(Closed) Are 4 to 4.5 hours enough for wedding day pics???

posted 7 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
730 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: June 2010

Can you pay a little bit extra for extra time? That’s what we did so we could make sure we’d get the getting ready photos and our sparkler sendoff photos. Is it important to you to have the photog there for your last dance, sendoff, etc.?

Post # 7
Member
7173 posts
Busy Beekeeper

I’d add extra time.  The initial price you are paying is a steal!

We did 2 hours pre ceremony for family pictures (each side) – and then the ceremony (1 hour) and then 1.5 hours of just us pictures – and then reception pictures (4 hours).  I really didn’t care much for the reception pictures (other than our first dance, the parent dances, cake cutting).  If you were to skimp anywhere, I’d say it’s the reception time (after any pictures that are important to you – like cake cutting, first dance, etc).

Post # 10
Member
2584 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

How good is your current photog? $500 is pretty cheap, even for shorter time, so if you only need an extra hour or two you might be better off with just sucking up the cost for those. Does your photog offer a larger package that might reduce the cost per hour? He’d probably be willing to change the package, especially if you’re increasing it.

Do you have a tentative timeline? When will your couple pics be, at a first look and photo session or after the ceremony during cocktail hour? When you say 3.5 hour reception, is that dinner and the dance? How late will the dance go?

Post # 11
Member
5667 posts
Bee Keeper

Yeah, definitely pay for the extra hours! 4 hours seems really short. I thought most photgs required you to book them for 8 hours.

Post # 13
Member
2584 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

@cherryblossomlove: That seems like a really short timeline in general, but if you want pics of you getting in the dress and the sendoff you’ll probably need one more hour. You’d probably get into the dress maybe 1/2 hour before the ceremony, meaning the sendoff is 5 hours later, so not enough time. But your photog is cheap enough that I think adding an hour, even at that price, would be worht it.

Post # 15
Member
2195 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: November 2011

Sounds like you’re cutting it kinda short. We felt hurried for time and we had our venue almost 9 hours. We did our formal pictures before the ceremony, and actually were running super late so only had like 45 minutes to get all of those in. I’d reconsider getting extra time for your venue, as well as your photographer and cut costs somewhere else.

Post # 16
Member
1446 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

I’m only doing 4 hours. My reception is on a Sunday afternoon and there won’t be dancing or anything, there’s just a luncheon. But to hire her for more would be $300 an hour. As long as she gets us getting ready, the first look, the ceremony, family pics, and pics of the reception I don’t care if they stay the whole time. I would rather have quality for 4 hours than something less for 6 or 8. If it’s in your budget to add some time though, you should totally do it! You seem to really like this photog (and the price you’re paying is a steal!) so maybe you should just add on an extra hour?

The topic ‘Are 4 to 4.5 hours enough for wedding day pics???’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors