Photographer help, please?

[ladypirate]

We are in the middle of trying to choose a photographer and we met with two today. I know there are some women (and men!) with wonderful eyes for photography on this site and I was hoping I could get some opinions on the two we are considering.

Photographer #1

$2400

-Engagement Photo Shoot
-6 Hours of Coverage with 1 Photographer on Wedding Day
-Full resolution final images on dvd
-$100 credit on optionals
-1 year online gallery

Optionals that we would consider include:

-Extra Hour ($300)
-2nd Shooter ($100/hour minimum 4 hours)

Photographer #2

$2950

-10 Hours of Shooting with 2 Photographers
-Proof book with 200 - 300 images
-300 - 500 high resolution images on disk (he said in person it''s usually more than this)
-Web site with all images
-5 rolls of medium format film

This photographer said that we could substitute out or subtract a couple hours of shooting at $220 an hour and add in things like a photo booth option and an engagement photo shoot.

Even though the second photographer is more expensive, I feel like we are getting a lot more bang for our buck. Thoughts on their style? On value?

Thanks in advance!

 

[ladyciel]

I think I prefer #1, mostly because I feel the *people* are better captured - their emotions, personalities, what they''re experiencing at that very moment...it''s all there. In contrast, I think I might prefer the magazine-like aesthetic of #2 if I didn''t feel so disconnected from the people.

 

[Rock_of_Love]

They both look great, but I would go with #2 mainly because of the 2nd shooter.

 

[FrekeChild]

I dunno! I love #1''s style, but you do seem to get a lot with #2...

 

[cindygenit]

#1...Beautiful photos!

I also believe a pre-wedding/engagement shoot is a must so you get to know the photographer and on the wedding day, you will be comfortable with him taking your photos. This way, he can capture and produce better photos of your wedding.

 

[exoticisabella]

First one by FAR! The first one has a way of capturing depth in his photos. If you look closley the photo is not just about what is in focus, it also is about what is out of focus (for example the photos of the men and the two mirrors, or the bride and her flowers by the fireside). To me the first one says "wedding art" and second says "wedding photos"

 

[mayachel]

I think both are excellent choices, but I would personally hire #2 in a heartbeat. I think they he has done a better job at framing his images to capture the people and not just the overall image. They are well crafted and exposed lighting wise as well.

 

[emeraldlover1]

I actually prefer #2. Number one is ok but it doesn''t speak to me like #2 does. Personally, I think that you should pick the one that speaks to you. Photography should make you feel something. I''d pick the one that makes you feel more. I do have some suggestions on the packages though.

How many guests are you having? We had 130 and did not need a second shooter. I honestly don''t think its necessary but it depends on how good the photographer is and what you want. The proof book is really small, why? 300 images is nothing, I would ask for more as they usually print multiple pictures on the page and it doesn''t cost that much. My proof book had over 2000 pictures in it, that is the only thing I have to base this on though. 500 images is not enough for 10 hours especially with 2 shooters. There should be more like 4000 pictures. Now, what I imagine is happening is that they edit out the pictures that they don''t like. I would ask about this. I would want to see every picture that was taken and I''d want them on the disk.

Does their contract have turn around time on the pictures? The best thing was coming home from our honeymoon 2 weeks later to find our proof book and cd images had already arrived.

I think an engagement shoot is necessary. For one, your photographer will be with you all day on your wedding day and its a great way for them to get to know you and for you to get to know them. Its also a great way to give them feedback on what you liked and didn''t like. I wasn''t in love with our engagement session but I was able to give feedback to my photographer and was amazingly happy with our wedding photos.

These are just my thoughts and experience. I hope it helps.

 

[ladypirate]

At this point we are leaning towards number two--EmeraldLover, thanks for the input on the package!

 

[ladypirate]

Heard back from asking photographer number two who said he''d be happy to give us all the raw files on disk. If we can come to an agreement on price, we''ll probably go with him.

 

[emeraldlover1]

anytime! I hope its helpful!

 

[Clairitek]

Before I even looked at the galleries I was going to say #2 because of the time included in the package. I don''t feel like 6 hours is enough if your ceremony is in the earlier half of the day (say before 2) or you have a large gap between the ceremony and reception. Our photographer stayed with us from the first moments at the salon to the final drink was sipped. It was awesome to have him along for all 10 hours.

Though, I believe those that said to try to have an engagement shoot have a great point. We didn''t do one with our wedding day photographer but we did do one with someone local to where we live and I am SO glad we did because we learned how to interact with each other in front of the camera. Had we not done that I doubt we would have looked natural in the wedding day photos at all.

It seems like you''re on the right track here and this is such a nice big thing to get checked off the list!

 

[katamari]

I actually like #1 better, though only slightly. I think you won''t go wrong with either. I am a bit concerned about 6 hours. Does that include his travel time or just working time?

And, I second EM1 on assessing whether or not you really need 2 photographers. We had about 150 at our reception party and our assistant was not able to make it very last minute due to illness. We honestly didn''t need her.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 10/19/2009 1:28:55 PM
Author: katamari
I actually like #1 better, though only slightly. I think you won''t go wrong with either. I am a bit concerned about 6 hours. Does that include his travel time or just working time?


And, I second EM1 on assessing whether or not you really need 2 photographers. We had about 150 at our reception party and our assistant was not able to make it very last minute due to illness. We honestly didn''t need her.

For the first photographer, it does not include travel time--just time on site.

As for 2 photographers, that photographer was saying that he likes working with another photographer because they can take more of the standard shots while he can be a little more off beat or artistic. Also, if we end up going for the photo booth option, the second photographer would run that during the reception while the main photographer walked around shooting.

We also thought it would be nice because the second photographer could take pictures at the cocktail hour of our guests while we did a portrait shoot with the main photographer.

Thanks for the input!

 

[cleokizzy]

i like them both but after reading through the messages before me, the 2nd photographer gives more bang for your buck!

so did you end up booking with them?

 

[Lauren8211]

Woohooo! Found the thread!

I like the second option. The fact that it includes 10 hours and 2 photogs is huge. It''s important to get two angles at the ceremony. One photog can''t get the bride stepping out and the grooms initial reaction at the same time, you know? We had 2 in ours and I''m glad that our package came with that.

I really liked his work, his package, his price... so I think #2 is a really good option.

 

[marlie]

I like both of the photographers work so for me it''s a toss up between the two creatively. Since that''s the case, my vote is for #2...because actually he''s slightly LESS expensive. You''d have to add $1000 to photog #1 to get what photog #2 included.

I like the idea of 2 photographers. I''m having 2 so that one can be with me and one can be with fi for getting ready shots. they get better coverage of the ceremony and everything if one is concentrating on the bride/groom and the other the crowd or something. i just felt safer with 2. I''m also having a large wedding though so that may have factored in my decision.

As for hours, if you aren''t meeting up with your FI before the ceremony, then you could probably make due with 7 hours. My FI and I are meeting up to do portraits and family shots before the wedding so we needed extra time. Just something else to think about.