I just booked the photo/video & was told that i will have about 300 (max) proofs. We are doing a traditional type wedding but i need to know if this is a reasonable amount. also, did everyone have a 'lighting assistant'? This is an additonal option, but i am not sure if i need it. the wedding is 10/11 in the morning/afternoon. thanks for any help
dgtlsunshine
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
I am no expert but I would think with traditional that would be a good amount of pics.
My photographer had someone helping with lights. I am surprise that is an option. I thought that was something they needed. I have no clue on that one.
nylisa
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
I am having a traditional photographer too and I am getting about 300 proofs too.
goldilocks
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
I think that's within the norm. I would definitely go with a lighting assistant if your budget can hadle it. You never know how your day's weather will turn out and it's better to be prepared for that.
gpsyeyes
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
i am relieved to know that the amount of pics is ok. as for the lighting assistant, it is only 95.00 more but it was just that it wasn't mentioned to me. i'll probably add it on, just to be safe. thanks for your advice.
Valenia
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
The lighting assistant isn't there only to add light. At my wedding, the assistant also blocked out the sun with this giant disk thing so that we weren't all squinting! Very worth it!
kelly6273
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
Believe this or not but my sisters photographer ran out of film after 180 shots...at the time it was a nightmare. Once we got the proofs, we were pleasantly surprised. They were great pictures and there wasn't anything he missed.
LaurenDM
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
I'm not saying it's too little or not, but I do think it's below the average, and you should try to bargain with them. I got over 750 proofs, and I know plenty of people who got MANY more proofs than I did.
butterfly20
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
that sounds fine... but ifyour concerned about not having enough you could ask the photographer if you could pay a little more money and have more film shot (theyd probably be happy to get more money)
SeptemberBride03
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
IMO that is not enough (I'm getting 1000). You want to have enough to choose from so that you have 'perfect' pics that you LOVE for your album to document your day forever! Some day your children and grandchildren will look at them. And, the professional hold up better than your family's photos b/c they preserved in the albums.
Lunatrek
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
I don't think 300 is enough either...
Rob-luvs-me
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
I personally don't think it is enough BUT this is a very personal decision - I wanted photojournalism which means more photos - not really possible with that few - I will get over 1000- most likely more than 1500.
You are looking for a traditional photos - which means more posed - this means it will take longer to position you rather than the candids etc.
Keep in mind the usual MUST TAKE photo list is about 100 photos long. And figure they will take more than one of each of some of those.
Sasha96
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
It's up to you if you think 300 is enough. I got about 600+ proofs and my album ended up with 100 in it. We had a photographer, assistant, and a lighting asst. The lighting asst. did a lot with the flash, even in daylight, provided backlighting for some shots, and was there with the flash for the indoor reception. This is a personal decision and part of why different photographers have different packages.
Jordan
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
For 'traditional' photographs, I think it's enough. If you were going photojournalistic, I'd say no, it's not enough.
michele31
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
A lightening assistant could mean one of those HUGE lights! Is that for photo or video? If it is for video you will NOT want a huge video light on you all day, nor will your guests. it also means he/she is using outdated equipment since the new cameras do not need those lights anymore. Also, my photographers did not use any type of large light- thank God. You can have a traditional wedding but do you only want posed family photos and a few dance photos? If so, i would still want 500 photos min. Also, do you want some B&W and color. B&W look elegant and show off your day in a very different way. Your photographer is basically ONLY going to get the typical wedding moments and probably limit his use of film throughtout the day. If you have an 8 hour day with him/her she will be taking about 1-1.5 rolls per HOUR. That is really bare min. type photography.
gpsyeyes
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
wow - i have to call the photographer again. i appreciate all the info. i am looking for traditional but not much more than making sure i have the family shots. they are doing black/white too. I think they have up to date equipment - they told me the lighting asst. would be for bad weather. i'll have to go over it all again with them now that i am more informed. thanks everyone!
jennbaby
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
i got well over 300!
butterfly20
Posted:
Member since
Re: is 300 photos too little?
I just talked to my sister today.. who had used gray studios and she said she had about 300 photos and it was plenty
