# How many photos on average do you take at a wedding?



## shorty6049

Just had a conversation with someone about photos. Hes a wedding photographer , and said he takes around 3000 photos per wedding. just wondering how many everyone else takes on average?


----------



## MichaelT

I try to get about 300 good ones, usually edit down to 250.  You can sure tell he's not making proofs!


----------



## Peanuts

Err... I think on my last shoot I took 2000. Wee bit trigger happy there!  They got around 300 completely edited images on disc though.  (This was my cousin's wedding, on average I would prefer to actually provide more)


----------



## THORHAMMER

If im shooting with a second shooter along, its entirely possible to get 2700-3000 , with an asistant, about 2300 in an 8 hour event depending on if he shoots a little too. 

I pick out the 300 - 400 - 600 whatever best ones (depending on which package they buy) and only edit them for proofs,
 but I have the janky ones of aunt carol sneezing in case they wanted it, I just dont flag it as a pick in lightroom. 

I just took a 2400 shot wedding down to 700 shots that are all processed and ready to go, took about 10 hours, it sucked, but you find ways to be more efficient, (lightroom (hint hint. ))

If I am alone and I shoot more then 1600 in 8 hours, then I know im machine gunning a little too much. But thats just me, some people just shoot more shots. theres no right and no wrong. also If your manning 2 cameras it changes things too.


----------



## Garbz

Last wedding I took 600 the backup took 400. We delivered about 200 in the final cut.


----------



## jols

bout 600 taken 100 shown to the bride and groom


----------



## emogirl

600 ish, edited down by half for presentation to the couple. they never see the bad stuff.


----------



## jstuedle

I don't do weddings anymore, but 3000 does not sound way out of line for digital. (Though at that rate your shutter will fail in 50-100 weddings) When I shot film at weddings, 30-36 36 exposure rolls were not unheard of. A friend until very recently shot Blads in 220 film and would shoot 18 - 24 rolls. A lot for medium format but he did a lot of PJ style extra shooting. Digital makes it easier and cheaper, so frame rates go up substantially.


----------



## JIP

I think it depends on the gear you use.  If you use a slower body you might not take as many images as some of the eople who say thry shoot 3000+ images alot of wich might be multiple fast shots of the same scene.  To me with an average body, shooting 1-2 shots of most scenes set-up or not 300-500 images is a good range for your average wedding.


----------



## teachflute

I just finished processing my last wedding.  Between my assistant and myself we took 2025 shots.  It was a full 12 hour day.  I started at 10 a.m. with the bride and bridesmaids getting their hair done and ended at 10 p.m. when the couple left in the limo.


----------



## S2K1

I've only done a few weddings, one as a backup, but I say I average around 800 shots and I usually whittle it down to around half that if I know them(friends) or 200 if they're a regular client.


----------



## GHP

Gads!  3000+/-?
Think of the editing!
I shoot about 300 editing down to 80 that I present.  I find that if they get any more than that they have so much trouble choosing that the process becomes onerous.  More is not better.
Having a zillion candids from the reception is just a waste of time and batteries.  Very few reception shots are ever purchased.  Focus your energy and talents where the money is but provide some fun, candid and other shots more to balance out the wedding.


----------



## jols

GHP said:


> Gads! 3000+/-?
> Think of the editing!
> I shoot about 300 editing down to 80 that I present. I find that if they get any more than that they have so much trouble choosing that the process becomes onerous. More is not better.
> Having a zillion candids from the reception is just a waste of time and batteries. Very few reception shots are ever purchased. Focus your energy and talents where the money is but provide some fun, candid and other shots more to balance out the wedding.


 

i agree  3000 photos how many are dumped within the first hour of processing i wonder?


----------



## Big Mike

> Having a zillion candids from the reception is just a waste of time and batteries. Very few reception shots are ever purchased.


If you are making your money by selling prints, then yes, it would certainly be better to concentrate on shots that will sell.  

However, many of the people that are shooting 3000 shots, are not selling prints for the bulk of their income.  Part of their service may be that they supply 700 (or however many) images on CD/DVD.  They have probably charged for this service, up front.  

A photographer that I work with/for...wanted me to shoot 100 images an hour...which I thought was ridiculous.  I prescribe to quality over quantity...but there are times when you can still let'r rip and shoot like crazy


----------



## N'Kolor

At my first wedding I shot just over 700 and that was a 6 hr event.  I whittled it down to 188 after it was all done.  The main shooter shot about the same quantity and I don't have any idea how many he worked it down to.


----------



## nicfargo

3000 seems a bit high for me personally.  I do photo-journalistic but 3000 shots almost seems like you're filming the darn thing...just kidding.  I think when you start out you shoot a lot more.  You then start to learn the pace of a wedding and where you need to be and what you need to shoot and what you don't.  I've heard this is how it is for most people...especially with digital.  Shooting film, this may be opposite because a newbie would be concerned about spending so much on film.  Who knows.  As long as you get enough shots that you can present the B&G and they are happy, then you did a good job.


----------



## eravedesigns

I usually do like 5,000 between me and my two assistants. I found that it may be a bit much but what it comes down to is making sure you get every single moment the bride and groom want to see in print.


----------



## skieur

I find that the type of wedding has a lot to do with it, too.  At one extreme I remember the small wedding with the triangle sandwiches and no liquor where it was really tough trying to get interesting shots. At the other extreme was the joyous celebration with several cultures and traditions involved.

skieur


----------



## uberben

I think Tony is referring to me in this post. . .

Most of my weddings are all day events. So I show up at 8-9am for the hair and make up and pretty much hang with them untill the dance is over.  So sometimes that means a 8am to midnight shoot.  I always have 2 cameras on me and my wife(second shooter) has 2 camera's on her.  I subscribe to the photo-journalistic style of photography and hate sitting around when I could be shooting small stuff.  Some of my best shots have been from off the cuff candid stuff.  I bring a rediculas amount of CF to my gigs, so I just shoot all day. I have 6 camera's and I upgrade annually as the older ones get higher in the click count.  I have never worried about the few grand a year in upgrading bodies when that investment makes more then 10 times over its lifetime. Plus you can sell it for cheap to someone getting into photography and they are stoked about scoring a deal.

Digitial is a freedom for us and why not embrace it.  I have a super dialed workflow and get get a wedding done in 6-10 hours of processing and editing.  Lightroom is the best thing to happen to Wedding photogs since the digital DSLR.

Mike is right. . . I don't make much if any money on actual prints. I sell my services and my goal is to document the day.  Most of my print prices are only 20% above cost and that is to cover my costs of using pictage.


----------



## Mike_E

When I do weddings I make sure that I have the shots I intended to get and fill with X number per location to assure I'll have the number I've said I would present.  And then I shoot for fun- whatever I get out of this is just a bonus.

I don't care to process over 600 though. (unless of course the money's right! )


----------



## shorty6049

yea, i was referring to you Ben,
i just cant fathom taking 3000 photos in one day, or owning enough CF cards to fit it all. Thats why I don't do weddings right now though.


----------



## Rhys

I did a wedding not long ago and got through 540 photos. I was concentrating on quality rather than quantity - they were all flash as the ceremony and reception were held in a candle-lit sports hall after dark.


----------



## uberben

Rhys said:


> I did a wedding not long ago and got through 540 photos. I was concentrating on quality rather than quantity - they were all flash as the ceremony and reception were held in a candle-lit sports hall after dark.



That sounds like a blackhole of a venue.


----------



## uberben

shorty6049 said:


> yea, i was referring to you Ben,
> i just cant fathom taking 3000 photos in one day, or owning enough CF cards to fit it all. Thats why I don't do weddings right now though.



Technically, its both my wife and I. So its happen's pretty easily if you just get into a groove.


----------



## shorty6049

yea, i'm sure you'd get used to it pretty fast. The most i've done was a 4 hour event where i took around 200 shots, and they only needed 2 or 3 probably so it didnt matter how many good ones i got really. as long as you get results (and i know you do) thats all that really matters


----------



## Rhys

uberben said:


> That sounds like a blackhole of a venue.



Yup - no chance of bounce flash at all. I had to use direct flash and found the 30D and 420EX liked to underexpose by a stop and a half that way!


----------



## RyanLilly

I just took about 275 as a guest at a wedding, I really had to "ration" my exposures because thats all the memory I brought with me. If I had brought more, I would have spent too much time clicking and not enough time with my friends. I've never shot a wedding though I could imagine taking 700-800 for the ceremony and reception.


----------



## raider

864,000 for an 8 hour wedding.  i shoot video as well.  photo - i usually end up having no more than 100 per hour for the couple - little more exposures - i really watch framing and composition, so a lot of them end up being presentable.


----------



## jols

864,000

eight hundred and sixty four thousand.

did i read that right?


----------



## kmarie

jols said:


> 864,000
> 
> eight hundred and sixty four thousand.
> 
> did i read that right?



LOL, I think he's talking about video....in video you get 30 frames per second (I shoot video too).  Sooooo:

30 frames x 60 seconds = 1,800 frames for 1 minute
1,800 frames x 60 minutes = 108,000 frames for 1 hour
108,000 frames x 8 hours = 864,000 frames for 8 hours of video


----------



## Dubious Drewski

Recently, I've been forcing myself to be much more deliberate with my shooting. I did a 3 hour show recently and fired 450 shots - and I thought that was too much.  I think it's a desirable skill to be able to fire your shots to capture the moment without having to hold down the shutter at 8fps.

Maybe I'm alone on this though.


----------



## droyz2000

Normally I will shoot around 800 and edit it down to 600 in camera. A lot of times you know a shot was crap right from the start because of one reason or another. No need to look at tons of pictures with eyes closed. I then edit down to around 200 or so that I let the bride and groom see.


----------



## Christie Photo

Big Mike said:


> I (sub)scribe to quality over quantity...



It's hard for me to do anything but.  I've tried to shoot more, but can't seem to bring myself to make 10 exposures in the hope of achieving one.  Maybe it's my film roots, when I would shoot about 160 and show 140.  It may be my desire to shoot only in good lighting.

My last time out, my helper and I shot a total of 450 or so, and I fount THAT hard.  

Last year, I attended a wedding as a guest.  I could hear the photographer in the loft shoot more than a dozen exposures of one of the readers during the ceremony...  in a matter of seconds.  I can see where that would add up quickly.  Six or seven years ago, that would be an entire roll of film and processing on one shot that had a only a slight chance of being sold.  It's a hard mind-set for me to break.  I hasn't been that long since it cost me a dollar per exposure.

Maybe I need therapy.

-Pete


----------



## PerrieBelle

I'm no expert... But if it were my wedding I'd like to see as many photos as possible to choose from...
Only problem being.. I'd want every single picture!!! Haha


----------



## thirrouard

PerrieBelle: I'm just like you... i don't shoot that much, because I have real troubles to trash my pictures afterward...
I always keep them... even when they are not that great... That recall me that I should remove some useless RAW!
I always shoot in raw + jpg with my minolta, and in 2 years I've accumulated a lot of RAW i will never use...


----------



## MrsBeasley

I just finished a wedding,( It was an 8 hour shoot) and I shot just over 1000 shots, I gave around 650. I like to give the couple as many as I can, i did one last year where the mother of the bride died shortly after the wedding and the shots from the wedding turned out to be key keepsakes. Its hard not to think about that when I take pictures now.


----------

