(Closed) Photographer- More time or better quality?

posted 5 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
3771 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: August 2013 - Brookfield Zoo

I would absolutely want more coverage!!  Yes the ceremony is important, but so is the reception and I would definitely not want to miss out on all of the events that go on during that.

Post # 4
Member
8153 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2012

2 hours wouldn’t cut it for me.

Post # 5
Member
10454 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2014

Well normally I’d say quality over quantity but 2 hours is short! Is the 6 hour guy still good?

Post # 6
Member
216 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: April 2013

I think you should get the dream photographer , talk to them more see if they are willing to drop the  price or take less pictures but stay for longer …. and if not still hire them and have family take the other pics since family will be just as unprofessional as the cheaper option I dont think you wuold be dissapointed …. Worstcase take the family taken pictures to be edited at a later date .

Im actually going through something similar so I understand …

Post # 7
Member
9552 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013

If it was me I would probably pick 6 hours, but that’s me! I’d worry we wouldn’t be able to fit in enough different kinds of shots in 2 hours!

Post # 8
Member
1755 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2014

Two hours really doesn’t give you much time at all.  Think about all the time needed for the photographer to get your wedding party into position for photos.  I don’t know how large your wedding party is, but for every attendent involved, each shot takes that much longer to set up, it’s that much more likely that someone’s expression will be wrong or off and the shot will have to be taken again.

I’d really hesitate on anything less than 4 hours unless it was an elopement with just the two of you.  I’d shop further for a photographer that had talent but was also in budget.  You might find someone who can give you the best of both worlds.

Post # 10
Member
4352 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: August 2013

I would want at least 4 hours of coverage. I would give up the getting ready shots if I had to get rid of one part (getting ready, ceremony, formals, reception).

ETA: I would also ask for a package with just the images on a DVD/CD and full rights to print at a later date. I would eliminate albums, prints ect. in exchange for more coverage.

Post # 11
Member
2874 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: March 2013

for me 2 hours wouldnt be enough (but then my catholic ceremony would be one hour of that!!) how long is your ceremony?

it depends on the other option – even if they arent as great as your dream photographer, are they pretty good? for me, i want all of it – getting ready, ceremony, first dance, bride and groom photos, family photos,cake cutting, and part of the reception

Post # 12
Member
6457 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

Ask your dream photographer if it’s possible to get a “coverage only” price. Here’s the thing I tell some of my clients, TIME is the *only* thing you can’t get more of after the fact. Prints, digital files, albums, etc….those are all things you can purchase later. That being said, I would find a way to make it work with the photographer you love – cut other things, see if you do can 4 hours instead of the whole time.

I would talk to them, let them know that they are your dream photographer but with their packages all you could afford is 2 hours, and that just doesn’t cut it. See if they will give you a coverage only price, with the option to purchase your products after the fact. 

As an added, I can tell you that if you can even find a way to get 4 hours, you’ll be good. I’d suggest cutting getting ready photos, and the end of the reception. 4 Hours can get you the ceremony, formals, and the beginning of reception – which is usually when key moments happen anyway. 

Post # 14
Member
1382 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: April 2013

Oof.. I wouldn’t be satisfied if it were just 6 hours, let alone 2!.. I like the suggestion from the PP though.. maybe hiring 2 different photogs for separate times during the wedding?

It also depends how amateur that 6-hour photog is though.. if it’s really just “eh”, you don’t want to invest money in that!

Post # 15
Member
1755 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2014

@MissFireFlower:  I think that having the two photographers could work.  Just tell the dream photographer honestly your reason for having the other one shoot the reception.  And the one who’s doing your reception that you’d already found a photographer, but that your mom recommends them so highly that you decided to divide the day between them.  That way there are no egos bruised.

Post # 16
Member
344 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2012

I’d find a way to get more hours with your preferred photographer. The reception is one of the  hardest part of a wedding to shoot. If you get a less qualified photographer and look at their work side by side you’ll be disappointed. I have a wedding registry for my clients. Perhaps ask your guests to donate towards your photography as a gift? 

The topic ‘Photographer- More time or better quality?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors