Post # 1
Fiance and I are getting married in very remote Northern Sweden. In order to get a photog to the site, we would have to pay at least 2 hours of travel time and we would still just get a village photographer (my term for the guy with the fanciest camera in town that has declared himself a photographer). I refuse to pay for that. Fiance on the other hand comes from a background where his dad worked as a producer for CBC… so if he could, they (as in CBC) would document the affair. As you can imagine, we weren’t on the same page when we started our discussions, but eventually we settled on having no photog but allocating $1000 of our budget towards a new camera for Fiance. Great compromise, everyone was happy!
Now, we’re going to France for our honeymoon and will spend 2 days in Paris. Somewhere in the planning process, one of you bee’s suggested we would do a couples shoot while there. As anti-photo as I am… that did strike a cord. We found this guy, and contacted him to find out what he would charge for 1 hour – $550. I’m usually not a fan of wedding photos, and I cringe when I see that sum… but then again, we’ll never be in Paris with our wedding gear again… What do you bees think? Should we suck it up and try to budget for it or should we just stick to our original no-photog plan?
Post # 3
- Wedding: November 2012 - Oak Tree Manor
@eocenia: I vote yes, it’s worth it. Your wedding clothes plus the gorgeous backdrop of Paris? That’s my ultimate fantasy. Seriously. And having some nice pro photos, especially from a special time like your honeymoon, is worth every cent. So I vote yes!
Post # 4
I voted yes before reading your post. I guess if you really dislike wedding photos, you may not think it’s money well-spent. The only thing I’d think about is how you’ll feel 20 years from now without one single professional photo of you and your husband. That $550 seems like a lot now, but in the future you may be so grateful for them.
Post # 6
@Mrs. Wallaby: It IS the Paris aspect that makes me lean towards it, just have to figure out where to spend that hour if we go ahead!
@sailor_girl: I don’t think I personally would be sad about it 20 years from now, I’m from a family where photos has been taken very sparsely so I’m kind of used to it. However, I do worry that any future child of us would be disappointed by the fact that there’s no photos of us from the wedding. So that factor alone makes me think that we should go ahead with it. Plus, I think he’s good and it’s still a heck of a lot less than if we were going to get someone to cover the entire day.
Post # 7
- Wedding: November 2012 - Oak Tree Manor
Also, I pinned this photo session in Paris awhile ago, hopefully it’ll give you some inspiration!
(Here’s my favorite photo from the shoot:
Post # 8
I’m saying yes because this is just such a once in a lifetime opportunity!
Post # 9
@Mrs. Wallaby: Love the quote!
I’ve seen those photos while searching for a photog, they’re taken by a woman called Juliane Berry. While I like some of her photos I’m not a huge fan of sepia. Now, it looks like we’ll do the photo session, Fiance is all in on the idea – his only concern is that he would want us to expand the session. So we’re definitely in for a new round of compromises!
@Gemstone: Exactly, and that’s the only reason why I consider it. I’m just not very sentimental when it comes to photos, but this just feel like such a special trip that I’m willing to violate my “I refuse to pay for photos, I have a great memory” principles. 🙂
Post # 10
I would definitely go for it. The photographer’s work looks superb. Also, I don’t know how many shots you will get but $550 really isn’t that much money (about £350) if this includes full editing and the provision of all your pictures on a CD. For sure, you wouldn’t get a wedding photographer worthy of the name that cheaply but you could well end up with some truly fabulous “once in a lifetime” pictures.
Post # 11
I think that $550 is perfectly reasonable IF it includes digital copies of all of the photos taken. Just make sure that you don’t have to pay hundreds (or thousands!) more on top of the $550 to get digital copies of the photos.
Post # 12
but of course:-) its Paris!
Post # 13
@eocenia: “I do worry that any future child of us would be disappointed by the fact that there’s no photos of us from the wedding”
You just reminded me of how much I love looking at the photos of my parents’ wedding. I think this is a very good reason to go ahead with the photoshoot!
Post # 14
@Steampunkbride: We’ll get 35 edited photos for the one hour package. Even if it’s not that much, I think it’s enough as long as they’re god photos. Plus, it’s only going to be me and Fiance – so it’s not like he has to cover mum’s and friends and flower girls…
@JulietFoxtrot: We would get the files for the photos (35 of them) at no additional charge. That was something we made sure of. And I don’t have photos of my parents wedding, but Fiance does and I think they’re amazing. For me, that’s pretty much the no.1 reason I want to do this.
@Tinatiny1: Right, of course! 🙂
Post # 15
Photos in Paris are always worth it!
Post # 16
Absolutely 2000% yes with zero doubts or hesitations. You will have amazing photos forever if you have your wedding clothes with you in Paris!
The price seems a bit on the high side, but not that much more than doing the same sort of thing in Toronto.