(Closed) Would love your opinion…

posted 10 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
45 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: June 2018

This is not something I would personally go for.  I’m not so concerned about setting up shots (I’m more of a candid girl anyway) so I’m wanting a photographer who can look for those "moments".  I don’t think that is something a consultant could do uneless they were watching the whole time and instructing when to take every picture and what settings should be used and at what angle. As for the posed photos, that would be something that I think my friend who takes decent photos would have a better handle on. I guess long story short I want a photographer who can take spur of the moment great pictures and that is why I am hiring a professional. 

Post # 4
Member
228 posts
Helper bee

Seems awfully complicated.  The couple would need to spend a lot of time letting a whole bunch of people take posed pictures of them- I’m not sure how well this idea would work for the currently popular ‘photojournalistic’ style photography.

In the few hours of a reception, how many people would you be able to give pointers on?  Also, many point and shoot cameras really just don’t take the best quality photos, even if the composition/lighting is okay. 

Also, one of the biggest problems with not having a designated, paid photographer is that the couple may not get the shots they want.  This idea wouldn’t really solve that problem.  People will only get a few shots that they’re interested in, not say, pictures of you with the in-laws or some such.

Good idea, but it seems like something I might want as entertainment for the guests, not as a replacement for a photographer.

Post # 5
Member
32 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: August 2008

Ok I’m going to respond with my gut reaction: 

Honestly, I’m not sure if its worth YOUR time as a professional to spend the time setting up the site, evalutaing the lighting, posing people etc and NOT take the pictures. I foresee the ‘friends & family’ asking YOU to step into taking the pictures or asking you how to change their camera settings etc, taking way too much time to do the actual shooting. It may turn into more of a wedding photography workshop than a photography consulting.

Overall, I think it may be more work on your end, and not enough gain. No gain in actual portfolio pieces (the friends & family own the photos), no gain in artistic experimentation (taking unique shots in the moment), no gain in relationship building with the bride and groom (they’ll be torn with which camera to look at, if there are multiple shooting at the same time)

 This is just my personal opinion with a background in design/photography, I really value the person behind the camera and what they see. I feel this takes away the spirit of capturing the moment.

On the other hand, I do think this might work with brides & grooms looking for the more traditional posed portraits. if you enjoy teaching people, have the patience with dealing with many people at the same time, it may work out!

Post # 6
Member
1238 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2008

Sounds strange, complicated, and unnecessary. I found a photographer for $1100 who will take all digital images and give me copies of them all on high res cd and post them on his website for professional printing.  This price included my engagement photo session — which was amazing, and touch-up to selected photos.  I honestly don’t see how you would save me time, money, or effort.

Post # 7
Member
83 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: March 2008

We hired a professional photographer for our elopement, and I was so amazed with how good the photos were that I would never try to capture another event like that with snapshots.  Seriously, the pictures looked like an ad campaign for getting married.  Beautiful. 

It was both the composition of the photos *and* the quality of photography that made it great.  I don’t think most snapshot takers could really reproduce that, no matter how much help they had.

So, no, probably not.  But I do think that there’s a market for a photography professional that has packages that can be tailored to a particular budget.  Being able to hire our photographer for just 2 hours made him so affordable we couldn’t not hire him. 

Post # 8
Member
344 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2008

I’m gonna have to agree with the other posters, but I would also like to add that as a guest, I wouldn’t want the responsibility of this couple’s wedding photos! Eek! Talk about pressure! Also, your guests won’t be able to enjoy themselves if they’re all trying to take pictures. People will take pictures anyway, and then trying to get all those pictures is a pain in the butt as it is! Let alone, them being your actual wedding photos. I don’t want my guests to "work" at my wedding. My brother is an actual professional photographer and I specifically told him I didn’t want him being the main photographer because I want him to enjoy himself. That being said, I told him he better bring his camera and take pictures, because I love his work. His stuff will just add to everything my paid photographer will take.

Post # 9
Member
508 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: December 1969

Definitely too much pressure, stress and potential anxiety!  Brides who are comfortable with a more casual approach to photographry are more likely to have a friend or relative do the pics anyway.  There probably aren’t that many on the cusp who would be interested in a setup like you described.

When working out our budget, photography was high on the list, so we budgeted accordingly.  Our top choice was way out of our budget range, but we found other options that were in our price range and couldn’t be happier.  Pro pics are expensive, but you truly get what you pay for.  Couples with a budget crunch can look for up and coming photographers, students or a growing number of non-pros with good eyes and equipment.  Adding in an advisor would be distracting.

As a guest, I would not want to be responsible for capturing the day – it’s too much pressure knowing that the pics you and the other guests take are "it."  Several people will be taking pictures at our wedding in addition to our photographer, but they can do as much or as little as they like.  It’s nice to know if they’re not in the mood, they can set the camera down and not stress about making sure someone got the cake shot. 

Post # 10
Member
2030 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: December 1969

I’m not sure I would go for your idea as-is, however I might pay around $200 for a "Digital camera butler" of sorts who whould have a laptop set up near the exit and help guests upload their photos at the end of the night, so the bride and groom could get non-pro pics IN ADDITION TO pro pics. I wouldn’t do it without pro pics though.

Post # 11
Member
2292 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: July 2008

Um, no.  First of all, I don’t feel comfortable asking my guests to do something that I should have hired someone to do.  Plus I want my guests to enjoy the party, not spend all evening behind the lens of a camera.  I am hoping that very few people will bring their own cameras, and even fewer will think to take them out of their pockets or purses.

Plus, I don’t think that the main problem with most of my friends’ amateur photography is posing and framing.  Quite frankly, it’s lighting and camera use.  That’s why I hire a professional photographer.  I have a Canon 20D myself, and I can take fantastic posed shots – I want someone who can get candid shots that are equally fantastic. 

In my opinion, no amount of turning my wedding and reception into a photography class for my guests is going to result in any photos taken by my guests that I will like any better than I would.  And certainly nothing will come out of it that would be comparable to the photos my professional photographer will take.  Professional photography doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg.  We are paying $1500 for 7 hours with two photographers, and that includes all images on cd.  If I couldn’t afford a photographer, I would happily ask any one of several talented friends to do this for us, but for me there really isn’t any middle ground where I would pay someone to not actually take pictures hoping that would make someone else’s pictures look better in the end.

Post # 12
Member
1061 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2008

I agree with previous posters. Check out Mrs. Penguin’s most recent post with her teaser pics — I know my guests can’t do that.

Post # 14
Member
2695 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: February 2008

Suggestion – if you want to compete but not put in the 50-70 hours you mention, could you offer the option to just shoot the day and hand over the disc?   No engagement shoot, no post production, no order taking or album planning…then you could do it for $1000 maybe…they can upload them and print albums themselves….

Post # 15
Member
2292 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: July 2008

I actually think that our photography coverage is really inexpensive – but we have had this photographer take many portraits for our families over the years, and I’m sure he makes his money on the back end – on the photos and portraits that we order from him – as opposed to on what are essentially sitting fees.  And our $1500 doesn’t actually cover an album or portraits – we will probably spend another couple thousand after the wedding day – on a large album for us, smaller ones for both sets of parents, 8x10s framed for both set of parents (mine will get several different poses, I already know) and a 11×16 portrait on canvas for us.

But I strongly believe that we won’t regret any of that – and it was one of our big priorities from the start.  There is no way I want to trust documentation of this very special day to our friends and their point-and-shoots.  Most amateur photos are snapshot quality – and while they’re fun to look at, they are not anything I want framed on my wall.

Post # 16
Member
508 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: December 1969

Thank you for the up-front request and explanation.  I agree with Janna19 – a bare minimum package is probably a better route for a budget bride, though it still doesn’t really take into full consideration your experience or utilize the extent of your talent or services.  Not sure how your pricing is set up, but perhaps you can have a bargain package and then allow some add-ons to meet the needs of those who can afford a little more (extra hours, post-production, an e-pic shoot, etc.).  

From the client side, it’s a trade-off – the photographers charging $1100 for full bells and whistles are often the ones with less experience.  If you want the bells and whistles but don’t have the bucks, this can be a good match, but you certainly forgo the benefits you mentioned of experience.  However, sometimes you luck out and find someone with both the experience and a price range that fits… depends on the market. 

 

The topic ‘Would love your opinion…’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors