Post # 17
Save yourself one thousand dollars and go with BlueSky. I think their photos are beautiful and I agree with a PP about Valo’s “blown out whites.” I’m sick of overexposed wedding photography where everything looks insanely bright. It comes down to having beautiful photos to look back on. They don’t have to be magazine worthy, just memory worthy.
Post # 18
@Eckle: I totally understand. In suggesting my photographer, I was thinking that you weren’t sold on either photog you’d listed.
It seems like you like Valo better, but are worried about cost. In that case, your decision depends on how ridgid your budget is. So many extra expenses pop up in the weeks leading up to your wedding…if you don’t have cushion room in the budget, then you’re almost guarateed to go over. So keep that in mind. Personally, I like overexposed shots, so I like the look of Valo. Blue Sky is still really good though. What you might do with Blue Sky, since their work seems to take on a variety of styles, is discuss with them what style you’re wanting them to use for your wedding. Because some of their shots were just as good as Valo (to my untrained eye). I would point out the shots of theirs that you like, tell them why you like it, and see if they’ll focus on using those techniques for your wedding. Also, it would help to give them a list of the shots you want. For example, we discovered through our engagement session that I really like the candid photos that show us enjoying one another, while my Fiance likes the serious looking ones. For the wedding, we’re letting the photographer know to capture a variety of both styles.
Post # 19
Valo seems more about the details and do a better job of capturing some of the behind the scenes stuff. Blue Sky seems like they’re trying to be a bit more arty and their stuff seems more posed. So I guess it is about what you prefer
Post # 20
Not to throw another potential photographer at you, but I used crystalrosephotography. I livei n MN too and she regularly travels for weddings.. WI definitely is not too far and since she does travel so often she may have shot at your venue as well. Her price is right in between your two photographers and she does great work. I take any chance I can get to recommend her 🙂
Post # 21
@wvrunner: I noticed the different styles in Blue Sky as well and was planning on talking to Jacek about focusing on the aspects of his style that we like when we meet with him next month. I particularly liked the wedding he shot that I linked to in post 11. I really think we can’t afford Valo because just shooting the wedding no prints or anything is $3,350 which is almost half of our budget while Blue Sky is $2,300 and includes an 8X10 from the epics, a dvd with all of the photos with copyright release, print credit, and a guest book, along with some other stuff. He is also being really great about meeting us on the one weekend we can make it home in September.
Post # 22
@Eckle: I vote for Valo. I know price is important, but you definitely get what you pay for. Blue Sky is just all over the place with their editing. It’s a clear sign they don’t have a good understanding of editing. Their also really formal fealing. Valo’s quality is far superior, IMO.
Post # 23
@Eckle: I know you’re in MN, and I don’t know where exactly your wedding is Wisconsin is, but check this guy out- I’ve had him take photos of my son (and I know him!)- and he is great. We’d be using him for our wedding, but my Fiance has a friend who offered to do photography for *free*
Post # 24
@Eckle: I love Valo’s work, but I think that they are expensive. I can’t say I totally love Blue Sky’s photo’s either. If I had to choose only one of those two, I would go with Valo. There are others that are really good from the area as well. My friend just used this one and their pictures were awesome (http://www.sarahimmelphotography.com/#/special/splash/sarah-immel-photography/). I wish I knew more, but we are having our photographer come in from MN, so just the opposite from you! 🙂
Post # 25
@Eckle: I think we’re working with fairly similar budgets, so I think Blue Sky is the one to go with, for sure. You will get great pictures from them. I viewed the link from the recent wedding they shot, and they have definitely improved. Bryan Minear is one of my FI’s best friends and he’s cutting us an awesome deal, otherwise it would have been difficult for us to afford him. Photography is important, but not so important that it should take up half the budget…you want to still be able to afford people, food, and a few decorations 🙂
Post # 26
Personally, It is a dealbreaker to me if the photographer doesn’t include a CD of edited, unwatermarked images. I’ll go through them for the pictures themselves, and the albums, but I want to be able to print my own. I also saw my cousins go through some very difficult navigations with a photographer who was being unprofessional. Woulnd’t respond to emails or phone calls, and it took almost a year for the album to be done. My uncle had to threaten to take her to court. So after that experience, I’s go with the more responsive photographer. And I do think the whites look better from Blue Sky, look at that beautiful snowy shot as a prime example. They know whites.
Post # 27
I really like the most recent Blue Sky link you posted. Especially if you have a similar venue. I’d take another look at both of their blogs and see if that helps when you see their most recent work.
Have you seen a few complete weddings from each as well ( over 100 shots from the same wedding )?