun...we did the wedding party, all the individual shots with the bride and her maids, etc. We got a ton of reprint orders because she gave one to each of her bridal party.

Most weddings we keep the formals to under a half hour after the ceremony. We start with the whole wedding party and then dismiss them. Then do the family, dismiss them. They we are left with just the couple and that's some nice time. 

That beind said. you're a member of the WPJA Cindy and I can't imagine your client base wants a lot of formals. In our business we have to offer quite a bit, it's what they expect. Aubrey is the "formal" guy and I usually get non posed shots while he does them. 

But really they can be fun!


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 11, 2006)

Again, I just want to apologize for jumping down people's throats.  I do that sometimes when I read things when I'm too tired to really take the time to sit down and mull over things that are said.
I really appreciate all the kind words you guys.  
I guess I get ansy on the PJ vs Traditional thing.  Dang, there are so many great ones out there in both genres as well as so many crap ones.
Pete, I love you like crazy and know you never meant any harm.  Mystery, I do appreciate the apology.  I hope you will accept mine as well.  Like I said, tired and grouchy.......
Hugs to all.
Cindy


----------



## bigfatbadger (Jul 11, 2006)

Can I ask elsapet, when you started doing weddings, did you start out doing formals and move towards a PJ style, or is that always how you've done it?

I only ask because I can imagine that getting the formals is quite 'safe' in that you know you have some good shots that people will like, but probably not those great ones that you get from a PJ style. I can imagine though that I wouldn't have the confidence straight away to be sure whether or not I had great shots without doing formals?

Does that make sense?


----------



## Reverend (Jul 11, 2006)

Personally, I really like the dialogue here (with obvious exception to the comment that offended elsaspet). I like to hear about how people feel about what they're doing....what they're tired of, and what they really love about the job.


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 11, 2006)

Hi,
No actually I was a wireservice photojournalist when I got into the wedding thing, so I was already kinda "poisoned" against making people pose.  It was a huge no-no.
Later, when I started doing weddings, I realized that I might have done reasonable well at wire BECAUSE I simply suck at posing.  Not only do I suck at it, it has always just held a velveta factor for me.  I grew up in a house filled with icky chain studio family shots, and I always hated them.  When I married my husband, I ended up with these funny formal things, and my kiddos laughed and said how weird I looked.  I did look weird.  I had that standard "smile for the camera/let's get this over with" look, that I've seen a zillion times now.  But at that time, I didn't know the about PJ wedding folks, or the differences between editorial wedding photography, formal, traditional, splits, or any of the rest.
I think there can be a happy medium for the bride as well as the photographer, which is simply to limit the number of formal shots.  Again, mainly because I am a PJ/editorial wedding photographer, I don't have a slew of brides coming to me for family formals.  I "pitch" myself as a photographer that will capture their day.  If there is someone important to them, I want them to be sure to put a flower on them.  I'll make sure anytime that flower wearing person is anywhere near the bride or groom, I'll have dozens of shots.  Sometimes they don't even know I'm there, so I get all these great laughter shots, or tearful shots of them with their very special guest.  Or a big hug.  In other words, this neat natural moment, that can't really be captured crammed into an altar with 45 of their closest relatives.  When I meet with a client, I explain this to them.  And then I show them my very best attempts at altar photography.  Then I show them the "moments".  It's amazing what a difference it makes when you show them the difference, because..........they grew up in a house with the same velveta group shots........and they might not know the difference either.
This is not in any way intended to offend portrait/formal wedding photographers.  Many brides love that type of work.  To them it's traditional, a passing down of generations.  I'm just trying to give the PJ bride some options.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 11, 2006)

OK...  I'm ready to jump back in.  

I would find it helpful if we could have a definition of "formals."  The vast majority of the formals I do are not at the alter...  preferably not in the church.  As for group shots, I do the wedding party and then the two families.

So while I do make a lot of "formals," I seldom get roped into doing a cattle call at the alter (although it has happened).  I'm really happy when I get to have the couple for two ten-minutes sessions during the day, either outdoors or with some good window light.  That's when I make the best composed and best selling formals.  It's a nice, comfortable situation for me.  I know just what light I want and have a loose idea of poses to run through.  Every couple is different, so I am watching for something unique.  I don't want to do cookie cutter work.  I do like the control I have, away from all the noise and guests.

I will not do table shots.

I will not set up a "photo booth" situation at the reception, availing myself to anyone who wants a photo.

If I see things start to get out of hand, I'll pack it all up and put it out of sight.  I figure I'm there working for the bride and groom, and when I feel I've finished my job, I'm leaving.  Folks pay me a decent dollar for a family portrait.  I'm not going to do this on demand of a wedding guest.  If they've very insistant, I'll ask them what size print they want and quote them a price.  It always works.

Cindy, you're making some wonderful bridal formals.

Like I say....  a definition may be in order.

Pete


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 12, 2006)

Yeah Pete, that would prolly help, LOL.

(The following are just my interpretations of course):

Engagement Shoot=Funky Date Photos.  

Bridals=Glam Shoots. Editorial in Nature (Editorial being set up, but attempting to look natural)

Wedding Shoot=Editorial on Details/Strickly Candid in all other regards

Formals=That Godawful pile of people photographed in groups, right before or after the ceremony, shot at altar of somewhere on church premises.  The ones we try to get the tall guys in the back, and the kiddo up front.  The ones that have a crapload of cousins in it.


----------



## Alison (Jul 12, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> Yeah Pete, that would prolly help, LOL.
> 
> (The following are just my interpretations of course):
> 
> ...



 Cindy you crack my up. I think Aubrey and I need to renew our vows so we can hire you to do some "funky date photos" :mrgreen:


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 12, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> Bridals=Glam Shoots. Editorial in Nature (*Editorial being set up, but attempting to look natural*)
> 
> Wedding Shoot=Editorial on Details/Strickly Candid in all other regards



So _that's_ what editorial means??  Huh, I've been trying to figure that out for a long time!


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 12, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> ...(Editorial being set up, but attempting to look natural)



ahhhh...  and there it is.

THAT'S what I call a good "formal," or any GOOD portrait.  All the control...  content, lighting, etc., but looking natural...  maybe posed, but not looking forced or contrived.  Maybe just setting the stage and then bringing in the "actors."

That's why I say you make some very nice bridal "formals."

I would like to do the same with couples and group formals.  Time dosen't always allow, but THAT'S my aim.

Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 12, 2006)

Alison said:
			
		

> Cindy you crack my up. I think Aubrey and I need to renew our vows so we can hire you to do some "funky date photos" :mrgreen:




I don't think I know what "funky date photos" are.  Does it require afro haircuts and bellbottoms with wide belts?


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 12, 2006)

LOL.  No Pete, but that would be ultra cool!!!!!! 
It usually does have some measure of Urban Acid in there though. Hehe.


----------



## markc (Jul 12, 2006)

Yeah, for me, formals are posed, and obviously so. That's why they are "formal". It doesn't have to do with the clothing or where they are taken. In the old days, that's the only way they could do it, since the exposures were so long. Formals don't look natural, and that's fine for what they are. They just aren't my taste.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 12, 2006)

YOu did not need to apolgize. It was a simple misunderstanding and I'm sorry. 

I have a little story about being called unprofessional if you will allow me. When I first stated I had a rule. I bought and carried enough film for what I contracted to do and two more rolls which I usually shot on candid stuff. This is 120 and I wasn't exactly rich at the time.

I went to the wedding shot all the "formals" and all the reception. I shot my last two exposures on the limo pulling out around ten. About that time the bride's mother walked up and said, "I would like for you to shoot a picture of my mother and me."

"I'm sorry I don't have any more film. The wedding is over and I shot my last frame on the limo."

"What kind of photographer are you. It is very unprofessional of you to not bring enough film."

"I brought enough film for the job I contracted for, I just didn't bring enough for what I didn't contract to do." The only reason I felt so brave was, I already had her money.

Over thirty years I have been accused of that a half dozen times and it's almost always when I can't shoot the extra pictures they want for some reason. Or I was outside having a cigaretter when some guest thought I should be inside watching them do the electric slide.

Just coming at it from different directions is all. Sorry again that I offended you.

For mark: You are right at one time you only got a hand full of wedding pictures but that was long before even my time.  When I did it, I did it because it was what people paid for, if you refused to shoot the traditional pictures you didn't work.  At the end people swore they didn't want them but I still spent twenty to thirty minutes in the church after as the list of shots the didn't want grew and grew as the brides and the families kept adding to them.  It's why I always just planned to go ahead and shoot them.  I never had anyone complain about the twenty minutes it took me to do it.

But again that was then this is now.

I still think the comments I made were valid. I did not mean them to to be taken personally by anyone at all, but in my experience they are valid.  You almost have to shoot at least some formal shots.  

As for other people, they have other experiences I am sure and their opinions are also valid.  However it is hard for anyone of us to comment from anything but our own experiences.

I always enjoy discussions here whether I agree or disagree but i respect eveyones opinion.  One more time I am sorry Cindy I meant no disrespect.  Just an old man with a totally different set of experiences.


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 13, 2006)

All is good Mysterscribe.  (Hug).  I appreciate you taking the time to tell me about the "why".
I must say however, if you've only gotten a handful of nuts in the last 30 years, you are way ahead of the game!
I HATE dealing with MOB in most cases.  They call me looking for "just one more photo" of Aunt Harriet or whoever.  What they forget, IMHO is that this is the kid's wedding.  
Just a few weeks ago, I got one of these requests, but of more photos of Mom and Dad dancing.  I'd already given them a handful of them.  I individually process each photo, so I cull the very best, and really work them up.....so not feeling like going back to RAW files and dealing with the whole thing all over again, I said, "Nope.  That' all there is".  She thanked me, and told me she was very happy with the photos.....but went on to inform me that the day after the wedding, Dad had a heart attack and might not make it, so the photos I'd taken were the last ones.  I can't tell you how bad that made me feel to not have gone back for a few more.
On the other hand, I would have never had that attitude in the first place had wedding guests an soforth had not abused my wedding time with the b&g in the past.  I've had one flower girls mom call me at 10 pm at night to ask if I could go back and touch up a small scar on the kiddos arm.  It's crazy sometimes.  And I could go on and on about the crazy requests I get from brides.....some of which I have posted on this forum.
In short I guess what I am trying to say is I think there are always going to be some nuts out there who expect much more than we should ever be expected to deliver.  At the same time, it's implosible for me to sit down and process the 10,000 + images that I take during an average 8 hour wedding between the shots that I and my assistants take.  Unless it's an off month, I have only 7 days (and sometimes less if it's a two wedding weekend) to crank out 500-800 totally retouched photos, a big a$$ photo album, and a slideshow.....trying all the while to whip in some bridals or engagements as well.
It's a hell of a lot of work, which I honestly think most clients don't understand at all.  They have this idea that you hit the shutter and the camera just spits out this wonderful image.  But that's a whole other deal.  Here I am, highjacking my own thread. LOL.
Again, I appreciate your words, and your reasoning.  But at the same time, I don't think we should change the way we work to stave off the occassional nutcase.
Hugs to you.
Cindy


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 13, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> ...process the 10,000 + images that I take during an average 8 hour wedding between the shots that I and my assistants take.




:stun: 


I shot film for more than 25 years.  When I stopped (about 3 years ago) it was costing me $1 every time I tripped the shutter.  I had to become very "efficient" in shooting.  Now I'm having a hard time breaking out of my old mindset.  I don't think I COULD make 500 exposures at a single wedding.  Maybe I need therepy.

Now, I have to ask....  why not make 1000 exposures and edit down to 800?  That would be 1/10 the work, both at the wedding and the computer.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 13, 2006)

Absolutely right. every photographer has to draw the line somewhere.  Where we draw it is just a matter of how we set up our business and our experiences with it.

And the worst comments are the ones you never hear lol.  When she is talking to her girl friend at work.  "Can you believe he wore a field jacket to MY wedding."  That wasn't me by the way but a comment my wife brought home about another wedding.

Well good luck to you and have fun.  And remember this about the stress, I had five wives over that time period.  Probably not a record, but way too many.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 13, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> :stun:


Ya, me too...that is a lot of images.

I recall that someone also said that they use up to 10 gigs of memory for a typical wedding. :stun:

I guess, the 'PJ' style dictates that you take lots and lots of photos because that 'perfect moment' is very fleeting and you want to do all you can to catch it.

In my limited experience, I also tend to think like I did when I was shooting film...Wait for the moment and take one or two exposures at what I think is the best moment.  Or try to create the moment...not necessarily with directions but just by being there with the camera (if you know what I mean).

Everyone has their own style and technique...if shooting 10,000 images works for you...more power to you.  Who knows, I may well develop my style into something similar if it works for me too.


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 13, 2006)

LOL Mysteryscribe.  You sound like me.  My dad says I'm gonna have to buy acreage to be buried next to all my exes.
Pete.  I know.  I hear ya.  But the deal is, my teachers are telling me otherwise.  You can't catch that perfectly glistening tear when your camera is not at your eyeball.
Also, knowing personally, that I have to take several thousands of photos on my own, makes me work harder, and look harder for things to shoot.  Normally, this is where my better little gems come from.  It makes me think about new and different things, because believe me, when you are shooting almost as many frames as the video dude, it gets old after the last umpteenth wedding.  I go out an start looking for angles, and cool light and stuff.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 13, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Ya, me too...that is a lot of images.
> 
> I recall that someone also said that they use up to 10 gigs of memory for a typical wedding. :stun:


 We carry 22G of memory to every wedding.  Of that we typically use anywhere from 13-15G.  Of course we're shooting RAW so every time we trip the shutter it's about 10M.  A 1G card holds less than 90 frames.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 13, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> Pete.  I know.  I hear ya.  But the deal is, my teachers are telling me otherwise.  You can't catch that perfectly glistening tear when your camera is not at your eyeball.



I sure hope I don't sound argumentative.  I just want to understand.  

I do have the camera up and ready...  I'm just not shooting the entire time.  I wait for the "tear."  I too look for the the nice lighting, the cool angle.  But I shoot after I've found it.

I really can't imagine 1000 images at one event.  10K is just completely out of my mind's grasp.

Oh well.


----------



## markc (Jul 13, 2006)

When I shoot, I don't rely on one shot for each situation. Say someone is standing by the window and the light is catching them just right. I won't just snap one or two; I'll run off a string of them, each a little different. I did this when I shot film, too. Something as simple as a blink can kill a shot, and with SLRs, that's hard to watch for. If it's a really good situation, I may run off a dozen or more. There are many times when I can't do this, and I've gotten great shots when it's been the only one to choose from, but if given the option, I'll take the insurance. To some people this will sound like a shotgun approach, but for me, it's about choices once I get them into the "darkroom". I shoot shallow DOF, so being just slightly off can mess up an image. It sometimes takes quite a few shots to get all of the variables to line up just right. You can end up with some happy surprises or different takes on a theme, too.


----------



## AprilRamone (Jul 13, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> It's a hell of a lot of work, which I honestly think most clients don't understand at all. They have this idea that you hit the shutter and the camera just spits out this wonderful image. But that's a whole other deal.


 
Yes!  I totally have this potential client who called me and was all worried and up in arms about how the photographer friend of their daughter's backed out of doing her wedding photography.  He had originally quoted them $800 and I quoted them $750.  They have about 2 weeks to find somebody and then I get this email from the dad trying to get me to lower my price since this is my "first real wedding" and also $70 an hour was a little high.  
What?  I don't know how he figured that it'd be $70 an hour since the post processing takes me just as much time as the actual time at the wedding and it really will end up being around $25 an hour.  
I had to explain to him that the post-processing is a lot of work and that they are also getting a cd with all of the images with permission to print on their own.  Also, I never told them that it was my first wedding so I don't know how they got that impression.  So annoying! 
Ugh...guess we'll see how it goes!


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 14, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> I sure hope I don't sound argumentative. I just want to understand.
> 
> I do have the camera up and ready... I'm just not shooting the entire time. I wait for the "tear." I too look for the the nice lighting, the cool angle. But I shoot after I've found it.
> 
> ...


 
No, it's something Huy is trying to teach me.... (He's the WPJA photog of the year, and rippingly great).  He's been letting me assist him when I have spare time, and basically how he has me working it, is not only keep that camera to the eye, but go low-shoot, make circles around the subject looking for lighting-shooting....keep moving, keep shooting.  Look for cool backgrounds, trying different aps...shoot, shoot, shoot.
He's got some wickedly great stuff by doing this.
http://www.f8studio.com/f8/html/viewHuy.html
Now keep in mind, I don't process all this, just the 500 or so top pics.  Besides, it's not like I have anything else going on at a wedding....so I keep shooting.
But I hear ya.  There are two very separate schools in this subject.  One school says just shoot what's great, and the other school is to keep looking, moving, shooting.
It's all good.  Nothings wrong if it works, eh?


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 14, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> When I shoot, I don't rely on one shot for each situation. Say someone is standing by the window and the light is catching them just right. I won't just snap one or two; I'll run off a string of them, each a little different. I did this when I shot film, too. Something as simple as a blink can kill a shot, and with SLRs, that's hard to watch for. If it's a really good situation, I may run off a dozen or more. There are many times when I can't do this, and I've gotten great shots when it's been the only one to choose from, but if given the option, I'll take the insurance. To some people this will sound like a shotgun approach, but for me, it's about choices once I get them into the "darkroom". I shoot shallow DOF, so being just slightly off can mess up an image. It sometimes takes quite a few shots to get all of the variables to line up just right. You can end up with some happy surprises or different takes on a theme, too.


 
Totally agree Mark!


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 14, 2006)

AprilRamone said:
			
		

> Yes! I totally have this potential client who called me and was all worried and up in arms about how the photographer friend of their daughter's backed out of doing her wedding photography. He had originally quoted them $800 and I quoted them $750. They have about 2 weeks to find somebody and then I get this email from the dad trying to get me to lower my price since this is my "first real wedding" and also $70 an hour was a little high.
> What? I don't know how he figured that it'd be $70 an hour since the post processing takes me just as much time as the actual time at the wedding and it really will end up being around $25 an hour.
> I had to explain to him that the post-processing is a lot of work and that they are also getting a cd with all of the images with permission to print on their own. Also, I never told them that it was my first wedding so I don't know how they got that impression. So annoying!
> Ugh...guess we'll see how it goes!


 
That happened to me on my very first gig.  Keep in mind, when I met the gal, she drove up in a Porche and was wearing what looked like a 40K ring.  This girl wasn't hurting for money, and she had GREAT venues.  I was dying to get the job, and gave her the pricing on my 8 hour shooting package.  She calls me back a few days later and tells me I got the job, to send her the contract which I do.  (I had plugged in the dollar amount that we had agreed on).
Her fiance, an attorney calls me and no kidding says, "Hi, I am XXX, and I'm an attorney and XXX's fiance."   Ummm ok.....  I felt like saying, "I'm Cindy, and I'm a photographer", but I let it go.
Then he tells me that he will only need me for 6 hours, and starts breaking down my pricing according to hours of shooting time.  I try to explain to him that the hours are just on shooting.  Mr. Attorney couldn't grasp the fact.  I told him ok, fine.  No book, no processing, no slideshows......I'll give him a bunch of cards to download in RAW, and he can handle it himself.   Unfathoming, he tells me that he has problems with the contract.  He doesn't want to feed me, he wants me to release my copyright, he wants me to give him a money back garantee if it rains, and he doesn't want to pay me until he sees the photos.    I told him to rip of the contract and find someone else.  Keep in mind this was my very first gig and very hard to do, but I can't imagine the nightmare I would have faced (at a discount no less) if I would have taken the job.


----------



## markc (Jul 14, 2006)

Sounds like a smart move to me.

And yeah, it's not like I process every frame. Even when I did film, it was nothing like $1 a frame. I either used cd images or 4x6s as proofs before I did anything. I've only done a couple of weddings though, so most of the time I was scanning myself and just used the neg as a proof.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 14, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> That happened to me on my very first gig. Keep in mind, when I met the gal, she drove up in a Porche and was wearing what looked like a 40K ring. This girl wasn't hurting for money, and she had GREAT venues. I was dying to get the job, and gave her the pricing on my 8 hour shooting package. She calls me back a few days later and tells me I got the job, to send her the contract which I do. (I had plugged in the dollar amount that we had agreed on).
> Her fiance, an attorney calls me and no kidding says, "Hi, I am XXX, and I'm an attorney and XXX's fiance." Ummm ok..... I felt like saying, "I'm Cindy, and I'm a photographer", but I let it go.
> Then he tells me that he will only need me for 6 hours, and starts breaking down my pricing according to hours of shooting time. I try to explain to him that the hours are just on shooting. Mr. Attorney couldn't grasp the fact. I told him ok, fine. No book, no processing, no slideshows......I'll give him a bunch of cards to download in RAW, and he can handle it himself. Unfathoming, he tells me that he has problems with the contract. He doesn't want to feed me, he wants me to release my copyright, he wants me to give him a money back garantee if it rains, and he doesn't want to pay me until he sees the photos. I told him to rip of the contract and find someone else. Keep in mind this was my very first gig and very hard to do, but I can't imagine the nightmare I would have faced (at a discount no less) if I would have taken the job.


Isn't it ironic that the rich ones are the ones that are usually nitpicking about every little nickel and dime thing? We had a wedding earlier this year in one of the ritziest country clubs in the city...$15K just for the application fee to this place. They gave us lunchmeat sandwiches way in the back corner of the room, as far out of sight as they could without actually putting us in the kitchen.


----------



## AprilRamone (Jul 14, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> That happened to me on my very first gig.  I told him to rip of the contract and find someone else. Keep in mind this was my very first gig and very hard to do, but I can't imagine the nightmare I would have faced (at a discount no less) if I would have taken the job.


 
Sounds to me like you did the right thing too.  I'm glad this wasn't my first wedding because I may have been tempted to bow down to this gentleman's demands, but thankfully, I have done some event photography and I know now how much time it really eats so I wasn't willing to just lower my price right off the bat.  I calmly wrote him back and said that I understood wanting to get a good deal but explained that he really was getting a good deal and that I was only willing to go down a little based on the hours we were cutting off of the contract.  Now it sounds like he is pleased and everything should be ok  It's hard to remember that to the average person photography seems overpriced since no one really understands the amount of work that really goes into it.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 15, 2006)

elsaspet said:
			
		

> ...I told him to rip of the contract and find someone else.



You should have billed him for the phone call.  You can bet he does.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 16, 2006)

I find most people don't want to take forever for the wedding day formal portraits, so I suggest to them to keep it to an hour or less.  Then I emphasize that while I can work quickly, creative posed portraits take time, and if their list is too long (more than the B & G, wedding party, and their immediate family members) we will be reduced to "line up and say cheese."  Some folks are fine with that; they want "line up and say cheese" because that's what's in their mom's wedding album.  I tell the B & G that there will be opportunities for extended family and big group photos at the reception.  People are having fun and are more relaxed, and have big, real real smiles on their faces.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 16, 2006)

As a follow up to matt... 

I always found I could run the whole family at the alter in 30 minutes max... Honest Im not kidding... Also I had problems ever shooting groups at the reception.  They always wanted the church background and I didn't really blame them....


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 16, 2006)

I think an important part of being successful in anything is knowing your own limitations.  I know I do a better job if I take a few minutes to really look and think about what I am doing.  Speed is important, and I have been forced many times by late wedding parties to get it done in 1/2 an hour or less, but give me an hour, and I'll deliver much more exciting portraits.  I find most brides understand me when I say that the difference between good wedding portraits, and WOW!!! wedding portraits is just a little more time, or not trying to do too much in the time we have.  If they don't understand me, they usually can see the difference in my portfolio.  The line-up-and-say-cheese shots are fine, but it's the posed portraits that I took more time with that always get the comments. 

My normal list has 15 groupings on it, plus assorted shots of the B & G.  Assuming everyone is on time, and cooperating (ha ha ha!  whoever heard of that happening at a wedding?), I'll spend 15 min with the B & G, and 45 min with the B & G, wedding party, and immediate family.  That's only 3 min per pose.  It takes 2 minutes just for Grandma to get to the altar!  I could probably go faster if I had an assistant, but for now I'm working solo.

Many churches around here will only let me photograph in the church from 1.5 hours before to 0.5 hours after the ceremony.  The extended family doesn't want to show up 2 hours early to get ready to have their photo taken, and after the festivities of the ceremony exit I'm lucky if I've got 10 min left before the church lady starts chewing my leg off.  Besides, the B & G will have forgotten to tell the extended family that the limo drive off is staged, and that they will be sneaking in the back for more photos, so much of the extended family will run off to the reception, and we'll be taking their portraits there anyway.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 16, 2006)

You are exactly right, Every place and every photographer is in fact different... It's why customers shop around.  Sorta like shoes have to find the right fit at the right price.  All things are like that I suppose.


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 17, 2006)

This is exactly why I tell the client the fastest I can move on formals is 5 minutes per setup. 10 formals=25 minutes, 20=40 minutes ect......then say, "The amount of formals is the amount of time you will miss at your reception". I'm not taking the heat later when everyone is griping about the wait time. Normally, I have 5 set ups or under. Otherwise it would be a freaking free for all up there at the alter (which is like the longest decade of my life at these shindigs).


----------

