(Closed) Was 8 hours for wedding photography enough?

posted 4 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 16
190 posts
Blushing bee

[oops just realized this thread was old sorry! someone else revived it!]

we had 8 hours, and found we had to pay for an extra hour.  We scheduled our photographer to start at 2, first look was at 3, ceremony was at 530 and he left at 11 (as soon as the dance floor opened).

if i could do it all again, i would have had him start at 1 at the latest (2 was SUPER rushed – we only had a single shooter and he was running between my and FI’s suites – lots was missed IMO – not his fault, just kinda how the day and hours stacked up).  Anyway – 20/20 hindsight vision, I would have had him start at 1 and stay till midnight… (for the record, we paid $4400 for one shooter and on a 60 person wedding)….

Post # 17
5057 posts
Bee Keeper

northshorebride :  For us yes it was. But please please be sure to request photos with all your guests even if it’s just the table shot. We didn’t do this and I regret it, I don’t have photos of everyone. :(.


It all depends on what time you start getting ready and what time the sparklers are. Are you doing getting ready photos? 

Post # 18
5057 posts
Bee Keeper

I just realized this too. Ugh. Whyyyy are there old posts up front! 

Post # 20
1938 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2017 - Pearson Convention Centre

We had two photographers for 12 hours, it worked for us.

The topic ‘Was 8 hours for wedding photography enough?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors