Where's the Wedding togs?

[Tim Gray]

I can't quite believe what I read on other forums occasionally about brides expecting 1000 - 2000 images. What for?

I agree. I'm reminded of something I just read on an RSS feed from I forget where. Photoshop News? Anyway, the guy said something about 12,000 images taken and 250 gigs. He also mentioned something like 70 gigs of photos taken in one 24 hour period.

Wow. I don't think I've ever been inspired or 'inspired' like that.

[Chazzy]

Hey, guys:

As Alex pointed out, I am a 100% film shooter. I came back from digital because of the look of film and better workflow (for me) as my business is better suited if I dedicate my time to networking with coordinators and photo editors instead of sitting behing my computer post-processing my digital images to look like film.

I am not an anti-digital person as I just got an M8.2 but just love documenting my work with M7s and B&W film instead... If you are interested in hearing more about my philosophy, please download from iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/M...t?id=291806626) a recent interview I did for the Inside Analog radio show.

Cheers,

Riccis

web. www.riccisvalladares.com
blog. www.riccisblog.com
flickr. www.flickr.com/photos/riccis

I enjoyed the interview, and it's great to see you on APUG!

[AutumnJazz]

I would LOVE to hear some horror stories. I am a sucker for those, in any industry.

[markbarendt]

I would have thought that would be plenty.

I can't quite believe what I read on other forums occasionally about brides expecting 1000 - 2000 images. What for?

I'm sure there are no more than sixty pictures in my wedding album.

Steve.

What for? Well neither the bride nor many digital togs know better. The end use is not considered well, many digital shooters don't charge properly for post, and "more-is-always-better" right?

Just delivered an album that ended up with about 100 images in it, from over 2,000 shots at the wedding. It was a job from when I was all into digital. Total PITA. 1 in 40 sold. Processing and sorting and weeding through 2000 shots is a lot of work for the client and for me.

Another wedding shot within days of that by another local wedding tog and 2 helpers ended with about 7,000 shots in 8 hours.

The technical term for this is "spray-and-pray".

About that time I found some info from PPA, (I'm paraphrasing by memory so take these numbers with a grain of salt) the average film wedding job sold about 80 images from under 400 total shots and an average digital wedding sold about 5-10 more from about 1200 shots.

Once I figured out that as soon as I had my shot volume in control, digital would become the high cost alternative because of all the upgrades and depreciation. That was the beginning of the end of digital for me.

I'd be plum happy selling 1 of every 2 or 3 frames I shot instead of 1 in 40, hence my goal of 4-35mm and 2-120 rolls which gets me to about 168 shots and 60-80 sold.

[JBrunner]

I don't think it really helps to compare, because the markets will be different as well. There are some wedding people who make a boatload of money either way. I feel it is a matter of product and philosophy. There is no reason to to "spray and pray" with any format, just a tendency with the untrained or un-thoughtful. I think success as a wedding photographer is based on performance and marketing. You lick those and you can shoot what you want.

[markbarendt]

I don't think it really helps to compare, because the markets will be different as well. There are some wedding people who make a boatload of money either way. I feel it is a matter of product and philosophy. There is no reason to to "spray and pray" with any format, just a tendency with the untrained or un-thoughtful. I think success as a wedding photographer is based on performance and marketing. You lick those and you can shoot what you want.

You are right about "spray and pray" and "product and philosophy" Jason.

The importance of a comparison, for me, is simply for the freedom it; it's about breaking the misconception that digital is always cheaper so that I can make good business choices that work well for me.

[analogsnob]

[QUOTE=markbarendt;751053]
The technical term for this is "spray-and-pray".

I have always preferred the term "digital diarea"

[JBrunner]

[QUOTE=analogsnob;751107]

The technical term for this is "spray-and-pray".

I have always preferred the term "digital diarea"

There were plenty of hacks before digital, and dumping on digital doesn't make a good film shooter, and as a matter of fact the pot shots at digital are getting a bit worn. It's a dead horse on APUG. This thread should be OT about the wherefores of using film to shoot weddings. I'd like to hear more from Riccis.

[2F/2F]

Both of the ladies I regularly assist used to use film, and now offer it as an option, though in over two years of assisting these shooters, *not once* has a client requested film, and only *once* have they wanted even 4x6 proof prints. They want the files; plain and simple, and a web gallery. Using film for these services would be prohibitively expensive. Getting good processing and scans of near 1000 pix-worth of candids between two shooters would cost an arm and a leg, and what is the point of shooting film when the client wants a web gallery and electronic files? Out of sheer coincidence, both bosses use exactly the same cameras: Contax 645s and Canon A2s for film, and Canon 5Ds for digital. (I use my 10D and a borrowed 1D Mk. I or II with them.)

I think if I shot weddings by myself, my only option would be film, as all my best equipment is for film. I would probably use my 645 1000S and Canon FD stuff, and possibly my C33 or RZ 67 from time to time.

[JBrunner]

Most wedding photographers aren't into giving up the files or negatives without getting something out of it, because it means no print sales.