Post # 1
I’m curious if the amount you spent on a photographer correlates to the amount of time you gave them for bride/groom, family, and wedding party photos if you did *NOT* do a first look. I wonder this because a friend of mine says that her photographer was $800 and did 1 hour and that was all that was necessary. We are spending more than 3x that on a photographer and he has asked for a minimum of 2 hours. Not that I at all am trying to say that only having 1 hour means a cheap photographer – not at all! Vote away bees!
Post # 3
@ashescats: My photographer is giving us 8 hours for $2500. The hours can be broken down in any way we wish. We’re going to do a first look and then family pictures after the ceremony – we’re not having attendants. For the first look, we’ve planned on 1.5 hours and roughly an hour for the post ceremony family pics.
The photographer created a suggested timeline, but has been totally open to adusting the timeline around our needs. Two weeks before the wedding, the photographer does a venue walk through to firm up the places you wish to shoot to optimize the shots and discuss any changes, concerns, etc
Post # 4
I spent $1500. I did not want the traditional posed photos and told her to keep it casual and record the day for me. She did a fantastic job.
The only “posed” pictures were a few of me before I left for the church (about 15 minutes) and some family photos at the begining of the party (the party immediately followed the cerermony), which took maybe 30 minutes.
I wanted to enjoy our day and our party, and not waste time posiing for pictures! I had to choose 60 out of 235 for my album, and it was a tough choice.