Wedding A rather urgent photographer question

[darkeyesredshoes]

Now that I''ve got less than three months to plan my wedding, I''m a little panicked about finding vendors on such short notice. I''ve narrowed down photographers to two based on their availability and the fact that I love their work.

(Note: FI is a bit of an amateur photographer and has been no help in this department. Go figure.)

Please check each of these ladies out if you have a moment and let me know what you''d recommend.

Option 1: Lives on Nantucket, love her work, offers an awesome mini-wedding package that is super affordable. The downside is that the mini-wedding package limits coverage to three hours. So great photos and great price, but is three hours enough time to really capture a day that we''ll need to share with our family and friends via photos?

Click me to see Option 1''s work

Option 2: Lives in Boston, love her work, would have to travel but is super excited to shoot our wedding on Nantucket. Her coverage would allow for five hours and include an engagement session. The issue is that this package costs more than twice what the other would cost.


Click me to see Option 2''s work

My parents are pushing for the inexpensive package from Option 1. I just worry it won''t be enough time to really capture the day.

Help!

 

[goldenstar]

I would definitely choose option 2. Three hours isn't long enough because you probably want the photog to capture some of your preparation. Then you'll need the photog for the ceremony, cocktail hour, and at least some of the reception. This will surely take more than three hours. You also don't want to rush through the day because the photog's time is super limited. It will add more stress, which is the last thing you need.

Most importantly, you only have one chance to capture your wedding. You don't want to look back and wish that you had more pics. I realize that more hours = more money. But its definitely worth it. This is not an area where you should skimp if you can help it.

 

[jcarlylew]

Here is an option to go along with number 1 - have friends and family take pictures with disposable cameras. yes, you will get the floor, feet, crotch, ect shot, but it''ll be worth it. Family and friends have a nack for taking pictures of special moments that a photographer may not realize. Like, say, aunt essie eating cake at the table. not that exciting to some, but might remind you of something special you two shared.

IMO professional photogs are WONDERFUL to get the perfect shots for the "arranged" photos and special moments.

 

[peridot83]

Obviously, you should talk to the photographer. But my understanding, is that for 3 hours the photographer will only be guaranteeing pics of the ceremony, and portrait/group shots.

From timelines, I''ve seen on other websites, most people budget something like 2 hours to get all the portraits on the day of (bride & groom, bridesmaids, groomsmen, families), and with ceremonies running about 1/2 an hour...it seems reasonable that''s all a photographer would be able to guarantee.

For me, that is not enough coverage...I''d want the getting ready shots, the first dance shots, the giving toasts shots.

Unless you have some friends who dabble in photography who can be on hand to get those shots (i.e. have camera''s with special lenses etc.), I would explain to your parents how little coverage this is, and they should be understanding.

 

[peridot83]

Obviously, you should talk to the photographer. But my understanding, is that for 3 hours the photographer will only be guaranteeing pics of the ceremony, and portrait/group shots.

From timelines, I''ve seen on other websites, most people budget something like 2 hours to get all the portraits on the day of (bride & groom, bridesmaids, groomsmen, families), and with ceremonies running about 1/2 an hour...it seems reasonable that''s all a photographer would be able to guarantee.

You probably could squeeze in getting ready OR first dance, but only if the getting ready location or the reception location is in the same place as the wedding ceremony.

For me, that is not enough coverage...I''d want the getting ready shots, the first dance shots, the giving toasts shots.

Unless you have some friends who dabble in photography who can be on hand to get those shots (i.e. have camera''s with special lenses etc.), I would explain to your parents how little coverage this is, and they should be understanding.

 

[marchswallowbird]

Go with #2. These photos will be your memories for a lifetime. The price will seem like a small issue later, and you will regret it for the rest of your life if there are moments of your wedding that weren''t captured because your photog was only there for three hours.

On the other hand....what is the cost to add an hour to photog #1? If the price is still less than what #2 would be for five hours, perhaps that is your compromise.

 

[musey]

Okay, first of all, this splash page picture from photog 2 is SUPER CREEPY!!!!!!!

To your questions... for me, three hours was not nearly enough. We're having seven hours with 2 photographers... but I'm REALLY into pictures and wanted ridiculous amounts of them. I know everything that day will just fly by, and I'll need the pics to remind me

Photography was one of our "no compromising" points... we were blah on flowers, DJ, cake, but photographer? Had to be great and had to give us lots of time.


It would help to schedule out the day, at least tentatively, to see what it is they'd be there for. Three hours will likely be enough for a bit of pre-ceremony, ceremony, portraits, and the very beginning of the reception (cocktail hour and dinner, maybe cake cutting but only if you rush it... probably not). None of the getting ready before, none of the dancing after.

Some people only care about capturing the 'key points,' though.

 

[darkeyesredshoes]

(Musey - ha! I hadn''t seen that one)

So it looks as thought the consensus is that more hours = better/necessary for capturing the day. I agree that photography (and food

) has always been my main wedding priority above all else.

Option 1 for four hours costs the same as Option 2 for 5 hours. Not including disc of images.

Shall I go with Option 2? What do you think of her work?


Thank you all for your rapid input...

 

[peridot83]

Option 2 is clearly going for "photojournalistic style" candid looking pics, without a lot of touchups, editing (to enhance color, erase blemishes).

Option 1 is very posed, traditional, and took a lot of time to edit and emphasize the color on the pics on the website.

Frankly, I usually am more into Option 2''s style, except it looks like option 2 is not v. experienced? Or doesn''t have a v. artistic eye? A lot of the pics look unflattering (too close-up, too sharp on lines/blemishes) or the white-balance, color, lighting seems a little off (a little too cold, unflattering).

I can see what option 2 is trying to do...just not pulling it off as well as I would like.

Option 1 seems a safe bet, but it looks like a lot of the best pictures will be posed moments not candids.

So it depends what you want

 

[saltymuffin]

Is there a third option? Is there any way to negotiate another hour or two with the first photographer?

 

[Courtneylub]

MUSEY!

AHHHH! That scared the bejesus out of me!!!

 

[darkeyesredshoes]

Okay, I''ve been thinking, and I figured I''d show you two of the other photographers who were in the running.

Option 3: More affordable, but how is her work?

Option 3

Option 4: Probably as expensive as Options 1 or 2 for 5 hours, but I think I might like her work even more...

Option 4

I''m going to contact Option 4 to get a quote now. I''m waiting to hear from Option 1 about the three-hour timing.

You ladies are the best...

 

[Allison D.]

I just read your other thread (you decided on a small wedding with 14 people), so I''d say the 3-hour package might be doable.

You mentioned a beach ceremony and a dinner at a restaurant afterwards. That sounds like you won''t be doing the whole DJ/dancing/etc. thing, so you may be a perfect candidate for a smaller package.

I was in a similar position when I married 4 years ago; we hired a photographer for 3 hours. In hindsight, I wish I''d done closer to 4 hours because I''d have liked to have her at the hotel with us while the gals were getting ready.

Beyond that, though, she got the entire ceremony (30 min), the hour of pictures afterward in the garden, and then drove the 25 min. to the schooner we were having the reception on and shot the cutting of the cake, first dance, and parent dances.

When the wedding group is that small, there isn''t much to take photos of during the meal. How many ways can you shoot such a small group? It''s tough, too, because most people don''t want pictures taken of them eating.

 

[darkeyesredshoes]

I''m so glad to have your advice, Allison! It''s been hard for me to envision this since I''ve never done it before (and don''t intend to do it again, thank goodness!) and I''m not sure what''s "enough."

The good news is that Option 1 got back to me and she created a custom package for 4 hours of coverage, an engagement session, two books, and a DVD of the pictures on our first anniversary. After all that, the package still came in $750 below Option 2 (for five hours with a DVD). I think we''ve made a decision!

I love her work, and I''m excited that she''s a Nantucket native so that she''ll be able to help us navigate the island to take photos in the right settings.

Thank all of you for all your help! Now, on to the dress, the officiant, the restaurant, the flowers, the cake...

 

[vintagelover229]

Date: 7/16/2008 1:16:51 PM
Author: musey
Okay, first of all, this splash page picture from photog 2 is SUPER CREEPY!!!!!!!

Can anyone say "children of the corn all grown up?"