Quantity of photos to couple

[jesusdelallata]

I've now shot 9 weddings and the post processing is becoming a real pain.

In my last wedding, I shot about 1,300 images, narrowed it down to about 900, adjusted them on photoshop and gave them to the couple on DVD.

Are any of you providing couples UNPROCESSED images, then adjust in Photoshop once they pick the ones they want? Are there any other ways wedding photographers are doing it?

Thanks everyone in advance for your replies. Your input is highly appreciated.


Sorry if this has previously been posted.

[song4themoon]

I go through all images but not all of them have a lot or even any processing on them. The better I did at shooting, the less I need to do afterwards. It has gotten much less since my first wedding.

[peterdoomen]

I usually shoot about 600-1000 images, then process about 200 of them to let the couple choose. If they want a certain picture but don't like a detail about it, chances are that I have a second one that is better.

Of these 200 I let them choose about 50 to print, but they get the other pics on DVD.

P.

[Padawan Dad]

I generally shoot around 900 images for a full 8 hour wedding. My initial processing is all done in Canon's DPP (simple cropping and white balance adjustments.) This normally takes me about an hour and a half. I then select about 300-400 proofs, order them as 4x6 prints, and put them in a proof album for the B&G. Total labor: approx. 3 hours.

Any pictures they choose for enlargements, or albums are basically (@ the request of the B&G)

1.) Converted to B&W or Sepia
2.) Selective coloring is applied
3.) Any other special requests the B&G may have (i.e. blemish removal, etc...)

This is all done with actions, except the Blemish removals, and the selective coloring. All this is carried out in CS2.

I'm not really a fan of PP on final images except for an occasional vignette (if it helps the image,) or B&W conversion. I think it's fad that is over used WAY too much, which is very evident on these wedding forums. I think alot of photographers tend to over use PP just because it's available... they almost feel as though they HAVE to use it. JMHO.

Perhaps your are over processing. Keep it simple on the proofs.

[Phil V]

They're paying you because you know what makes a good picture (presumably), so of the 900 you're showing them how many are near duplicates? how many are perfectly good shots that aren't quite 'there'? So why are you leaving the editing to them?

Remember that they aren't even the experts and when we ask them to start doing the editing themselves they start looking for faults in pictures they believed were OK! Save them the hassle and your reputation at the same time. If you take the time to edit them down better, they'll believe that you're a better photographer, that is a universal truth.

Out of 800- 1000 shots we take, about 250-300 will got to the couple, that's plenty of choice for them to pick 80-100 for an album. Like Peter said though, if they find a shot that's not quite 'so' we can often offer an alternative.

[Exit]

Out of 800- 1000 shots we take, about 250-300 will got to the couple, that's plenty of choice for them to pick 80-100 for an album. Like Peter said though, if they find a shot that's not quite 'so' we can often offer an alternative.

Ditto

[Wilt]

How refreshing to read a thread where the wedding shooters are NOT taking thousands of shots and turning them over. I have been reading so many messages on POTN or elsewhere, where the weekend warriors are taking 3000-6000 shots during a wedding day. My own oldest daughter hired a photographer (since I was 'booked' for the day) who took months to turn over 3500 photos, and it took the B&G more months to wade thru the photos and choose the ones for the album that was included in the bid package. These rookies who think that more is better, and spraying in machine gun style is the way to ensure getting a good photo!

In my film days, 300 shots on medium format film was my median shot count, ending up with 200-250 after I weeded out the obvious ones. Now 2-3x that number are shot, with maybe 1.5-2x presented, and the partial postprocessing is applied to only those previews which are in need of some help to look presentable. Final full postprocessing applied to those photos selected for the album or loose prints.

[Padawan Dad]

Like Peter said though, if they find a shot that's not quite 'so' we can often offer an alternative.

I actually offered this to two couples. Both times they basically said: "You have images of ours that you didn't give us?" "We want all the pictures we paid you to take." I ended up giving both parties about 50 more pics on disc, of the 400-500 that I had left over. Be prepared for this. Most couples (in my experience) don't like the fact that you are holding back pics of their wedding day, that they paid you for.

Since the last "incident," not one couple has yet to be disappointed (that was about 35 weddings ago.)

[sblais]

I actually offered this to two couples. Both times they basically said: "You have images of ours that you didn't give us?" "We want all the pictures we paid you to take." I ended up giving both parties about 50 more pics on disc, of the 400-500 that I had left over. Be prepared for this. Most couples (in my experience) don't like the fact that you are holding back pics of their wedding day, that they paid you for.

Since the last "incident," not one couple has yet to be disappointed (that was about 35 weddings ago.)

That's why I don't usually tell them about the extra pics. I just let them know that I can "arrange" the detail. I always tell them beforehand that I will be giving them at least twice the number of images that are included in their package (my packages do come with many prints), so my back is covered with respect to not giving them all the pics.

[Scott_Quier]

I then select about 300-400 proofs, order them as 4x6 prints, and put them in a proof album for the B&G.

Keep it simple on the proofs.Bill, RE the proofs that you deliver to the B&G - do you watermark them or do you deliver them unblemished? I'm thinking of the potential for them to be scanned by the B&G and distributed that way - some folks will do that, I know. I've seen it.

Just wondering...

[coreypolis]

I started doing a 4 x 16 proof book. Last one had 23 pages including the cover, cost me 29.70 to print it with 18 images per page including filename and a black background, and $5 for kinkos to bind it and put covers on. The book had ~300 images in it, but same were action sequences. The album that they are going into is going to be really long too

[jesusdelallata]

This is all helpful. Thanks for the responses thus far. I'm sure some others will also contribute their thoughts.

[Padawan Dad]

Bill, RE the proofs that you deliver to the B&G - do you watermark them or do you deliver them unblemished? I'm thinking of the potential for them to be scanned by the B&G and distributed that way - some folks will do that, I know. I've seen it.

Just wondering...

I do not watermark. Scanning will happen. In the end, clients don't want watermarked photos and they will goto the next wedding photographer (out of the thousands available) who will give them what they want.

I understand your concern. Personally, I price my packages so they are all one shot deals. I don't rely on future print sales.

I do like Coreys idea, and am currently looking into it.

[Wilt]

I understand your concern. Personally, I price my packages so they are all one shot deals. I don't rely on future print sales.

Even in the film days, when negatives were retained by the photographer (except for the weekend warriors who lured clients with lowball prices and included film/negatives as the final product) very few jobs ever resulted in repeat business a year later. The initial order, album and mounted prints plus additional loose prints for relatives/friends and occasionally a wall portrait, was all she wrote usually! So goting thru the effort to watermark the photos on CD is not worth it; putting your copyright notice on the preview CD will prevent some printing by drugstores, etc. but won't stop the home printing, which does eat into your print order. :(

[GCRollo]

Ok... I'm curious? Why are the B&G getting to keep the proofs anyways?

Laymen here, so bare w/ me.

When I was married (10 years ago... So in the "Film Days") We hired a Pro (It was a large operation, not a mom & pop)
The package was around $1500.00 (As best I can remember) [Video was an additional $1200 or so]

Weeks later we got about 200+ "proofs" (They were watermarked w/ the word "Proof" on them, apprx/ size 4x6)
We were told to pick say 30 "keepers" and from them "X" amount were to be 8x10 w/ the rest 5x5.
(1) was a large Print, mounted, for the wall (11x14) and (2) 8x10 prints, mounted for the moms.
We did so, a few weeks later we received the album and prints.

We did not however get the proofs. We were offered the proofs for and additional $300 (or so)

A year later we received a "Last Chance" letter, that the proof would be available for purchase until "X" date, after which they were scheduled to be destroyed.

So what happen? Were the proofs always part of the deal (Normally), or has time passed and they have become a normal part of the package.
Why give them the proofs in the first place, shouldn't they have to pay for them, through your service?

It was my understanding that the B&G are paying for your services, but the Photographer retains the right to the photos.

[coreypolis]

well it depends on what kind of proof you give them. the reason many were kept, is they were printed 4x6 or the like, and if someone had preordered an album, they might just use the proofs and make their own.

To me, I don't want or need them back, they can look at them online (no right click and print screens look like ass anyway) or in print in a Proof book. They aren't full size and theres nothing of value to them besides picking what to order.

[GCRollo]

well it depends on what kind of proof you give them. the reason many were kept, is they were printed 4x6 or the like, and if someone had preordered an album, they might just use the proofs and make their own.

To me, I don't want or need them back, they can look at them online (no right click and print screens look like ass anyway) or in print in a Proof book. They aren't full size and theres nothing of value to them besides picking what to order.

But you stated you were providing hard copies to your clients, which means, really, they can't be easily reproduced. At least not with any real quality.

But others here have stated that they provide a DVD w/ 200+ Digital images. Unless the files sizes are extremely low (or water marked), What's stopping them from just printing them at home? Today's at-home printers a pretty good quality, and least good enough for the laymen.

I guess my question is, Is it now a "normal" part of the package to provide the B&G w/ digital copies (proofs) of the event. and if so, Why? Aren't you cutting your own foot off by doing so?

[coreypolis]

But you stated you were providing hard copies to your clients, which means, really, they can't be easily reproduced. At least not with any real quality.

But others here have stated that they provide a DVD w/ 200+ Digital images. Unless the files sizes are extremely low (or water marked), What's stopping them from just printing them at home? Today's at-home printers a pretty good quality, and least good enough for the laymen.

I guess my question is, Is it now a "normal" part of the package to provide the B&G w/ digital copies (proofs) of the event. and if so, Why? Aren't you cutting your own foot off by doing so?
ah, I see what you are saying. Most, I believe, provide small versions only. I am with you that anyone providing full sized as proofs is silly, but many do it to undercut the market and provide something of value to try and get more clients. New clients then see this beign offered and will only sign up for your service if you provide what johnny has and price match him etc.

Some others don't know what to do with prints or an album, so they just shoot and leve it to the couple to decide on final output, however that almost always ends in nothing, even though the couple thinks they can do it themselves.

[eslaydog]

How refreshing to read a thread where the wedding shooters are NOT taking thousands of shots and turning them over. I have been reading so many messages on POTN or elsewhere, where the weekend warriors are taking 3000-6000 shots during a wedding day. My own oldest daughter hired a photographer (since I was 'booked' for the day) who took months to turn over 3500 photos, and it took the B&G more months to wade thru the photos and choose the ones for the album that was included in the bid package. These rookies who think that more is better, and spraying in machine gun style is the way to ensure getting a good photo!

Are they rookies, or is there now a new way of thinking in the digital film era? Just because you did it one way "back in the day" doesn't make it the only correct way to do it.

I'm not talking about the extreme cases (like to 6000 shots you've mentioned), but more with the new school of thought where 100 good shots an hour is pretty standard. Where I shoot, brides want to wade through the shots to pick the ones that speak to them personally - sometimes there's an expression or person thats in a shot that means nothing to me, but a lot to the bride (or groom). And, if they want to do the sorting, why would anyone argue? I certainly dont mind (not spending the time)...

Maybe these rookies are smarter than you old schoolers think...

[GCRollo]

...I shot about 1,300 images, narrowed it down to about 900, adjusted them on photoshop and gave them to the couple on DVD.

Thanks Corey for the explanation...

I'm by no means an expert here Jesus, but I think 900 images is overkill.

I know If I was your client and you handed me 900 images to scan thru, to have to only pick 30-50 for my book, I would be very overwhelmed.

IMHO, they are paying you not only for your photography skills, but also for your editing & PP skills, and most of all for your "eye" for what's bad, good, and excellent.

I would be a much happier client if the "Pro" narrowed it down to 200 or so excellent photos for me. I remember when we got our 200+ hard copies, I was overwhelmed.

900 feels like a full time job... and a headache. Just my opinion.

It's like paying for any other service... If I hired a carpenter to build me a deck, I don't want to be out there on the weekends helping him swing the hammer. I paid for him to do it, because a) I didn't have the ability to do it or b) I just plain didn't want to be bothered w/ doing it.

[jesusdelallata]

Actually, at the end I turn over about 725 images. The bride works with me and was so happy to get that amount of images. In fact, it was something we discussed before she hired me. There was no video at the wedding. I was it. At the end she felt that the entire wedding day came across through the images. It was a twelve hour job.

But some of you guys are right...it's a lot of images. I remember my first two weddings (on film). I turn in approx 300 4x6s and the couples were amazed of the quantity.

Lots to think about, ha?

[Wilt]

Maybe these rookies are smarter than you old schoolers think...

1. If someone want to kill themself with massive post processing jobs after spending 8-10 hour, that's their choice.

2. You should have heard my daughter groan at having to sift thru 3500 photos!

3. 100 per hour does not sound unreasonable to shoot. Given that you have some bracketing involved, and you are trying to make sure you don't get closed eyes or odd expressions, that is not much at all! That's a bit higher, but not a whole lot more than what I might shoot, as I indicated earlier. But over 350 per hour (which is what it would take to get to my daughter's 3500) is NOT doing your client any favors!!!

[Phil V]

Are they rookies, or is there now a new way of thinking in the digital film era? Just because you did it one way "back in the day" doesn't make it the only correct way to do it.............sometimes there's an expression or person thats in a shot that means nothing to me, but a lot to the bride (or groom). And, if they want to do the sorting, why would anyone argue? I certainly dont mind (not spending the time)...
A photographer 'should' be able to see where there is a genuine connection in an image, as would a casual observer. If the bride can see it and you can't, then it isn't there and it's just the bride's feelings about that person. This isn't about 'old school' vs 'new school', it's about photograpers who pop up believing there's no more to it than pointing the right camera and lens at the subject. Capturing emotion isn't just about being there with a camera when people are being emotional!
And if you don't mind your 2nd and 3rd rate work being shown around (all weddings are adverts to future clients), well, who am I to argue;)

Maybe these rookies are smarter than you old schoolers think...
Well maybe Rolls Royce still do make the best cars in the world, old fashioned - Possibly. But there's no substitute for QUALITY CONTROL.

[Phil V]

I actually offered this to two couples. Both times they basically said: "You have images of ours that you didn't give us?" "We want all the pictures we paid you to take." I ended up giving both parties about 50 more pics on disc, of the 400-500 that I had left over. Be prepared for this. Most couples (in my experience) don't like the fact that you are holding back pics of their wedding day, that they paid you for.

My customers pay me for my images of their wedding. I decide how to set up shots, where to stand, what intimate moments to capture, and what of my images are fit to tell the story of the day. I point out up front that editing will be done and no-ones ever questioned it. After all they chose ME.

[coreypolis]

Thanks Corey for the explanation...

I'm by no means an expert here Jesus, but I think 900 images is overkill.

I know If I was your client and you handed me 900 images to scan thru, to have to only pick 30-50 for my book, I would be very overwhelmed.

IMHO, they are paying you not only for your photography skills, but also for your editing & PP skills, and most of all for your "eye" for what's bad, good, and excellent.

I would be a much happier client if the "Pro" narrowed it down to 200 or so excellent photos for me. I remember when we got our 200+ hard copies, I was overwhelmed.

900 feels like a full time job... and a headache. Just my opinion.

It's like paying for any other service... If I hired a carpenter to build me a deck, I don't want to be out there on the weekends helping him swing the hammer. I paid for him to do it, because a) I didn't have the ability to do it or b) I just plain didn't want to be bothered w/ doing it.


total deer in the head lights looks. I shot some really good friends wedding, and because I know them so well, was a bit different than usual, and invited them over to look through all (1500 + a few rolls of film). Overwhelmed to say the least, I gave them small ones on cd to sift through, then decided on the prof book of around 300 to narrow it down, and still got the, why don't you just pick them and design them, they're all so good speech.

The album is going to have around 70 pages and around 155 images. More than most, but I really like it. Lots of large images and panoramas I found myself using a lot of midnight sepia in it too :confused:

[eslaydog]

A photographer 'should' be able to see where there is a genuine connection in an image, as would a casual observer. If the bride can see it and you can't, then it isn't there and it's just the bride's feelings about that person. This isn't about 'old school' vs 'new school', it's about photograpers who pop up believing there's no more to it than pointing the right camera and lens at the subject. Capturing emotion isn't just about being there with a camera when people are being emotional!
And if you don't mind your 2nd and 3rd rate work being shown around (all weddings are adverts to future clients), well, who am I to argue;)


Well maybe Rolls Royce still do make the best cars in the world, old fashioned - Possibly. But there's no substitute for QUALITY CONTROL.

Phil,
I'm talking about handing the bride 900 good photos. Not 900 for the bride to sort out the blurs and blinks. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you. I'm a successful wedding photographer and I hand my brides around 800 shots per wedding. I take around 1200. I appreciate your description about photography being more than just pointing and shooting, but that's not what the original post was about.

Before I shot weddings, I did childrens portraits for many years. There are some expressions that the parents love that aren't particularly universal in their appeal. The same goes with the bride, her parents, etc.

Your Rolls Royce analogy, which is cuter than it is clever, does not address the topic at all. Assuming that quantity means less quality isn't necesarily true. If a bride prefers to narrow her 900 quality shots to 200 quality shots, then I give her that opportunity.

They must like it, I stay pretty busy.

[Padawan Dad]

I am starting to find that one of my most common questions asked from my clients on the initial consultation is: "How many proofs will we get?" Most are satisfied with 300-400, but I am finding alot of clients are looking more for 600+ these days.

Although I do keep busy, I am staring to loose some expenable business due to this reason.

[lwnphotography]

The last time that I sent a bride a proof book for her to make her selections from, she got pissed that she had to give it back. When I offered to sell them to her, she couldn't understand why I wanted to keep her proofs indefinately. It was such a trying ordeal, so from then on, I began including a number of proofs in my wedding packages for the engagement & bridal sessions, but for the event itself, I provide a dvd.

About the original post, I used to give my customers raw images on cd or dvd, and let them select before I post-processed. I think my reasoning was sheer laziness, and recently, I have discovered I have much happier newlyweds when I edit the pics before hand. Under NO circumstances do I let the B&G know that I have weeded out the images that I don't find as visually stimulating. Doing so, in my opinion is just asking for trouble. Let them think I'm the world's best photographer- they don't know-nor do they need to know that I just dumped 1/4 of their pictures in the recycle bin.

[tim]

An efficient workflow is key to profitable wedding photography. I take 600-1000 photos at an 8 hour wedding, usually deleting a few on the way, and shooting duplicates of group photos and important shots. I go through these and select 300-400 images for proofs, rating them 1-5 in CS2 Bridge. On the way I might do some quick fixes, usually in batches, usually limited to white ballance, exposure, and brightness. This takes me 2-3 hours. Images are then batched to JPG, then put into my online ordering system. If the couple has ordered printed proofs or a proof book that's mostly automated too. The key is to remember they're proofs, and not to get too fussy.

I'd never show a couple more than 400 images of their wedding unless they specifically ask for it, the more you show the slower they are to decide on things. Some want to see only the 200 best images. I will tell them there are similar/duplicate shots in case they don't like the ones I selected.

[verty]

how about you make a new folder and go thru each image and pick which ones you think are suitable and then make a proof site for them to access the images at and then get them to choose which ones they want for their album.

Once they are chosen edit them.. dont go editing all of em!

[islandphoto]

I think that if you show them the unproccessed images then they would be more likely not to order them... It seems that they may love a picture that is enhanced but before the photographer made it that way (eg sepia) they may not see as much in the shot. I know it's a hassle to post process before showing them but I think it is beneficial in the long run - unless you are the best photographer with perfect exposure, white balance etc on every shot:confused:

[GCRollo]

An efficient workflow is key to profitable wedding photography. I take 600-1000 photos at an 8 hour wedding, usually deleting a few on the way, and shooting duplicates of group photos and important shots. I go through these and select 300-400 images for proofs, rating them 1-5 in CS2 Bridge. On the way I might do some quick fixes, usually in batches, usually limited to white ballance, exposure, and brightness. This takes me 2-3 hours. Images are then batched to JPG, then put into my online ordering system. If the couple has ordered printed proofs or a proof book that's mostly automated too. The key is to remember they're proofs, and not to get too fussy.

I'd never show a couple more than 400 images of their wedding unless they specifically ask for it, the more you show the slower they are to decide on things. Some want to see only the 200 best images. I will tell them there are similar/duplicate shots in case they don't like the ones I selected.

Tim,

Based on all I've read thru this thread (Which I've found to be very informative), Your approach seams like the most effective and reasonable one... IMHO

Do you let them keep the "proofs" as part of your package, or is that an extra cost? If you do let them keep the proof is it purely the Hard-copies or Digital? If Digital, what size do you keep it to?

[Wedding Shooter]

I guess my approach is similar to Tim's - but I will throw out less. My purpose in this is to produce a few reactions.

1) I know that people love looking at their wedding photos and I find it hard to throw out shots that I know are keepers - so do they.

2) They are impressed with the amount and quality.

3) They are a little overwhelmed with the amount and find it hard to choose.

This helps me with album sales - a lot of profit can come from your abum sales. If you offer to design the album and choose the pictures you can often upsell the amount of pages in the album. I even pre-design an album proof and give it to them with the proofs.

This is extra work - but they hardly ever don't like it. You design it with extra pages in it (above what was in the package). They then don't want to change it as they love the look of it and they know how hard it will be to choose the prints themselves. If they are a bit hesitant at the extra cost enncourage them to take out what they don't like - but don't assist them with suggestions.

You can easily add an extra $1000-$1500 to your total income for that wedding by pre-designing a beautiful album for the couple. They are happy as they get a great album and you will usually make enough profit to cover the time to design the album.

If they do want to make changes it is not that hard with the good software these days.

So in answer to the op - use it to your advantage to generate extra income. You do, of course, have to be confident with your album design.

[peterdoomen]

I usually upload the proofs in small quality to a website where they can get access to. I then ask them to mail me the numbers of the +- 50 images they want, plus any other requests (like thank you cards to send to family and friends).

This is very efficient both for you and for the couple. And it protects your income, since they can't print the proofs.

P.

[MrTED]

An efficient workflow is key to profitable wedding photography. I take 600-1000 photos at an 8 hour wedding, usually deleting a few on the way, and shooting duplicates of group photos and important shots. I go through these and select 300-400 images for proofs, rating them 1-5 in CS2 Bridge. On the way I might do some quick fixes, usually in batches, usually limited to white ballance, exposure, and brightness. This takes me 2-3 hours. Images are then batched to JPG, then put into my online ordering system. If the couple has ordered printed proofs or a proof book that's mostly automated too. The key is to remember they're proofs, and not to get too fussy.

I'd never show a couple more than 400 images of their wedding unless they specifically ask for it, the more you show the slower they are to decide on things. Some want to see only the 200 best images. I will tell them there are similar/duplicate shots in case they don't like the ones I selected.

I follow much the same principle. The last wedding was on a sensational stormy day, with very dull light, I shot just over 1000 photos, from which the B&G will get 300-500 photos online to proof and select for an album or enlargements. Some of my packages include these 300-500 photos, but I charge significantly more for the privillege of having the hard copied of the proofs.

All my initial work is done in Bridge, and output to JPG, only colour, white balance and exposure (using almost the auto settings in Bridge). I will then spend more time on the one selected for the album, with minor/major corrections and touch up's if required.

Nathan

[jesusdelallata]

Hello, everyone. I really appreciate all your input. Lots of good stuff and lots of different ways of doing this. I'm going to continue monitoring this thread and will really be thinking things through.

[tim]

how about you make a new folder and go thru each image and pick which ones you think are suitable and then make a proof site for them to access the images at and then get them to choose which ones they want for their album.

Once they are chosen edit them.. dont go editing all of em!

That doesn't sound very efficient to me.

Tim,

Based on all I've read thru this thread (Which I've found to be very informative), Your approach seams like the most effective and reasonable one... IMHO

Do you let them keep the "proofs" as part of your package, or is that an extra cost? If you do let them keep the proof is it purely the Hard-copies or Digital? If Digital, what size do you keep it to?


Thanks :) My package includes digital proofs online and on DVD (proshow, watermarked), people can add printed proofs if they want to - also watermarked.

[islandphoto]

Tim - you sell watermarked proofs? When you say you put proofs on a DVD with pro-show do you put it into a slideshow? Or is pro-show for just proofs as well?

[tim]

Proofs are so people can see the images on paper, not so they can put them in an album and call it my final work. The images usually aren't finished, and aren't up the standard i'd hold for regular prints. I might not watermark them, I might do something like a white border with my studio name underneath the image.