I've been looking at photographers for a while now and came across someone that FI and I really liked, but the package seemed a little weird to me.
Coverage: all day Limits on shot: 600
Upon further inquiries, they said that they give us a total of 600 shots and will inform us on the day of if the limit is approaching and we can decide if we want them to stay for additional fees. They kept on reassuring us that 600 shots is more than enough and I thought so too until a friend of mine said that her two hour engagement shoot yielded already 250+ shots. Now I'm thinking it's definitely not going to be enough to cover a 10am-5pm wedding. Do you think that we should go for this photographer or try to find something with unlimited shots but around 8 or so hour of coverage? Please let me know. Thanks
that is weird. i would look for another one that provides unlimited shots for however many hours you need them for. if that particular photographer only takes 600 shots, then he/she might miss some really great photo ops. i would prefer getting the unlimited shots then getting the best 600 of those shots, and not 600 to include half with my eyes closed leaving me with only 300 good shots.
I think the question to ask is if you like the photographer's work enough that you want to pay for more coverage if needed, and if not then find another one that will have a package you are more comfortable with. I don't know how many shots is typical for a wedding, sorry =( My photographer is covering our wedding all day, from 1 hour before getting ready to the last big event, and is taking unlimited pictures.
A shot limit seems a little weird, in the days of digital photography. This might be justified if they were shooting film, where every shot actually costs something, but for digital I don't think it's justified. You might ask your photographer what the reason is for the limit, but I think I would look for a package with unlimited shots. Our coverage is defined by the number of photographers (2) and the duration (7 hours) but contains unlimited pictures.
I also agree that it's a bit strange. However, could it mean that they deliver 600 pictures, rather than only take 600 pictures? According to my photographer, he and his assistent usually deliver between 600-800 good images (since so we're expecting between 1200-1600 images delivered to us on a CD about a month after the wedding). If it's that they only take 600 pictures, I'd be a little wary about that.
That is really weird. I am a photog and if I were to give you a limit for a price it would be on finished, usable shots that are touched up and what not.
They say in the world of Photog that 1 out of every 10 shots is amazing, not to say that some in there as well arn't great too - but I mean truly amazing and perfect.
What if you blink 300 times? You're stuck with them and he will charge you more for extra shots? Weird! And also terribly inappropriate - he can't charge you for bad/unuseable photos!
I would get him to drop thast clause in the contract, or find a new photog. This seems like a bigger headache then it needs to be! And remember, you get what you pay for! Ask to see a whole wedding he has shot - don't just see 15 shots from different weddings, you need to see whata whole wedding looks like because anyone can pick out thir best 15 shots and show them off...
My advice would be to find another vendor. It's such a quirky way to do pricing, you have to wonder what other quirks you'll have to iron out of the contract in order to do business...
Yeah, I've heard most weddings are upwards of about 1000 shots or more. Having a limit is scary, I agree, I would probably find someone else. Because how in ALL DAY will only 600 be enough? 600 might be enough for like 4 hours! Haha.
My photographer said that it is not unusual for her to take 2000 shots at a wedding. I think setting a limit is somewhat unrealistic. It depends on the bride/groom, lighting, location, who's around at a given moment-- all things that can't be dictated and controlled for with a set number of shots.
Yeah i think that is a bit odd. We had 2 photographers who averaged 450 shots per hour, so with both of them we had 900 shots for ONE HOURS worth. They stayed at our wedding for 8 hours! I just dont think its reasonable for them to cut you off since you have no idea how many pics you will like!
I am a photographer (although not for weddings). The absolute only reason a photographer might possibly put a shot limit on your contract instead of a time limit is if he or she was shooting film. If they are shooting digital, there is no reason at all why they should impose that sort of limit, unless it is because they are too lazy to sort through more shots than that after your wedding. And the last thing you want is a lazy photographer. So find a new one, is my advice.
I think it's odd that they would stop at 600 shots. It's not like a memory card is that expensive! My photographer says that it's typical to have at least 2,000 shots during the day and we're getting a minimum of 350 (good) shots on CD.
I agree that this is very odd, and that you should look for someone else.
I mean, what if the photog gets snap happy and takes hundreds of photos in the first hour? will they expect you to pay them to stay for the rest of the wedding?
As a wedding photographer, even if I did not find the concept of a photo limit odd (and i do!) I find the limit of 600 to be crazy. For 8 hour coverage, we give the couple somewhere between 1500 - 2000 images. So even if every single picture he took was beautiful and perfect, you still wouldn't be getting a lot of photos for that amount of time. Your best bet would be to find another photographer who don't limit themselves.
I talked to FI today and he agreed to find another photog after I showed him this post. So yay, we are finding a new one! Thanks so much everyone for easing my fear. It's not like he comes cheap either. I'm sure I can do a lot more for $4000.
I've been looking at photographers for a while now and came across someone that FI and I really liked, but the package seemed a little weird to me.
Coverage: all day
Limits on shot: 600
Upon further inquiries, they said that they give us a total of 600 shots and will inform us on the day of if the limit is approaching and we can decide if we want them to stay for additional fees. They kept on reassuring us that 600 shots is more than enough and I thought so too until a friend of mine said that her two hour engagement shoot yielded already 250+ shots. Now I'm thinking it's definitely not going to be enough to cover a 10am-5pm wedding. Do you think that we should go for this photographer or try to find something with unlimited shots but around 8 or so hour of coverage? Please let me know. Thanks
posted by furelysse 59 posts 5 months agothat is weird. i would look for another one that provides unlimited shots for however many hours you need them for. if that particular photographer only takes 600 shots, then he/she might miss some really great photo ops. i would prefer getting the unlimited shots then getting the best 600 of those shots, and not 600 to include half with my eyes closed leaving me with only 300 good shots.
posted by irmango 17 posts 5 months agoI think the question to ask is if you like the photographer's work enough that you want to pay for more coverage if needed, and if not then find another one that will have a package you are more comfortable with. I don't know how many shots is typical for a wedding, sorry =( My photographer is covering our wedding all day, from 1 hour before getting ready to the last big event, and is taking unlimited pictures.
posted by Jen4637 117 posts 5 months agoA shot limit seems a little weird, in the days of digital photography. This might be justified if they were shooting film, where every shot actually costs something, but for digital I don't think it's justified. You might ask your photographer what the reason is for the limit, but I think I would look for a package with unlimited shots. Our coverage is defined by the number of photographers (2) and the duration (7 hours) but contains unlimited pictures.
posted by suzanno 1,975 posts 5 months agoI also agree that it's a bit strange. However, could it mean that they deliver 600 pictures, rather than only take 600 pictures? According to my photographer, he and his assistent usually deliver between 600-800 good images (since so we're expecting between 1200-1600 images delivered to us on a CD about a month after the wedding). If it's that they only take 600 pictures, I'd be a little wary about that.
posted by rebecca 989 posts 5 months agoThat is really weird. I am a photog and if I were to give you a limit for a price it would be on finished, usable shots that are touched up and what not.
They say in the world of Photog that 1 out of every 10 shots is amazing, not to say that some in there as well arn't great too - but I mean truly amazing and perfect.
What if you blink 300 times? You're stuck with them and he will charge you more for extra shots? Weird! And also terribly inappropriate - he can't charge you for bad/unuseable photos!
I would get him to drop thast clause in the contract, or find a new photog. This seems like a bigger headache then it needs to be! And remember, you get what you pay for! Ask to see a whole wedding he has shot - don't just see 15 shots from different weddings, you need to see whata whole wedding looks like because anyone can pick out thir best 15 shots and show them off...
posted by Sweeney2Be 1,488 posts 5 months agoMy photographer took 600 pictures just in our 2.5 hour engagement session (300 of which were useable). That's not enough for a full day wedding, IMO.
posted by rzblna 113 posts 5 months agoMy advice would be to find another vendor. It's such a quirky way to do pricing, you have to wonder what other quirks you'll have to iron out of the contract in order to do business...
posted by bluegreenjean 118 posts 5 months agoYeah, I've heard most weddings are upwards of about 1000 shots or more. Having a limit is scary, I agree, I would probably find someone else. Because how in ALL DAY will only 600 be enough? 600 might be enough for like 4 hours! Haha.
posted by LeahB 342 posts 5 months agoMy photographer said that it is not unusual for her to take 2000 shots at a wedding. I think setting a limit is somewhat unrealistic. It depends on the bride/groom, lighting, location, who's around at a given moment-- all things that can't be dictated and controlled for with a set number of shots.
Good luck!
posted by doctorgirl 157 posts 5 months agoYeah i think that is a bit odd. We had 2 photographers who averaged 450 shots per hour, so with both of them we had 900 shots for ONE HOURS worth. They stayed at our wedding for 8 hours!
I just dont think its reasonable for them to cut you off since you have no idea how many pics you will like!
Good Luck!
posted by jhearta 93 posts 5 months agoI am a photographer (although not for weddings). The absolute only reason a photographer might possibly put a shot limit on your contract instead of a time limit is if he or she was shooting film. If they are shooting digital, there is no reason at all why they should impose that sort of limit, unless it is because they are too lazy to sort through more shots than that after your wedding. And the last thing you want is a lazy photographer. So find a new one, is my advice.
posted by CarolineG 284 posts 5 months agoI think it's odd that they would stop at 600 shots. It's not like a memory card is that expensive! My photographer says that it's typical to have at least 2,000 shots during the day and we're getting a minimum of 350 (good) shots on CD.
posted by Rs0518 1 posts 5 months agoI agree that this is very odd, and that you should look for someone else.
I mean, what if the photog gets snap happy and takes hundreds of photos in the first hour? will they expect you to pay them to stay for the rest of the wedding?
posted by melodicsighs1 86 posts 5 months agoAs a wedding photographer, even if I did not find the concept of a photo limit odd (and i do!) I find the limit of 600 to be crazy. For 8 hour coverage, we give the couple somewhere between 1500 - 2000 images. So even if every single picture he took was beautiful and perfect, you still wouldn't be getting a lot of photos for that amount of time. Your best bet would be to find another photographer who don't limit themselves.
Good luck!
posted by PerezSistersPhotography 34 posts 5 months agoI talked to FI today and he agreed to find another photog after I showed him this post. So yay, we are finding a new one! Thanks so much everyone for easing my fear. It's not like he comes cheap either. I'm sure I can do a lot more for $4000.
posted by furelysse 59 posts 5 months ago