What happened to quality vs volume? Is there a need for 1,000+ shots at weddings?

I had the opportunity to sit down yesterday with a retired wedding photographer from the film days. She was doing no more than 15 weddings a year. She was speaking candidly about her opinion of todays wedding photographers (including myself). She said with digital DSLR's people lost sight of quality and focused more on higher of volume of photos to off set quality. She was telling me that back in the day she would take maybe 200 to 300 photos at a wedding and 95% of those would be keepers. These days wedding photographers will take 1,000+ photos and hand the client 400 to 500. There's a lot of time spent in selecting photos as well as additional post processing needed.

She made a number of good points. What do you think?

I guess the question here is if the reason 95% of those photos made the cut is because she had a more limited selection and had to make due with what she had, or if she really was choosing her shots more wisely.

If I only have the capability to take 300 shots due to limited film amounts, and I know I need to deliver 200-250, I may look at my 300 shots and pick the best of those, even if they're not perfect.

If I can take unlimited photos, but still only need to deliver the same amount, of course more are going to get left out. Doesn't mean quality is sacrificed, just that now there's room to be more picky.

I think from descriptions I've read, some people often shoot an excessive number of shots in a given time period (not related necessarily to weddings). When I read how many photos people take I wonder if they're really seeing what they're looking at.

Shooting film (which is what I did when learning how to use a camera, and still do) seems to get you to learn how to frame and compose shots. It's not so much the cost, although developing got more expensive as it became less mainstream. I think it's more that what you see in your viewfinder is what you get. So I learned how to take good pictures, and shooting sports I got pretty efficient at it. But I think it takes time and practice.

It seems there's less learning how to frame and compose images happening because it's possible to 'fix' them later. Even if I'm shooting digitally I usually 'see' the shot before I release the shutter. I have at times shot more photos digitally than I would if I'd been using a film camera (not to the extent many people do); and when I have I regretted it later because I just ended up with similar shots that I didn't really want or need.

I can't see spending a tremendous amount of time processing photos, I'd rather be enjoying taking pictures.

Hawkins wrote: ...95% of those would be keepers.

That is an impressive number. Normally you don't hear quality ratings like that without consulting your grandmother. On my best days I'm closer to 33% (my grannie would say 60%).

As long as taking a bunch of photos doesn't mess with the wedding I don't see how it matters how many exposures are made. All that matters is whether the client and photographer are happy with the finished work.

I used to shoot weddings with film. I made about 350-400 exposures and showed the clients most of it. When I switched to digital my shot rate tripled, and now I only show the client the best 1/3rd. Sometimes the extra shots are crap shots that I'd never try with film because they are unlikely to succeed. Most of the time they are extra shots to make sure I got what I want, or test shots and sketches as I work towards a desired image. Digital makes working harder worth the effort. There is no doubt in my mind that both more exposures and digital technology has made the selection of photos I deliver better.

IMO, digital has significantly raised the bar on what we (people in general) consider mediocre. Much of what was acceptable with film is no longer acceptable. Unless your artist's statement goes on about the joys of working within the limitations of the process, and such....

Here are some of my fond recollections of shooting weddings with film:

Being on frame 10 with a Hassy (12 shots per roll) or frame 35 with a Nikon (37-38 shots per roll). Do I reload now? Is something good going to happen? Will it happen right after I shoot the last shots, or start to reload?

Hideous, artificial light color cast? Live with it. It's daylight balance all the way!

They just turned off the lights, better load up the ISO 800 film. Although they often put larger numbers on the labels of high ISO films, when you read the fine print it's almost all really ISO 800 film.

Just loaded up the ISO 800, and the B & G decide to run outside and dance in the parking lot under the bright sun. Still a half a roll of ISO 100 in the camera, and they're going back inside.

Dust spotting and retouching is done per print. Arrrgh! Dropped the neg and scratched it (only happens to the best shots). Nose grease sort of fixes it, but each print is going to have to be retouched by hand.

No custom printing for most of the photos. Even a simple edge burn or contrast adjustment is too expensive and/or time consuming. Global exposure and color correction only.

Prints from 35mm start to look grainy beyond 8"x12".

I hope everyone had their eyes open.

I hope I'm setting the flash right.

I hope the noob at the lab pulls up the sleeves on the dark box before unrolling my 120 (this was what inspired me to buy my first DSLR and try digital).

All the decent, local, film labs went out of business. I hope this film doesn't get lost in the mail, or sit baking in a hot delivery van all day.

The good old days!

Sounds like unsubstantiated speculation from someone who doesn't understand or even know how digital photographers work.

I bet she use to walk 15 miles to each wedding, uphill both ways (in the snow - even in summer).

I don't mean to be skeptical, but the 95% keepers, was the client happy with those shots, who determined the 95% figure her or the clients? If clients, WOW she deserves a museum named after her! You have to admit that is a very impressive success rate of photos. When you think about the photographer that takes 1000+ photos during a wedding, their shots may not be that bad, it's just some shots the client(s) may have better facial expressions, eyes open, everyone (if group) might be perfecting looking at camera, etc.. By taking multiple shots, this just insures better chance of nailing that perfect shot. Your cornering luck in the corner.

Think about that.

Joe Photo Daddy wrote: I don't mean to be skeptical, but the 95% keepers, was the client happy with those shots, who determined the 95% figure her or the clients? If clients, WOW she deserves a museum named after her! You have to admit that is a very impressive success rate of photos. When you think about the photographer that takes 1000+ photos during a wedding, their shots may not be that bad, it's just some shots the client(s) may have better facial expressions, eyes open, everyone (if group) might be perfecting looking at camera, etc.. By taking multiple shots, this just insures better chance of nailing that perfect shot. Your cornering luck in the corner.

Think about that.

I suppose this all depends somewhat on a photographer's style of shooting and what works best for each photographer. Whatever type camera or media is used, it's probably more a matter of knowing how to use it effectively than which you choose.

I think the percentage could be subjective too based on what anyone considers to be 'keepers' - anything usable, good photos, exceptional photos, ones saved just in case, etc. I just find it hard to understand shooting a really large number of images, and sometimes when people have described the percentage they keep or use, if it's really low I'm not sure how much they're able to accomplish that way. Maybe the percentage seems lower if they're just considering their photos that are good and not just usable ones.

Shooting film it seems like if most of what was photographed wasn't that good, a person wouldn't be as likely to have continued with photography (because of the cost of film and developing).

icepics wrote: ...when people have described the percentage they keep or use, if it's really low I'm not sure how much they're able to accomplish that way.

The percentage of keepers at National Geographic magazine back in the days of film was less than 0.01% (1 in 10,000).

Just because a photographer takes 1000/2000 photos at a wedding why should that mean the quality is worse than someone who takes 300/500 , I typically take 2000 photos at a wedding , why?, because I can, are they all keepers?, no , but every photo taken was taken with care and precision using my skills as a photographer, I didnt just run around snapping at anything that moved or for that matter didnt move my difficult task is then whittling them down to the typical 600 I present to my client , who then usually whittles them down to about 120 for the album, are the ones discarded rubbish ?, no of course not, lots of them go onto a disc for the couple because I feel they are great photos, others I will use for promotional material, ok yes I am big headed but all my clients say I am good so there, this woman sounds like a typical (I think film is better than digital) woman, she is entitled to her opinion for what its worth, people should be more open minded and thoughtful before opening their mouths me thinketh .

Henry Peach wrote:

icepics wrote: ...when people have described the percentage they keep or use, if it's really low I'm not sure how much they're able to accomplish that way.

The percentage of keepers at National Geographic magazine back in the days of film was less than 0.01% (1 in 10,000).

That's because only 1 in 10k shOts had the native woman's "assets" in focus.