wedding photography megapixel and wide shots?

David Banner · November 30th, 2018, 10:14 AM

Some photogs I've worked alongside use the machine gun method. They just hold down the button and rapid fire enormous numbers of photos. Even on a single pose. It sounds like a battle going on chang-chang-chang-chang-chang-chang-chang-chang....

I guess if you take 900 photos of each thing then you hopefully get one you can use! :)
Or maybe they are planning on doing stop motion animation at 10fps video with all those stills.

Chris, that's funny the guy just firing the flash to look like he's working! lol

Luke, good point about the challenge of shooting speeches. I agree when someone is talking there are a lot more chances of getting unflattering stills than good ones since their mouth will be open and moving. You wouldn't want to only have one still of the bride's sister making a speech and she has one eye partically closed and her mouth open wide and twisted like she's doing some sort of drunken battle cry

Steve Burkett · December 1st, 2018, 01:28 AM

If this machine gun approach to Photography is essential, why aren't all the Photographers doing it. I've worked with a wide range of them and only a few feel the need to take thousands of photos and blast away with their cameras. It would be fine if they were using mirrorless and lighting gear instead of DSLR and flash, but it buggers up my video nicely with the constant click and strobe lighting effect. It's distracting too, especially if done in the Ceremony.

To me it shows almost a lack of confidence in your work if you feel the need to take thousands of photos to deliver say 400. Majority of pros I work with are more conservative. I'm pretty sure they're delivering good work despite taking less photos.

I've also had a few Photographers mention they were interested in video. It's the editing that puts them off. Why most who do are usually giving a Highlights video only. They can't manage more than that. :)

Roger Gunkel · December 1st, 2018, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

If this machine gun approach to Photography is essential, why aren't all the Photographers doing it. I've worked with a wide range of them and only a few feel the need to take thousands of photos and blast away with their cameras. It would be fine if they were using mirrorless and lighting gear instead of DSLR and flash, but it buggers up my video nicely with the constant click and strobe lighting effect. It's distracting too, especially if done in the Ceremony.

To me it shows almost a lack of confidence in your work if you feel the need to take thousands of photos to deliver say 400. Majority of pros I work with are more conservative. I'm pretty sure they're delivering good work despite taking less photos.

I've also had a few Photographers mention they were interested in video. It's the editing that puts them off. Why most who do are usually giving a Highlights video only. They can't manage more than that. :)

Although we do more combined packages than otherwise, most photographers that we still work with are professional and considerate, but there are still a significant number that seem to feel it necessary to shoot huge numbers of shots and with little or no thought to the posing. Presumably the rationale is that there must be a couple of good shots from the huge number that were taken. As you say Steve, it plays havoc with the video with constant flashes and shutter clicks. I often wonder how those type of photographers would have got on with film cameras!! On the other side, there are a couple that I have worked with many times, who set up imaginative poses and just take what they need with great end results.

The highlights only videos from some photographers is great, as it drives a lot more video work our way :-)

Roger

Chris Harding · December 1st, 2018, 06:45 AM

Hi Steve

Yep we still get the odd one that feels that having the camera on multiframe means she/he has more choice and they will do bursts of 10 or more instead of a proper framed shot. I come from the film era and we used to take 4 rolls of 36 exposure film to cover bridal prep, a long church ceremony, a full photoshoot and the reception! Even when motor drive cameras came out you still had a very low burst speed. My 2nd camera used to be a 35mm film camera with a 35-70mm lens and the main camera for the really special shots was my Mamiya RB67 and that gave me just 16 exposures per roll of 220 film

I guess that's why I have never used burst mode!!! Imagine editing 4000 digital photos!!!!!

David Barnett · December 1st, 2018, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Do they seriously give the bride all those photos or do they work on the assumption that if they shoot 3000 shots they simply would have to get at least 100 good ones??

Spray & Pray.

Tends to be a novice imho. The better ones step in, bang out some shots, step back. If the speech goes long, they'll do it again as needed (IMHO moreso to make it known they are there 'working' as others mentioned). Same for the ceremony. How many shots of the priest or speaker does the couple need? Yet some weddings I see photogs taking shots entirely throughout.

Luke Miller · December 1st, 2018, 01:35 PM

Just a thought from someone who does both video and stills.

When I shoot video I am either at 30 or 60 fps. If I were to to do a frame-by-frame review of my footage I would see frames that would make nice photos and many more that would not. Fortunately none of that matters when viewing the video since those unflattering frames will only be visible for 1/30th or 1/60th of a second and are unnoticeable.

When I shoot stills I capture a 1/125th of a second snippet of reality. If my reflexes are fast enough that image is something I would possibly show the client. But often I get one of those unfortunate frames (like found in my video footage) that ought not see the light of day. Unlike the video frame the still image is visible for as long as anyone cares to look it it.

If I am videoing a person speaking my job is to capture the speaker and remarks in their entirety. If I am photographing the speaker my job is to produce an image that is as complementary of the speaker as possible. That typically takes multiple shots. They all will be composed, focused, and exposed properly, but many will not be worth keeping.

When photographing I don't use flash and all my shots are single frames. In the rare instance I am taking stills while the video camera is recording I'm acutely aware of the camera sounds in the audio track.

The reason I avoid doing video and stills at the same event is due to the very different mindset required. When I try to do both I will fail to do justice to one of them.

David Barnett · December 1st, 2018, 02:51 PM

^^ We're aware of the need to take multiple shots, even things like blinking, soft focus etc, along with changing settings, exposure etc. But what we're referring to is taking 100 photos of the best man speech, cake cutting, priest talking etc. I'll admit it's a grey area, it isn't a fine line or exact #, but I've worked with some who just shoot constantly thru the 1st dance & toasts, where its just too much and appears amateurish.

Funny comment I once heard from a Photog who tried video, he was frustrated by his inability to shoot portrait style, as opposed to landscape (Vertical vs Horizontal). I had never thought of that but he was so used to shooting with his camera Portrait on certain shots & scenes it almost bugged him he couldn't turn his camera sideways. Pretty funny actually.

Kyle Root · December 6th, 2018, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Banner

Hi all. I've been doing wedding video for 2 decades and often take some photos for slideshows, DVD case artwork etc...but not serving as the official photog. I keep getting requests to do photography so I'm thinking of starting to offer both. So I've invested in a couple remote speedlights and mono light.

I have an A7Sii, A6000 and FZ2500 bridge camera but am thinking of getting an A7Riii for my main photo camera and use one of the others for a backup or 2nd shooter.

I don't need 42MP for weddings if I shoot the way I normally do, but I'm thinking of using it to shoot mostly wide and then crop in post when I need a tighter shot. So I end up with 2 photos for each one taken.
I realize that for creamy more shallow DOF, I'll need to frame and shoot traditionally, but for most of the other shots why not just deep focus and shoot wide?
Thoughts?

I started making the move into wedding photos about 2 years ago and it has been a very nice source of additional income.

Having extra MP is definitely nice for cropping, but like you say for DOF you're going to shoot on purpose to get that effect. Bokeh can be added in post but that's a lot of extra work in photoshop, even using actions.

The one thing I like about officially offering photo is I get a chance to talk to brides at the very beginning of their wedding process, vs towards the end with video.

Roger Gunkel · December 6th, 2018, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Root

I started making the move into wedding photos about 2 years ago and it has been a very nice source of additional income.

Having extra MP is definitely nice for cropping, but like you say for DOF you're going to shoot on purpose to get that effect. Bokeh can be added in post but that's a lot of extra work in photoshop, even using actions.

The one thing I like about officially offering photo is I get a chance to talk to brides at the very beginning of their wedding process, vs towards the end with video.

I totally agree Kyle and the difference in the relationship with the couple when you are doing the photography is like night and day. You get much closer to the couple and the family, which I really like and it feels like they want you there rather than tolerating, you which is how it can sometimes feel with video only.

Roger

David Barnett · December 6th, 2018, 04:51 PM

^^ That's interesting you two say that. I always felt a bit awkward or that I don't overdo the whole "Let's talk about your wedding day process", due to on wedding day the photog seems to know the couples soo much more & have a more hammered out timeline & specific shots, details, list of shot by shot needed etc. Me it's somewhat more like Bridal prep noon, Church 3pm, photos 4-6. introduction 7pm, cake 9pm.

A few times I've pitched the idea of meeting up, but it always ended up in a phone call, usually somewhat brief. I get the feeling they are just thru planning & talking & just want me to show up & shoot.

Good to hear I'm not exactly alone on that.

Chris Harding · December 6th, 2018, 05:38 PM

I find that nowdays brides seem to be drifting away from the personal "let's get to know each other" consultation ...in the older days I used to have a good 60 minute chat with couples PLUS attend the rehearsal too. Nowdays it seems to be book online without meeting! I did a live stream wedding last Friday and had never met the bride or groom then on Saturday I did a photoshoot with another couple and also never met them until the day.
It does remove the personal touch which is sad but also makes your costs less if you just send an online contract! I must admit I prefer getting to know the people I'm working with first but that seems to be the way business is going now. We had had an icon hobby shop announce a close down after 70 years of business from physical premises to a purely online operation. Human face to face contact is a nice way to start any business relationship.

Roger Gunkel · December 7th, 2018, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Human face to face contact is a nice way to start any business relationship.

I think this is very true still Chris. 2018 is the busiest year we have ever had and I think part of that is due to the fact that we always visit clients in their home to have a very relaxed chat about their plans. We have a policy whereby we make it clear that we don't take bookings on a visit, but leave them a booking form so that they can fill it in if they decide they want to go ahead. I've been criticised on this forum before about that being a good way of losing business, but on the contrary, we find it builds trust and and helps couples to build confidence in you. As an example, both Claire and I had meetings with potential clients this week, Claire came back late and said that she had to make an excuse to leave as they were really chatty and it turned into a social visit, however, they insisted on signing the booking form there and then. Having told her that she really ought to try to spend less time with the clients, I went out on an evening visit and ended up there for 3 hours! After 10 minutes of watching a video and looking at some photos, they insisted on making a cup of tea, talking about their holidays and families etc, while the video ran in the background. It was a lovely social evening and they also insisted on signing the form there and then.

Both couples on the day will be having video and photography with us and they will feel far less nervous when they see a familiar face that they are comfortable with. We get better pics as a result and the whole day runs much smoother. Looking at our facebook reviews, we see that couples clearly enjoy their relationship with us as much as the work we do and to us that is very important.

Roger

Chris Harding · December 7th, 2018, 06:10 PM

Hi Roger

That is the nicest way to book a wedding and my personal favourite ..have a cuppa and yes, some even book me immediately .. Unlike you guys I take all my documents with me and plenty actually say "where do I sign" or "what are your bank details" ...Sadly things are changing and to my dismay a bride a few months ago did an entire booking, chat and "consultation" via text message on my phone. There were over 30 messages (quite detailed ones) and I'm no the best cell phone operator so it was very slow from my side which many many corrections!! Yep brides at best often expect the whole thing to be done via SMS or email and I do honestly prefer sitting down and asking them " tell me about your wedding"

Kyle Root · December 12th, 2018, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I totally agree Kyle and the difference in the relationship with the couple when you are doing the photography is like night and day. You get much closer to the couple and the family, which I really like and it feels like they want you there rather than tolerating, you which is how it can sometimes feel with video only.

Roger

Yes the relationship that builds over the course of the months leading up to the wedding is pretty incredible.

I get to basically plan their day from a creative standpoint, making sure we have time to do x, y, and z.

By doing their engagement session and bridal session even, they become comfortable around me, and by the time the wedding rolls around, I'm more than just a hired hand. It's more like part of the family and they have 100% trust in confidence in what I'm doing. Plus they are typically more relaxed I find.

The feeling is 100% different when I'm just doing video.

I nearly always require meeting prior to the wedding, face to face, so I know who is who and make sure expectations are set.

November 30th, 2018, 10:14 AM	#16
David Banner Major Player Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Bentonville, AR Posts: 239	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? Some photogs I've worked alongside use the machine gun method. They just hold down the button and rapid fire enormous numbers of photos. Even on a single pose. It sounds like a battle going on chang-chang-chang-chang-chang-chang-chang-chang.... I guess if you take 900 photos of each thing then you hopefully get one you can use! :) Or maybe they are planning on doing stop motion animation at 10fps video with all those stills. Chris, that's funny the guy just firing the flash to look like he's working! lol Luke, good point about the challenge of shooting speeches. I agree when someone is talking there are a lot more chances of getting unflattering stills than good ones since their mouth will be open and moving. You wouldn't want to only have one still of the bride's sister making a speech and she has one eye partically closed and her mouth open wide and twisted like she's doing some sort of drunken battle cry

December 1st, 2018, 01:28 AM	#17
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? If this machine gun approach to Photography is essential, why aren't all the Photographers doing it. I've worked with a wide range of them and only a few feel the need to take thousands of photos and blast away with their cameras. It would be fine if they were using mirrorless and lighting gear instead of DSLR and flash, but it buggers up my video nicely with the constant click and strobe lighting effect. It's distracting too, especially if done in the Ceremony. To me it shows almost a lack of confidence in your work if you feel the need to take thousands of photos to deliver say 400. Majority of pros I work with are more conservative. I'm pretty sure they're delivering good work despite taking less photos. I've also had a few Photographers mention they were interested in video. It's the editing that puts them off. Why most who do are usually giving a Highlights video only. They can't manage more than that. :)

December 1st, 2018, 06:45 AM	#19
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? Hi Steve Yep we still get the odd one that feels that having the camera on multiframe means she/he has more choice and they will do bursts of 10 or more instead of a proper framed shot. I come from the film era and we used to take 4 rolls of 36 exposure film to cover bridal prep, a long church ceremony, a full photoshoot and the reception! Even when motor drive cameras came out you still had a very low burst speed. My 2nd camera used to be a 35mm film camera with a 35-70mm lens and the main camera for the really special shots was my Mamiya RB67 and that gave me just 16 exposures per roll of 220 film I guess that's why I have never used burst mode!!! Imagine editing 4000 digital photos!!!!!

December 1st, 2018, 01:35 PM	#21
Luke Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: King George, Virginia Posts: 112	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? Just a thought from someone who does both video and stills. When I shoot video I am either at 30 or 60 fps. If I were to to do a frame-by-frame review of my footage I would see frames that would make nice photos and many more that would not. Fortunately none of that matters when viewing the video since those unflattering frames will only be visible for 1/30th or 1/60th of a second and are unnoticeable. When I shoot stills I capture a 1/125th of a second snippet of reality. If my reflexes are fast enough that image is something I would possibly show the client. But often I get one of those unfortunate frames (like found in my video footage) that ought not see the light of day. Unlike the video frame the still image is visible for as long as anyone cares to look it it. If I am videoing a person speaking my job is to capture the speaker and remarks in their entirety. If I am photographing the speaker my job is to produce an image that is as complementary of the speaker as possible. That typically takes multiple shots. They all will be composed, focused, and exposed properly, but many will not be worth keeping. When photographing I don't use flash and all my shots are single frames. In the rare instance I am taking stills while the video camera is recording I'm acutely aware of the camera sounds in the audio track. The reason I avoid doing video and stills at the same event is due to the very different mindset required. When I try to do both I will fail to do justice to one of them.

December 1st, 2018, 02:51 PM	#22
David Barnett Major Player Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 951	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? ^^ We're aware of the need to take multiple shots, even things like blinking, soft focus etc, along with changing settings, exposure etc. But what we're referring to is taking 100 photos of the best man speech, cake cutting, priest talking etc. I'll admit it's a grey area, it isn't a fine line or exact #, but I've worked with some who just shoot constantly thru the 1st dance & toasts, where its just too much and appears amateurish. Funny comment I once heard from a Photog who tried video, he was frustrated by his inability to shoot portrait style, as opposed to landscape (Vertical vs Horizontal). I had never thought of that but he was so used to shooting with his camera Portrait on certain shots & scenes it almost bugged him he couldn't turn his camera sideways. Pretty funny actually.

December 6th, 2018, 04:51 PM	#25
David Barnett Major Player Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 951	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? ^^ That's interesting you two say that. I always felt a bit awkward or that I don't overdo the whole "Let's talk about your wedding day process", due to on wedding day the photog seems to know the couples soo much more & have a more hammered out timeline & specific shots, details, list of shot by shot needed etc. Me it's somewhat more like Bridal prep noon, Church 3pm, photos 4-6. introduction 7pm, cake 9pm. A few times I've pitched the idea of meeting up, but it always ended up in a phone call, usually somewhat brief. I get the feeling they are just thru planning & talking & just want me to show up & shoot. Good to hear I'm not exactly alone on that.

December 6th, 2018, 05:38 PM	#26
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? I find that nowdays brides seem to be drifting away from the personal "let's get to know each other" consultation ...in the older days I used to have a good 60 minute chat with couples PLUS attend the rehearsal too. Nowdays it seems to be book online without meeting! I did a live stream wedding last Friday and had never met the bride or groom then on Saturday I did a photoshoot with another couple and also never met them until the day. It does remove the personal touch which is sad but also makes your costs less if you just send an online contract! I must admit I prefer getting to know the people I'm working with first but that seems to be the way business is going now. We had had an icon hobby shop announce a close down after 70 years of business from physical premises to a purely online operation. Human face to face contact is a nice way to start any business relationship.

December 7th, 2018, 06:10 PM	#28
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: wedding photography megapixel and wide shots? Hi Roger That is the nicest way to book a wedding and my personal favourite ..have a cuppa and yes, some even book me immediately .. Unlike you guys I take all my documents with me and plenty actually say "where do I sign" or "what are your bank details" ...Sadly things are changing and to my dismay a bride a few months ago did an entire booking, chat and "consultation" via text message on my phone. There were over 30 messages (quite detailed ones) and I'm no the best cell phone operator so it was very slow from my side which many many corrections!! Yep brides at best often expect the whole thing to be done via SMS or email and I do honestly prefer sitting down and asking them " tell me about your wedding"