(Closed) Cheaper venue or Cheaper Photographer?

posted 7 years ago in Money
  • poll: Venue or Photographer
    Cheaper Venue: a master photographer will make anything look nice : (41 votes)
    69 %
    Cheaper Photographer: you have to get the venue of your dreams : (18 votes)
    31 %
  • Post # 3
    500 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: June 2011

    I went with the venue and skimped on the photographer.  I figure I would rather be in a beautiful venue and have the experience that I want rather than be in an ugly one with extra nice pictures IN the ugly venue. 


    Post # 4
    5093 posts
    Bee Keeper
    • Wedding: January 2012

    I would go for the better photographer.  The pictures are what will last, and although a good photographer can make even the ugliest place look interesting and beautiful, a bad photographer could make a wedding in the Sistine Chapel look awful.

    Post # 5
    10366 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: September 2010

    Hmm I think this depends on how important the photography is to you. 45 mins drive time between venues will also eat up a huge amount of your photography time, so that’s something to consider. photography was my #1 priority, so my personal opinion would be to go with the cheaper venue. But it really depends on what you want, you know?

    Post # 6
    1115 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: April 2010

    I wouldn’t recommend skimping on photography. A year later, I still love looking through our beautiful photos. And I know several brides who want to cry when they look at their pics because they skimped and the photos are disappointing.

    Is the church hall ugly? Or just plain? If it’s just plain, then you can decorate it exactly how you want it and it will look beautiful in photos if you have a great photographer.

    But…that monastery is GORGEOUS!! So that would be a tough call for me.

    The commute from your church would also be a concern for your guests as well as photography time. Could you do both the ceremony & reception at the monastery?

    Post # 8
    213 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: September 2011

    I personally would have it at the church reception hall.  While the monastery is beautiful, a 45 minute drive is a lot of time, and $2500 is a big increase.  In a few years if you think you would be upset that you didnt have it there, then spend the extra and take the drive, but remember, you’re not the only one driving.  That long of a drive could mean that some people go either to the church or to the reception.  I know that could happen regardless, but is less likely if it is all at the same place.  I’m fighting with photo budget too, and as much as it is insanely stressful, what I’ve found is the closer to the wedding you book the photographer, the more likely they are to give you deals.  I didnt choose to wait to book, but 4 months out, the better photographers without booked jobs are cutting costs.  So if you do choose the more expensive venue- maybe just postpone finding the photographer.  Its risky, but it could help.

    Post # 9
    2775 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: April 2010

    I’d not skimp on the photography.  Over the years to come, when looking back at your photos, the ones you will treasure will be the photos of PEOPLE, not the venue.  I have never, ever heard any bride say “gee, I wish I hadn’t spent so much on photos” but plenty of brides have lamented cutting corners on photography at the expense of something more fleeting.

    Post # 11
    2871 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: March 2011

    @Aubergold:  I vote cheaper venue.  the pictures are forever and most of them honestly do not get the venue but capture your faces and reactions.


    Post # 13
    2550 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: July 2011

    Definitely pay for a better photographer.  I’ve heard too many horror stories about not hiring a top notch photographer.  Today I just heard about the photographer that ran out of battery during the ceremony.  For Reals!  Really!!! 

    The majority of my budget is going to photographer and our wedding dinner.  Since I’m about capturing the moment and we love to eat, I spending accordingly.  By The Way, I’ve been too a ton of weddings and the ones I had the most fun @ weren’t always the most stylish.  It was about celebrating by dancing the night away.  Only twice did I want to take the centerpieces home.  I rarely have eaten the wedding cake since its too sweet for me.  I rarely eat dinner cause I’m socializing and dancing the night away.  My suggestion is to plan a great party in a decent venue w/ a top notch photographer to capture the event. 

    Post # 14
    3977 posts
    Honey bee
    • Wedding: May 2011

    Yea, seems the only negative to the church hall is that it’s plain. Positives are cheaper, closer, easier set up/clean up, and overall logistically more practical. I personally couldn’t justify the difference.

    Post # 15
    3364 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: December 2011

    I say go with a less expensive venue, you cant re-do your photography, and a photographer’s job is supposed to capture the best! =)

    Post # 16
    225 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: March 2011

    Hard to say, because as some others have mentioned, the logistics of the church are also better.

    Talking JUST about cost though, I would say a less expensive photographer is not always a bad thing. There’s a HUGE range of photograhers..from brand new to middle of the road to crazy expensive and experienced.

    We went with a younger photographer vs. some of the more established ones in our area…saved a significant amount of money…and could not be more thrilled with her work. AND we got our pictures back while we were on our honeymoon. I love every single picture and am so so so so happy with our decision.

    Even as someone who is usually very “you get what you pay for” in other areas of life….I disagree when it comes to this. Lower price does not always mean lower quality.

    The topic ‘Cheaper venue or Cheaper Photographer?’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors