(Closed) Who do you consider "immediate family" for photos?

posted 3 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 2
Member
2146 posts
Buzzing bee

I think typically this sort of photo would include your siblings’ spouses and children as well.  Most weddings have a bunch of different photos planned, we had a list like, DH and I and his parents, then we added in his siblings and their spouses (no one has kids) and then just DH and his siblings, and then a big family picture with my family as well, that sort of thing.  At my brother’s wedding we had probably 3 times the arrangements I did, we did like all of their siblings and spouses without the parents, them with their nieces and nephews and on and on.  We both also did some pictures with cousins. 

Post # 3
Member
6887 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2015

Immediate family = blood relatives as you suspected.  However it would be extremely rude of you to not include in-laws as well, in at least some photos.  It’s like saying they aren’t family.  What you need is a list of photos you want:  you and immediate family, you and immediate + their married’s, you and immediate, marrieds and their kids.  They don’t have to be in everything but it would be kind to take at least one full family photo for people to enjoy.

Personally it was no skin off my nose to ask that my new brothers and my sister be allowed single photos.  It was offered and my sister took advantage but none of the guys wanted to.  I also asked my photographer to photograph my best friend (bridesmaid) and her little family.   But I wanted those photos for me to have, too.  If they’re all expecting family portraits (e.g. your Brother-In-Law and his wife and their kids and no one else) then they need to go to JC Penney on their own dime.  I’d ‘politely’ tell them there is no time for individual family portraits and they should ask someone else with a camera to take a snap for them.

Post # 4
Member
1157 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2016

DH has one brother, not married, but with a longterm girlfriend (who was also my bridesmaid). For family photos for his side, we did one with us and his parents, one of us, parents + his brother, and then another with brother’s girlfriend. If they had kids, they would definitely have been included too. 

Post # 5
Member
2146 posts
Buzzing bee

I’m going to add that we didn’t give the option to our siblings to get a photo of just their families or them with their spouse as it is but I wish we did.  It would have only taken 5 more minutes and I wish we had protraits of just our siblings with their spouse as well, especially now that we hit Christmas time and I’m sending people some photos as gifts. 

Post # 6
Member
1446 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2016

I wouldn’t consider them immediate family but I’d probably let them have the photos.

Post # 7
Member
279 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: August 2017

I think you should include them in the pictures with you guys, but I think it’s a little weird for them to expect to get pictures of just their family. The photographer is there to get pictures of your wedding and you two, not to get family photos for other people at the wedding. If they’re a big part of your wedding it might be nice to have your photographer take the pictures for a gift maybe.

Post # 8
Member
2531 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: August 2013

Immediate family is siblings and parents in my book. However I’d also do other photos with their long term partners/nieces and nephews too. 

Post # 9
Member
15020 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2011

 Immediate = blood to me.  Parents and siblings. 

Post # 10
Member
3874 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: October 2015

View original reply
2infinity :  Immediate family is: Parents, grandparents, siblings–and then spouses and children if they have them. And it’s best to get shots with them and without them. I don’t think it’s unnatural that your sister-in-laws want or expect to be included in your family shots–they are married to your sibling and should be treated as family. It would rude to not include them at all, so I suggest doing several different variations of the photos.  I say it’s best to get different variations because a friend of mine got married several years ago. Her only family shots included her sister-in-law smack dab in the middle of all of the photos. Well, unbeknownst to the family, she was currently engaging in an affair with the man she would leave her husband (my friend’s brother) for three months later. So all the while she’s sticking herself in the middle of every photo, she knew she was leaving the family in a few months. My friend had to find a creative way to photoshop her SIL out of the show. However, it still would have been very rude not to include her at the time. 

Post # 11
Member
4227 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: September 2015 - Hotel Ballroom

Parents, grandparents, siblings and their spouses. I see nothing wrong with having one or two photos including the nieces and nephews as well 🙂

Post # 12
Member
3900 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: January 2017

View original reply
2infinity :  Parents, siblings, grandparents, sibling’s kids (so nieces/nephews), and your own kids (if any). And obviously all of the above’s significan others as well.

Post # 13
Member
7242 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

I’m a wedding photographer, I generally tell my couples to include immediate family in their formals. With that I mean parents (and step-parents), siblings (plus their spouses + kids), and grandparents.

I also suggest keeping the number of groupings to a minimum. For example :

Bride + mom

Bride + dad

Bride + mom & dad

Bride + mom & dad & siblings

Bride + mom/dad & siblings w/ spouses and kids

Bride + grandparents

Bride & Groom w/ Bride’s immediate family

*same thing for the groom’s side.

When it comes into a bunch of breakdowns of different people and groupings you’ll spend all your time taking these photos and have no time left for your bridal party or couples photos (unless you’re doing a first look).

As for your SIL’s wanting family photos….nothing irritates me more as a photographer than random people wanting their own family portraits. My job is to focus on the couple, and the family formals that include them, as well as capture the day. It’s frankly really rude to hijack the couple’s time (which they’re paying me dearly for) to get your own family portraits. If you want your own family portraits, you should book a session with a photographer. Now before people go insane over that, if I’ve got downtime at the reception and not much going on I’m happy to step away for a moment and take a group shot of a family. My main resistance comes from people wanting to tack their own groupings onto the family formals time (which is always tight on time and in a rush) because we’ve got a timeline to keep!

 

Post # 14
Member
1147 posts
Bumble bee

You should write down a list for your photographer to announce to the guests who they’re inviting for photos. You can start small, say immediate family, then start branching out to plus in laws, their families and such until people fitting into the photos is an issue. Then after you can branch out to ictures with different aunts/uncles and their families, second cousins, friends and so on.

Post # 15
Member
2715 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2015 - St Peter\'s Church, East Maitland, and Bella Vista, Newcastle

My SILs and Brother-In-Law were in family photos, as were my two nephews. We did do photos of me with my siblings only and DH with his sister only too. But if your SILs are talking about photos WITHOUT you or DH, you’ve every right to say no. Easy to have a blanket rule that bride and/or groom must be in every formal family pic.

The topic ‘Who do you consider "immediate family" for photos?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors