My fiance and I have our wedding photographer for the before, during n after wedding ceremony plus an additional 5 hours at the reception. we could go down a price where we would just have the photographer for the before, during n after ceremony and into an hour or two at the reception. THe package we have now is 1850 the one we are thinking of doing instead is 2350 which is The difference of 400.00 or 500.00. We are pretty much the only ones paying for this wedding so we are trying to cut corners here and there.
My question is what has everyone done for their wedding in regards to your photographer? Did you have the photographer for just the wedding pics or wedding plus reception?
Thank You everyone for such great advice. My fiance and I decided to go down to the lower $1350 package. It looks like we would get our photographer for the before, during and after ceremony pics plus an hour or two at reception. So that means HE can stilL get the cake cutting pics in, toasting pics and our first dance in ( we would just do our dance right away at the reception).
We had a photographer from the time I did my hair in the morning, till we left the reception. She was wonderful and affordable. She was there from about 7 am till midnight. The only thing I would not cut the cost on is the photographer. We also put cameras on each table for the guest to take pics and we got some great funny pics from that as well.
HI K.!
My mom is a wedding photographer and typically most people just have the photographer stay for the first hour or so of the reception. Once people are sitting down to eat, they don't want their pictures taken so the photographer is just sitting there. When my husband and I got married we had ours stay the whole night. It wasn't worth the extra money to me.
We had a before/during/reception photography package - only for about an hour or 2 at the reception. I am very glad that I have photos from before and during the ceremony and during the reception too, but I was so ready for the photographer to be finished. I really wanted to spend time with our guests and to enjoy the reception and dance.
i would ask why is there only $100 difference between staying one extra hour vs 5. I would think staying only one hour would be a lot less than 5. if you choose only one hour into the reception, be prepared to take a lot of staged pictures: toast, cake eating, dance etc...we did it this way and it was fine...but we also had the photo guy follow us from the church to the bar in between the reception for some fun limo and friend shots.
We had our photograper only there for an hour of our reception. and during that time we had him take all the cool pics that we wanted like with the cake and stuff like that
As long as the photographer is willing to have you pose for the cake cutting and first dance, definately go cheaper. You don't even have to REALLY do those things then, but just pose so you can get the "shot" I'm sure other friends and family will get the real deal. Or, you could find a good reliable friend or family member to take pictures for you that night. They won't be "professional quality" but it's the moment that counts. We did the disposable cameras too. It was nice to see "hidden" moments at the reception that you maybe didn't see. I would limit these too, however, since there will either be a lot of repeat pictures (everyone using them to get the first dance picture) or they won't get used up. This is just a thought, but maybe put them in a neutral spot instead of at each table, so those who really WANT to take pictures can use it...and put it back when they're done. Then encourage friends and others who are having a good time to use them throughout the nite, or designate a bridesmaid to manage them.
Yes, cut it down to before, during and 1hr after at the reception, we did exactly that and had plenty of photos, also make sure to make a list for the photographer of the must have photo's such as certain group shots etc it really saves on time and then they have time to be creative.
Good luck
The way you go will depend on what you want to get out of the shots. Do you want more candid shots or do you want the posed variety? Are your wedding shots all about you and the immediate wedding party or are they about the entire day? The difference is only one fifth the price of the package and it is, hopefully, a once in a lifetime event.
Hi K.,
We did what most others did: Had the photographer for all the staged shots right before the ceremony, pictures of the wedding and departure in the limo, and then for an hour or so of the reception (staging shots like the cake-cutting, etc.) We found that so many friends took candids and shared them with us that we had pretty much a play-by-play of the whole day either way. I agree with another poster--see if you can do the formal shots before the ceremony. A friend suggested that for the "big reveal" between bride and groom, the bride waits in a separate room and the groom goes in by himself. This allows them a private "first look" at each other, and a quiet moment alone...perhaps the last of the day! :) Anyway, that helped me get over the worry about seeing each other before the ceremony. Congrats on teh wedding!!
The price of your photographer is 500.00 total for that entire time? If that is the case, go for it! We paid almost 2,000 and he took getting ready, before the wedding, ceremony and an hour into the reception. The most important thing about wedding pictures is that YOU own your negatives. Without that you have to get ahold of your photographer everytime you want a print, plus you usually have to pay outrageous prices for each one... when you could just bring your digital negative into pro-ex and pay less that $5 for an 8x10.
How many pictures do you really need? A few formal shots are very nice to have, but we really don't look at ours much. I would guess a minimal photo package, a few pictures of the ceremony and a brief photo session immediately after, and then put the "disposable" cameras on the tables. Aren't snaps of friends/family in a relaxed and fun setting more fun to have anyway? Since you are the hosts of a party you are not going to want to keep guests sitting around waiting for an hour while you do pics, right? When in doubt, keep it simple.
Hello K.,
At our wedding last year we did a photo session before ceremony (2hours), at the church and couple hours during reception. We used Melissa www.melissavenne.com and she was great. She would work with you to get the best package that fits your needs with resonable price.
Congratulations! And Good Luck!
Our photographer stayed for an hour, tops, at the reception. We cut the cake AND had our first dance all before we ate. In fact, we even did the father/daughter dance and mother/son dance before we ate. It turned out really well because people were just sitting down and getting their salads. Those who wanted to get up and take pictures could do that too, although, for our cake cutting, no one knew we were doing it that early, so if you have a PA system, make sure you make some sort of announcement.
It is all up to you. My Husband and I had the photographer for before and after the wedding and the beginging of the reception.
Before the wedding the Bridal party and Bride and the Grooms Party and the Groom. We didn't see eachother before the wedding so then we had "after the wedding pictures" (families/bride&groom). At the reception he took a picture of the cake cutters the Bride/groom table and the Wedding party as we came in. That was it. We had put the cameras on the table for people to take some pictures. We saved money. We had to buy by the hour. Our thought is we wanted to spend the money on us and family. The reception wasn't as important to us. That is why we chose the disposeable carmeras
HTH
I would go for the lower package price and just stager disposable camera's at your reception. Those are some fun unique pictures you get. For the party favors, I did Herseys hugs and kisses wrapped in netting. I have also seen regular candy bars with wrappers that had the couples name and marriage date and a little thank you.
I got married almost 10 years ago but we only had the photographer for before, during, and immediately after the ceremony. We also got him for about 1 hr at the reception to do the staged shots of the cake etc. It worked out well because our guests were having appetizers and weren't just standing around waiting for dinner.
I would agree that professional photos aren't really needed for the reception. Many couples put disposable cameras on the tables for the guests to take candid shots and then you can get some fun stuff for a photo album outside the professional one. We also decided to use a videographer for the wedding and reception which was much much cheaper.
One recommendation if you are not superstitious about seeing the groom before the wedding is to take a lot of the group family shots and shots of you and your husband before the wedding. At this point your flowers look fresh, your makeup is still fresh, and also by doing it this way you aren't making your guests wait for a long time for you to show up at the reception. Just a thought...
Good luck!
K.,
Is your photographer doing any video? If not, I'd say cut back to the 1 hour at the reception. Our photographer stayed, for no extra charge, but he did video. He really only took a couple photo's we requested of family at the reception and the traditional cutting of the cake. That's all we would have wanted anyway in film. The rest of the reception he did video..so him staying was worth it for us. But like I said, if you aren't having video, just do the 1 hour. There's really not going to be great photo opps after that and your family and friends will be taking the "fun" photo's at the reception. Maybe just send soemthing out after the wedding asking for family and friends to share their photos with you, so you can get a copy. I got so many from my family and friends I filled up a whole nother album with them.
