Cost of Wedding photographer? - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Titan · 02-02-2009, 02:09 PM

We skimped and regretted it big time. If I had a few friends with dslrs and some experience I would consider that as with the volume you might come out okay as said. Otherwise get a good one. It is the only thing that lasts, maybe including the wedding. Haha just kidding. except maybe a d/p on a house.

Tron_fdc · 02-02-2009, 02:22 PM

My bro hired a photographer for his wedding about 10 years ago, and also had disposable cameras on everyone's table so they could take shots throughout the dinner.

Half the cameras went missing, and of the ones that came back they had some really weird pics on them......lots of asses, shouting, feet, you name it they had it. So yeah,
you might want to avoid doing that.

Boblobla · 02-02-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

My bro hired a photographer for his wedding about 10 years ago, and also had disposable cameras on everyone's table so they could take shots throughout the dinner.

Half the cameras went missing, and of the ones that came back they had some really weird pics on them......lots of asses, shouting, feet, you name it they had it. So yeah,
you might want to avoid doing that.

I have heard the opposite for that actually. I know of several people who thought some of the best pictures of the evening came from cameras left on the table.

Russic · 02-02-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I have heard the opposite for that actually. I know of several people who thought some of the best pictures of the evening came from cameras left on the table.

Ours ended up just being funny. Disposable cameras usually just have the tiny little built in flashes which tends to mean the pictures might look like ass. Fun ... but look like ass (in our case quite literally).

We spent $2,500. We selected our photographer based off of his previous work (looked kind of like Neeper's but not as nice). Long story short, he up and quit without notice and they didn't tell us until a month before the wedding. I freaked and they got me the best portrait photographer they had. Don't get me wrong, our portraits are awesome, but we really wanted to get kind of a unique feel to our photos (see Neeper) but we ended up getting something more traditional.

All in all my experience was less than stellar. The problem with wedding photographs is a lot of the time you either pay out the ass and get something awesome or you pay under $2000 and get something you'd be fine without. Nothing feels worse than "saving" a bunch of money only to realize what you payed for probably wasn't even useful in the first place. I'd rather aim high.

Ducay · 02-02-2009, 03:50 PM

Ya, this is the sort of internal and external debate I keep getting into.

On one hand, a lot of people say photos are overrated and rarely get looked at.
But then there is the other hand.

Im trying to figure out where to strike the balance.

And I think we are pretty much ruling out a photographer from Calgary as that would make the costs go waayyyy up.

SeeGeeWhy · 02-02-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducay

We'll we're looking to keep it to a minimum for a decent photographer. I was hoping sub-$1000 was plausible, but not sure anymore.

What if we're just looking for good pics of ceremony and after; and no fancy pants albums (got friend able ot do for us).

Man.. you can barely buy a good CAMERA for less than $1000.

Ducay · 02-02-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Man.. you can barely buy a good CAMERA for less than $1000.

And I can rent a car for less than $20 a day

Ducay · 02-03-2009, 09:30 PM

Bump?

CMPunk · 02-03-2009, 09:33 PM

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Banff+...ient=firefox-a

kobafett · 02-03-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducay

And I can rent a car for less than $20 a day

You can rent a really nice camera for around $150 a day.

Ducay · 02-03-2009, 09:58 PM

Has anyone had a wedding in Banff? Any recommendations?

Buff · 02-03-2009, 11:33 PM

The photography for our wedding turned out to be free. My wife's cousin did photography as a hobby. A hobby that was pretty much his job, but not officially his job. Anyways he told us that he'll charge us the cost of getting the pictures developed (he didn't develop his own at that time) if we give him a meal at the wedding (he would've had a meal whether he did the pics or not).

So a few days after we got back from our honeymoon we go over to see him and to go over our pictures. He did an amazing job. You couldn't tell that he was just a hobbyist. So when we asked him how much it cost he says "Well, it turns out that we forgot to buy you a wedding present, so here you go", and he hands us some 300 pictures that he had taken throughout the day, including the negatives. For free we got 300 pictures that appear to be professionally done. What a heck of a deal! Normally you have to pay a couple large to get 10-20 pictures.

awildermode · 02-04-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducay

Ya, this is the sort of internal and external debate I keep getting into.

On one hand, a lot of people say photos are overrated and rarely get looked at.
But then there is the other hand.

Im trying to figure out where to strike the balance.

And I think we are pretty much ruling out a photographer from Calgary as that would make the costs go waayyyy up.

photos, you will look at. friends and family will want to look at. in-laws will want copies. trust me, if you can afford it, get a decent photographer and you will not regret it.

videos...on the other hand, are useless. no one wants to sit there and watch your "home videos" for 3 hours. your dvd of your wedding will collect dust, much like you current dvd collection. unless you are planning to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPmYbP0F4Zw

also, video guys usually get in the way of photographers. so, i recommend that you not get both, and just go with a photographer.

Buff · 02-04-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awildermode

photos, you will look at. friends and family will want to look at. in-laws will want copies. trust me, if you can afford it, get a decent photographer and you will not regret it.

videos...on the other hand, are useless. no one wants to sit there and watch your "home videos" for 3 hours. your dvd of your wedding will collect dust, much like you current dvd collection. unless you are planning to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPmYbP0F4Zw

also, video guys usually get in the way of photographers. so, i recommend that you not get both, and just go with a photographer.

Depends on how you have it set up. My wife's other cousin was the videographer and he setup the tripod in a place where he could get everything, and not be in the photographer's way. It was pre-determined. Also, the video was only taken of the ceremony. The photographer took pictures of the ceremony and then a photo session between the ceremony and reception.

However, the video of your wedding will indeed collect dust. I believe we watched it shortly after our wedding, and for our 1st and maybe 2nd anniversaries. I haven't seen it since, my wife may have watched it one other time since then.

Ducay · 02-04-2009, 11:12 AM

What do you guys think of photos of the reception? Looks like the price goes way up once you go beyond ceremony + formal shots

pepper24 · 02-04-2009, 11:13 AM

My advice is don't cheap out on photos as they are well worth it. If it means cutting the guest list, changing the venue etc. do it.

Everyone I know who's cheaped out on photos has regretted it.

Shazam · 02-04-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducay

What do you guys think of photos of the reception? Looks like the price goes way up once you go beyond ceremony + formal shots

Mine stayed around for the start of the reception, but I'll warn ya: Seeing pictures of people sitting around eating food is incredibly boring.

Ducay · 02-04-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shazam

Mine stayed around for the start of the reception, but I'll warn ya: Seeing pictures of people sitting around eating food is incredibly boring.

That was kind of my thinking, but my thougts are perhaps just gather everyones digital shots from the reception since itll just be decorations, eating, and then drunk dancing people

edn88 · 02-04-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducay

What do you guys think of photos of the reception? Looks like the price goes way up once you go beyond ceremony + formal shots

We did the disposabl camera route, and got the usual assortment of weirdness that goes along with it, but they were some of the most fun.

Our photographer was also more expensive for this bit, and we didn't do a cake cutting, so didn't need formal shots of that.

I have done a few weddings myself, and I can tell you as the photographer, it is the least enjoyable part for doing photos - it is the end of a long day and getting shots of people eating/drinking/giving speeches is not the reason you do photography. Granted there is lots of time to get those candid shots, but I think that having 12-20 (how many tables) of cameras with different ideas and shots is the way to go.

One of the other things that is worth checking into is whether you get the negatives/digital images as part of the price. Some photographers include it (that's how I do it), some make you wait some period of time and then let you buy them and others only let you buy prints from them.

Ducay · 02-04-2009, 02:51 PM

I also had the idea of buying a whole bunch of memory cards and letting people use their own cameras and then just give us the cards back. (Cheaper than disposible cameras too!)