Should I be spending this much on a photographer??

[newbie124]

So, I found a fantastic photographer in the Bay Area whose work I really love. I''m super picky when it comes to photos--not only do the colors have to be great and the b/ws well-balanced, but they must also have a creative eye.

At one point we were considering hiring a husband-wife duo from Chicago and flying them out to CA for the wedding. Then I found this other photographer and fell in love with his work.

So here''s the issue...We set our total wedding budget to be $35k. Right now, we''re looking at actual costs closer to $37,000, not factoring in rings and honeymoon. There might still be a little wiggle room in the catering, flowers/decor and the rehearsal dinner, but probably only up to about $1500.

I was originally planning to budget around $5,000 for photography and that has slowly crept up to $6,000. That''s quite a huge chunk of our budget, considering that I''ve read that 10% is the normal percentage.

The SF photographer has been willing to discount his package rate to fit in our $6k budget and still give us their upgraded album (they only offer 1 mounted photos album option and we knew we didn''t want to go w/ the coffee table/flush version). But they would have to add on about $130 in taxes to that (I''m still not sure why we''d be charged CA tax when the album would be shipped to us in IL).

Also, I was really keen on having him also do our engagement session. That is included in the package, but I wanted to be able to have those photos taken in Chicago so that we''d have some pictures in our hometown. So there''d be roughly an additional $400 for airfare/hotel (they also offered to use some of their hotel points to keep the hotel costs down).

So the total cost would end up being about $6400-6500 (or nearly 19% of the budget), not including costs of additional prints/parent albums (I may just make those myself to save some $). It''s a little scary to see that much of our budget go towards one thing...I know a lot of people have said they didn''t regret spending extra on photography...I just wonder how much "extra" that was?

The Chicago photographers we considered had a package of $5400 and that would include TWO photographers instead of one. Also, since we''d be flying them out there, they said that they''d probably make themselves available to take photos throughout the weekend not just the day of. With the airfare/hotel added up, we''d probably be around $6,000 with them as well, but would just be getting more--2 photogs, more photos/hours, $100 e-session print credit. They also do nice work, but I feel that the guy in SF is just a bit more creative and his photos have a bit more impact than the ones I''ve seen from the Chicago photographers.

Ugh...I''m trying my best to keep our budget in line, but all these dollar figures are stressing me out! Photographs are really important to us, though, and I''m even foregoing videography to leave more room in the budget, but it''s still a hefty sum to stomach. I just want to know that we''re not crazy devoting this much of our budget to the photography!

 

[mimzy]

that''s a tough one!

is there any way that you can reserve yourself to going super cheap on one other aspect of the wedding? maybe your dress or the ceremony decorations or something? if you SWEAR to yourself you aren''t going to go over a lowball number for one thing, and save the money that way, then go with the SF photographer.

but if you want everything in the wedding to be of a certain calibur (you have your heart set on a romona k gown or something) then i would go with the chicago photographers. the majority of people have unexpected costs that add up to a number that exceeds the budget, and if you overspend from the get go the added costs are going to be a lot more than just the extra 1k on the photographer.

you can always describe in detail what you like to the chicago photographers, and maybe casually throw in some of your favorite shots of the other photographer. you never know what they can do if they are just asked!

 

[xiuying]

My budget''s significantly lower than yours, so I may not be able to contribute much, but this is roughly my breakdown:


Wedding: $10,000
Photographer: $1500

So that''s 15%.


Here''s the catch, though: it took my father and I nearly three weeks to even find a photographer that wasn''t too expensive for us. I kept running into this divisive line of either finding a photographer that I LOVED (who was usually $2200+) or a photographer that was inexpensive but so-so ($1800 and below). It was really frustrating for me, since I wanted GOOD photographer but didn''t want to eat up my budget. We lucked out... we found a photographer who was more than experienced, but was JUST branching his way into weddings... so even though his portfolio looked great, his prices were affordable.


That said, if we''d never found him, I would have sucked it up and plunked down the $2200... which is 22% of our budget.

 

[newbie124]

Date: 5/7/2008 10:59:09 AM
Author: mimzy
that''s a tough one!

is there any way that you can reserve yourself to going super cheap on one other aspect of the wedding? maybe your dress or the ceremony decorations or something? if you SWEAR to yourself you aren''t going to go over a lowball number for one thing, and save the money that way, then go with the SF photographer.

but if you want everything in the wedding to be of a certain calibur (you have your heart set on a romona k gown or something) then i would go with the chicago photographers. the majority of people have unexpected costs that add up to a number that exceeds the budget, and if you overspend from the get go the added costs are going to be a lot more than just the extra 1k on the photographer.

you can always describe in detail what you like to the chicago photographers, and maybe casually throw in some of your favorite shots of the other photographer. you never know what they can do if they are just asked!

Well, when I created the budget, I did it in a way that put less emphasis on certain things that weren''t as important to us...our floral budget has gone WAY down from my initial estimate (but I''m also OK w/ that b/c the venue we found is pretty enough that we don''t have to do much in the way of decor). So some things have gone up and others have gone down. But other than the three things I''ve mentioned above (RD, catering, a little more w/ decor) I''m not sure I''ll be able to get the other areas down much more.

I''ve also tried to keep the estimates as accurate as possibly and trying to factor in as many "hidden" costs as I could, including tip/tax.

I guess I just wonder if I''ll later regret not going w/ our first choice for a few hundred more...

I wish it would be an easy thing to tell the Chicago photographers to try to mimic that other guy, but I feel like it''s just a difference in style, and that''s something harder to change than say asking them not to blur photos or adjust colors in certain ways.

 

[cara]

We had a very similar budget bay area wedding, though we were not successful in holding ourselves to the initial budget. Photography was very difficult - both hushand and I have some art/photo background and had opinions. We also set a photo budget of $5k and looked at many people for who that was their bare minimum price. We signed with a package with someone we really liked that included an engagement session and midsize album and enough hours on the day of for about $3600 and thought we got an absolute steal.

Then we realized no engagement pictures were included - just the session. Spent $1000 on those, but they were handy as parent gifts and now we have some professional pictures not in our wedding attire.

And when we went to lay out the album they had arranged a lovely album of 47 pages. Our package called for 18 or so. We cut out half the extra pages and still paid another $3000.

Of course we could have controlled costs better but I would look at the package you are considering and make sure that you are not going to have additional costs later. Personally, I would go with the CA photographer you love but not fly them out to Chicago. It doesn''t sound that much more expensive than your Chicago duo and the pics are the only thing that will survive from the wedding - besides the happily married couple! Hire a Chicago photographer for your epics and see if you can get something extra from the CA person for the epics - maybe another page in an album? And maybe take the engagement pics out of the wedding budget - makes it look better right?

We do have lovely pics and have paid them off, but man. I shutter to think about the cost.

 

[Independent Gal]

Hmmmm. I dunno. I guess it depends how important certian things are to you. We spent $500 on photography and got AMAZING photos. We did that by not hiring a ''wedding photographer''.

Didn''t Neatfreak have her wedding in San Francisco? Her pics were fabulous (some of the best I''ve seen), and I think her person was just starting out, so didn''t cost much.

 

[Independent Gal]

Here''s Neatfreak''s thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/shameless-plug-for-my-fabulous-san-francisco-photographer.83247/

 

[Gypsy]

I've seen such a huge disparity between good and bad out here. If you are looking at Gene Higa... I would pay 6K for him-- even if he's alone. He was my second choice and it was a near thing.

But, take a look at mine, they cost a little less than Gene, and you get two photographers and stuff... and they are really wonderful ladies. Give them a call and just chat with Becky and tell her you know Layla (she'll know it's me) www.artofemotion.com The pics on thier site are very good, but their albums and their proof books are just fabulous.... especially the proof books because you see the sheer number of pics they take, and how MANY of them are great and usable. Plus you get an engagement shoot. It's a good deal.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Well. I shrunk our wedding budget (moved up the date, and got tired of spending money before I even started spending money). I haven''t added everything up, but I think we will stay under $20k and we are planning on spending about $5,000 on a photographer and we''re getting bridal portraits (I haven''t priced those yet). So, for me, personally it''s not too much because it''s something that is VERY important to me. So no, I don''t think you''re crazy! Just understand if you''re going to spend that chunk of the budget there, you may have to cut other places.

E.g. Less expensive honeymoon or delay honeymoon, or just plain white gold or yellow gold wedding band until you can afford more.

 

[goldenstar]

We are spending quite a bit on our photographer. It worked out to be 15% of our budget for the package we want. If its important to you and you have enough left of the budget for the rest of your wedding, I think its worth it. Your photos will last a lifetime. We also splurged on a videographer and that ate up another big chunk of our funds.

We are having a reasonable number of guests (130) so our remaining budget can still squeeze out a very nice wedding.

 

[newbie124]

cara - Yes, funny you mention that, but I was just talking about this w/ a friend and considered maybe using the Chicago photographers for our e-session and not flying out the CA one but using him for the wedding. Then we can either get some money back for no e-session or, as you said, apply it as credit towards some prints or something. The only downside is that then we wouldn''t have an opportunity to work with the photographer before the wedding. But I''m hoping that won''t be a huge deal...at the very least maybe we could just schedule a meeting with him when we''re next out in CA so we at least have an opportunity to interact face to face.

Gypsy/Indy - Thanks for the recommendations! I generally shy away from asking for photographer recs only b/c it''s such a subjective thing whether you like someone''s photography style or not. But doesn''t hurt to have options! (Gypsy, I went to artofmotion''s site but didn''t see package prices listed anywhere...do you mind sharing what their starting package rate is?)

Oh, and no, the photographer is not Gene, though his pictures are lovely. He does have a $6k package, but then I think you have to add albums on top of that so it''d end up being much more. The one we''re considering is HyStudio.

I should probably mention that in the beginning I was really adamant about having 2 photographers. Then I found out Hy would only be able to provide 1. But then I thought about how we''re only expecting around 70 guests and the wedding is going to be in a fairly confined space, so then it didn''t seem quite so bad to settle with just 1 photographer.

I''m also starting to worry a little about how many vendors are going to be on site during the wedding...My DOC usually brings her husband to help out, the DJ we''re considering usually works w/ his girlfriend, we have two musicians who may stay for the reception plus 1 photographer and that''s already 10% of our guest list! So while having 2 photographers would help in getting a wider variety of photos, maybe it wouldn''t be as necessary in our case? And also less distracting for guests if there''s only 1 person milling about snapping pictures.

 

[mamie]

I feel your pain. Going in I knew photography was going to be my splurge, and it stands now at 22% of my total budget. My FI and family think I''m crazy for spending so much on "just pictures," but the idea of settling on a slightly less expensive photog was sending me into fits. I just knew I''d kick myself in the ass years to come for not going with the great photog.

As I tried to rationalize to FI, "You can earn that money back but you can''t re-do your wedding." I''m cutting costs in every other part I can think of to keep the budget from skyrocketing - but I freaked out before booking. If I was going over my budget at the VERY beginning of planning, what else was I going to overbudget on??

My advice was going to be to do the Chicago people for e-session and see if CA photog can give you more wedding hours, but I see you''ve already looked into that. : ) I wish you good luck with everything. Please let us know what happens!

 

[sna77]

sounds like we have similar wedding budgets... Photographer is $5500, videograper is $2500, flipping fowers are $5k.

Someone shoot me please

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 5/7/2008 3:56:05 PM
Author: newbie124
cara - Yes, funny you mention that, but I was just talking about this w/ a friend and considered maybe using the Chicago photographers for our e-session and not flying out the CA one but using him for the wedding. Then we can either get some money back for no e-session or, as you said, apply it as credit towards some prints or something. The only downside is that then we wouldn''t have an opportunity to work with the photographer before the wedding. But I''m hoping that won''t be a huge deal...at the very least maybe we could just schedule a meeting with him when we''re next out in CA so we at least have an opportunity to interact face to face.

Gypsy/Indy - Thanks for the recommendations! I generally shy away from asking for photographer recs only b/c it''s such a subjective thing whether you like someone''s photography style or not. But doesn''t hurt to have options! (Gypsy, I went to artofmotion''s site but didn''t see package prices listed anywhere...do you mind sharing what their starting package rate is?)

Oh, and no, the photographer is not Gene, though his pictures are lovely. He does have a $6k package, but then I think you have to add albums on top of that so it''d end up being much more. The one we''re considering is HyStudio.

I should probably mention that in the beginning I was really adamant about having 2 photographers. Then I found out Hy would only be able to provide 1. But then I thought about how we''re only expecting around 70 guests and the wedding is going to be in a fairly confined space, so then it didn''t seem quite so bad to settle with just 1 photographer.

I''m also starting to worry a little about how many vendors are going to be on site during the wedding...My DOC usually brings her husband to help out, the DJ we''re considering usually works w/ his girlfriend, we have two musicians who may stay for the reception plus 1 photographer and that''s already 10% of our guest list! So while having 2 photographers would help in getting a wider variety of photos, maybe it wouldn''t be as necessary in our case? And also less distracting for guests if there''s only 1 person milling about snapping pictures.

I can tell you its less than 6K. But I''m not EXACTLY sure how much less so I don''t want to qoute you (we booked with them three years ago so they have had our deposit for a while, and are giving us a few concessions as a result). I would suggest contracting Becky and asking her, she''s usually very good about returning calls and emails from her site.

 

[rainbowtrout]

The family friend we asked to do our wedding charged that much, and he is worth it (we asked him to do it for 500 and he was too stressed out).

I suppose what I am saying is, yes, you very much get what you pay for and it is an enormous amount of work and stress for the photographer. But whether it is worth it to you personally only you can answer.

 

[FacetFire]

Photography ended up being a much larger part of our budget than we expected also. We are spending close to $7,000 on photography, including an album, engagement photos, and prints. Our wedding budget is $40,000. Like you, I had orginally budgeted $5,000, but that just wasn''t cutting it. And, my thinking is that it doesn''t matter how beautiful everything else is if I don''t have great photos to capture it all. So...I say go for it. I think it is one area you won''t regret spending money on.

 

[newbie124]

Thanks for the input, everyone!

So I think right now I''m leaning towards booking them for the wedding, but maybe hiring the Chicago photographers for the e-session.

I know that means we wouldn''t have the opportunity to have a shoot w/ the CA photographer before the wedding, but I''m not sure how concerned I am/should be about that anyway. I mean, I guess it would be nice to work with him beforehand to get comfortable, but I mostly wanted him to shoot us in Chicago for his photos rather than to get to know him.

Plus, this will probably save me the extra headache of finding/scheduling airfare and hotel and of course the local photographers will already be familiar w/ the city...So yeah...maybe this will be the best of both worlds?

 

[newbie124]

OK...so I contacted the Chicago photographers about their e-sessions. Well, surprisingly, they do not provide any files of the images for their e-session photos. I thought this was really strange, then I was talking to a friend who said she ran across this w/ a lot of photographers. The photographer didn't even mention if there was an option to purchase the files...just said that b/c they consider it a "portrait" session they do not offer the hi-res images. So that's kind of a bummer. Also, although they give a $100 print credit, a 4x6 print is $20! Yikes

I asked the CA photographer about their policy and they actually DO provide the images free of charge. Also, they use mpix for all of their printing and let you order the prints yourself. I looked it up and this company is related to Miller Professional Imaging, which I think is a popular printing company that many professional photographers use. The online reviews I found for mpix were all pretty good AND a 4x6 print from there is less than 30 cents!!

Sooo....now I'm wondering if it might end up being a better deal after all to fly the CA photographer out here for our e-session. 10 prints from the Chicago photographer would already be $200 (minus the $100 credit and we'll have paid a total of $425 for the session and 10 pictures). Flying the CA photographer out here, while more hassle, would cost around $400 for travel but then only about $3 for 10 prints...or get around 300 prints for $100! Plus, we would get the files and at no extra charge.

 

[Gypsy]

I got tired just reading about coordinating a chigago photographer out here. CA photographer all the way.

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

OH, I have so much to say to this. I usually am on the photographer boards. You have really good questions. I am a photographer. I do portrait work, not weddings. The way that portrait work goes is I charge a session fee ($350). This fee is for time and travel. I don''t sell the digital negatives at all because I make my bread and butter off of prints. My clients pay a la carte.

Wedding Photographers, on the other hadn work differently. That take a large sum of money from you upfront. IMO, this should include a disk of all images and possibly all of the proofs (4x6), a wedding album and any other extras they choose.

The prices you are quoted are not unreasonable for a good photographer, although I can''t deny it is still a considerable expense. I wouldn''t compromise on the digital images though. With wedding photographers in this price range, I would insist on it.

If photography is a priority for you, I don''t think you will regret paying more for a reputable photographer who fits your style. If not, I don''t see a problem either going with a less expensive photographer.

I am spending a lot of money on my photographer $5000, but I cut costs by getting married on a Sunday. My dress was $700 as well. I also am having a friend do my flowers which will be about $500. So go figure.

If you want any California referrals, let me know. I could send you some links.

Also, if I have out of state clients, I don''t charge them sales tax. However I''m not sure the legality of that. I don''t get too many traveling in from out of state.

I hope I''m not sounding like I am trying to justify anything. Just thought my opinion might be helpful.

good luck!
~T

 

[newbie124]

Date: 5/13/2008 10:38:07 PM
Author: Vote4PedroToo
OH, I have so much to say to this. I usually am on the photographer boards. You have really good questions. I am a photographer. I do portrait work, not weddings. The way that portrait work goes is I charge a session fee ($350). This fee is for time and travel. I don''t sell the digital negatives at all because I make my bread and butter off of prints. My clients pay a la carte.

Wedding Photographers, on the other hadn work differently. That take a large sum of money from you upfront. IMO, this should include a disk of all images and possibly all of the proofs (4x6), a wedding album and any other extras they choose.

The prices you are quoted are not unreasonable for a good photographer, although I can''t deny it is still a considerable expense. I wouldn''t compromise on the digital images though. With wedding photographers in this price range, I would insist on it.

If photography is a priority for you, I don''t think you will regret paying more for a reputable photographer who fits your style. If not, I don''t see a problem either going with a less expensive photographer.

I am spending a lot of money on my photographer $5000, but I cut costs by getting married on a Sunday. My dress was $700 as well. I also am having a friend do my flowers which will be about $500. So go figure.

If you want any California referrals, let me know. I could send you some links.

Also, if I have out of state clients, I don''t charge them sales tax. However I''m not sure the legality of that. I don''t get too many traveling in from out of state.

I hope I''m not sounding like I am trying to justify anything. Just thought my opinion might be helpful.

good luck!

~T

Hi! Thanks for your input! It definitely helps to get the perspective of someone in the business. I asked the Chicago photographers about purchasing the image files and they said they charge $450 for the set and $75 for individual files. So that would pretty much blow any savings we might have gotten from going w/ someone local.

I think it was helpful that you pointed out how you don''t include portrait files b/c you make your bread and butter from the prints. I hadn''t thought of that, and of course it would make sense if that''s the only service we''re hiring them for (rather than a wedding package). If I were booking them for a wedding package that included an e-session but not the files...then I would probably be more concerned.

I guess we could learn to deal with not having the files, but when the CA photographer would give them to us for free it''s harder to justify not going with them. Also, I figured that if we wanted 50 prints from the Chicago photographers, that would be $1,000! Whereas being able to order 50 prints directly from the photo lab would only cost us something like $15. So that''s a huge advantage, especially if we plan to make the parent albums ourselves...

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

Date: 5/14/2008 2:32:54 PM
Author: newbie124

Date: 5/13/2008 10:38:07 PM

Author: Vote4PedroToo

OH, I have so much to say to this. I usually am on the photographer boards. You have really good questions. I am a photographer. I do portrait work, not weddings. The way that portrait work goes is I charge a session fee ($350). This fee is for time and travel. I don''t sell the digital negatives at all because I make my bread and butter off of prints. My clients pay a la carte.


Wedding Photographers, on the other hadn work differently. That take a large sum of money from you upfront. IMO, this should include a disk of all images and possibly all of the proofs (4x6), a wedding album and any other extras they choose.


The prices you are quoted are not unreasonable for a good photographer, although I can''t deny it is still a considerable expense. I wouldn''t compromise on the digital images though. With wedding photographers in this price range, I would insist on it.


If photography is a priority for you, I don''t think you will regret paying more for a reputable photographer who fits your style. If not, I don''t see a problem either going with a less expensive photographer.


I am spending a lot of money on my photographer $5000, but I cut costs by getting married on a Sunday. My dress was $700 as well. I also am having a friend do my flowers which will be about $500. So go figure.


If you want any California referrals, let me know. I could send you some links.


Also, if I have out of state clients, I don''t charge them sales tax. However I''m not sure the legality of that. I don''t get too many traveling in from out of state.


I hope I''m not sounding like I am trying to justify anything. Just thought my opinion might be helpful.


good luck!


~T

Hi! Thanks for your input! It definitely helps to get the perspective of someone in the business. I asked the Chicago photographers about purchasing the image files and they said they charge $450 for the set and $75 for individual files. So that would pretty much blow any savings we might have gotten from going w/ someone local.


I think it was helpful that you pointed out how you don''t include portrait files b/c you make your bread and butter from the prints. I hadn''t thought of that, and of course it would make sense if that''s the only service we''re hiring them for (rather than a wedding package). If I were booking them for a wedding package that included an e-session but not the files...then I would probably be more concerned.


I guess we could learn to deal with not having the files, but when the CA photographer would give them to us for free it''s harder to justify not going with them. Also, I figured that if we wanted 50 prints from the Chicago photographers, that would be $1,000! Whereas being able to order 50 prints directly from the photo lab would only cost us something like $15. So that''s a huge advantage, especially if we plan to make the parent albums ourselves...

Ultimetly, if the bottom line is going to be really close together, choose the photographer who you "mesh" with the most. Also, keep in mind that you probably can order the disk of images later on after things settle down. I suppose $450 for the files isn''t outragious, but still considerable. Having the digital images can save you money down the road in re-prints as well as books for your parents, etc.

If you are still on the fence and want to post the photographers websites, I''d be happy to help. I''m super picky when it comes to photography.
~T

 

[newbie124]

Date: 5/15/2008 3:05:33 PM
Author: Vote4PedroToo

Ultimetly, if the bottom line is going to be really close together, choose the photographer who you ''mesh'' with the most. Also, keep in mind that you probably can order the disk of images later on after things settle down. I suppose $450 for the files isn''t outragious, but still considerable. Having the digital images can save you money down the road in re-prints as well as books for your parents, etc.

If you are still on the fence and want to post the photographers websites, I''d be happy to help. I''m super picky when it comes to photography.

~T

Thanks again. Here are the main sites for the photographers I''m considering:
HyStudio
Brunk Photography
Pen Carlson

I have links to some full portfolios for HyStudio and Pen, but not Brunk. I can send you this off line, although I''m not sure what the forum policy is on us giving out our email addresses?

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

I like Pen the best. First off, Blogs are a great way to see a photographer''s true work if they keep it updated like she does. This is better than just simply posting your very best on your website. She had so many great ones there as well as on her site.

My second favorite was HyStudio and then last, Brunk. All three are great. The first two seem to have a better understanding of light, IMO. Pen also has a more modern feeling in their work that I like. I''m guessing Pen is your Chicago Photographer?

I also like that you get two of them and that they will get some shots of the whole weekend. It says on her site that you get the digital negs after one year. Honestly, a year will fly by. I deal with chidlren and when I sit down with my clients they tell me that they still haven''t picked their images out for their wedding albums. These are people 3 years or more married.

Again, all are great. I think you really can''t go wrong with any of them. Also, have you spoken with all of them? It is really important that their personalities vibe with yours. It will show in your images.

You have great taste, my friend!

~T

 

[calidaisy]

wow ... they are all really good!
i really like hystudio. i almost want to cancel my photographer and hire them--even though i know that''ll never happen.

 

[newbie124]

Thanks for the feedback, guys!

Yeah, HyStudio is the CA photographer we've been considering and Pen is the Chicago photographer. I found Brunk awhile back and revisited his site recently so also threw that in, although I haven't talked w/ him outside of a few emails.

With Hy, I've mostly been talking to his wife who handles the business side. She's very sweet and, as I mentioned earlier, has been very accommodating of our needs. They're also the ones who allow us to order prints direct through Mpix and also include the digital files for both sessions and give them to you as soon as they're ready, as opposed to w/in 1 year (although I can see how the wait may not be so bad if you had no choice). I've checked out their references and they all had great things to say, so no major issues there either. My sister thought they were maybe a little heavy handed w/ Photoshopping, but I didn't really mind that (although of course now that she's said something, I can't help but try to nitpick the photos! argh). But I assume you could always order prints from the original images or if something isn't edited to your satisfaction, ask them to tone it down a bit? I'm not sure how that usually works...obviously I don't want to impinge on their style, which I mostly like anyway. I figure it's more important that the composition is good since that can't be changed!

The thing that impressed us the most about Pen was the color editing of their photos, though we do also like their style. I just felt that Hy pushes the envelope a touch more in the creativity of his shots.

I don't know why I keep pushing off a final decision, though! I think we're definitely leaning towards HyStudio for the wedding at least, but I just haven't been able to commit. Probably cause I had to go and ask for my sister's opinion and she's picky to the point of sometimes being *too* critical so now I can't get her comments out of my head (she was nitpicky about Pen, too, but can't remember what it was she said).

But it does reassure me to hear at least two unbiased positive votes from fresh eyes, including one from a pro, so I'm feeling a little better about it now

 

[calidaisy]

newbie, i went back and saw pen and hy''s photos again.
i think i like hy''s better because even though both are very good with light, i think hy is more creative and better at composition (something i think is more difficult to play around with later on than color IMO).

otherwise, i agree with vote.
you have to know who you get along better with as a person because it shows in the pictures.

 

[newbie124]

Date: 5/16/2008 1:29:04 PM
Author: calidaisy
newbie, i went back and saw pen and hy''s photos again.

i think i like hy''s better because even though both are very good with light, i think hy is more creative and better at composition (something i think is more difficult to play around with later on than color IMO).

Yep, that''s exactly what I was thinking, too. OK...I''m going to email HyStudio now and tell them that we''re going to hire them for our wedding! Yay, I have a check! (I''ll just see if she can include a clause in the contract that if we''re not able to arrange the e-session in Chicago we can figure out some suitable substitution for that).

Thanks for your help and input!

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 5/16/2008 1:56:34 PM
Author: newbie124

Date: 5/16/2008 1:29:04 PM

Author: calidaisy

newbie, i went back and saw pen and hy''s photos again.


i think i like hy''s better because even though both are very good with light, i think hy is more creative and better at composition (something i think is more difficult to play around with later on than color IMO).

Yep, that''s exactly what I was thinking, too. OK...I''m going to email HyStudio now and tell them that we''re going to hire them for our wedding! Yay, I have a check! (I''ll just see if she can include a clause in the contract that if we''re not able to arrange the e-session in Chicago we can figure out some suitable substitution for that).


Thanks for your help and input!

Just wanted to say yaay, that''s exciting!!