To not want to pay a professional photographer for my wedding photos?!

[CocoM2017]

We are getting married next Spring and have quite a strict budget for our wedding. The one thing we haven’t sorted yet is a photographer. I have contacted a few and have had quotes from all, the most expensive being £1,900 and the cheapest coming in at £850. I only want them for the ceremony and a few hours at the reception.

This is a massive chunk out of what’s left of our already fairly modest budget (compared to a lot of weddings!) and I’m sat here tonight wondering if there’s another way to go about it.

I would really like some ‘professional’ photos from the ceremony and some at the reception venue etc but the thought of shelling out at the very least, £1k for these when they’ll probably just sit there unlocked at for the next 50 years after the initial novelty has worn off.

I was thinking about getting in touch with the local art college and seeing if any photography students would like to earn a few hundred quid? But then worry that they won’t take it seriously and will go out, get drunk the night before and not turn up, argh!

AIB tight? Should I just try and find the grand from somewhere? If you had a pro photographer, do you regret it or are you glad you forked out?

I'm biased but I hate most wedding photography, just staged shots that don't actually reflect what happened on the day.

There is no point in paying flesh a professional. Anyone can call themselves a professional. It doesn't mean they are any good. You either pay a lot for an artist. Or you don't bother and find a cheap option.

I went to a wedding fayre on the weekend. There was a guy who did photos but like this..
He brings the printer.. Like an instant one. Each person at the wedding who takes pics on camera uploads to the blotooth on the printer. It prints two of each pic. One for the guest and one for you. The guy puts in an album.. So u can imagine there's the nice ones and the daft selfies or obscure ones. At the end of the night you get your filled album. It looks fab

Oh and it was & 300

We had a photographer for 3 hours, ceremony and a couple of hours afterwards. She was less than £400 and we ended up with 350 lovely photos. I think you need to shop around a bit more, there are definitely cheaper options out there.

We didn't have one. A friend took pictures and sent them to us on a DVD afterwards; plus we handed out several disposable cameras and collected them up afterwards. Mine was a small, informal wedding and professional photos wouldn't have been in keeping with it; plus, I remembered attending weddings where the photos took hours and everyone was bored. I don't regret not having a professional.

We hired a professional wedding photographer for 2 hours + 1 hour engagement shot and she charged us £500.

She agreed because a) our wedding was out of wedding season and b) we agreed what shots we wanted in advance and we knew that if we faffed around she was still going to leave after the 2 hours were up.

She gave us 800 photos on a usb, no fancy albums or anything.

I definitely would advise using a professional who’s got experience, you won’t get a do-over!

It depends how important the photos are to you. We had a couple of friends (both semi professionals) take photos for us, and they did a good job - better (by some margin) than some 'professional' wedding photos I've seen, but not as good as a top end photographer. We do have an album somewhere, but the photos aren't desperately important to us; we're more than happy with what we have (and yes, we did pay them).

We didn’t have a professional. We used two friends who’s hobby is photography.

Benefits of non pro

• Personal, we knew them and it was lovely to have one of them with each of us getting ready whilst walking around my own house naked I really liked it was my friend and not a complete stranger. The ones of us getting ready are awesome for both me and DH (separate venues)

• they took natural shots of the people we knew.

• there were two of them, both had different styles but ended up with 200 decent pictures out of 500

• cheap. It was their wedding present to us. I brought them both a meal voucher and bottle of wine as a thank you but they scorned me for even doing that.

Pitfalls of non pro

• they weren't assertive enough on the day. The pictures I wanted taking (which wasn’t many in terms of posed / family ones) they didn’t get but they still got some good shots. It’s a balance of how much you really want certain pictures. I see my friends’ pro pictures and they are absolutely divine....really natural (but posed) and you can tell they spent thousands. I couldn’t justify that money.

• few pictures of just us two after marriage/Church. Rain contributed to this but there aren’t many of us two posed / natural outside, just church, sitting down for meal, cutting cake

• no pictures taken of the speeches or after 6pm, therefore none of the first dance. We relied on guests for these but they are ok.

• no editing of pics when they were sent over. No issue for me, but takes time.

• no book of pictures. I literally printed my favourites and stuck them in an album. Not particularly fancy but still nice especially as you look at it only once a year

My best friend was doing an amateur photographer course at the time and she did them. She had a good camera but only one camera. The photos are amazing, but ours was a small wedding.

I don't think you need to pay loads (I know lots of people who hate theirs and paid thousands) but I would look at a portfolio of their work first and ask for a test shoot

Just saying we didn’t have a photographer of any kind.

Like nearly everyone else we didn't have a professional photographer, and really regret it. I have a photo album of snapshots of us, and that is it.

We got married well before the age of digital cameras and mobile phones (1981), so the only person taking photos was my uncle. He gave us the roll of film when it was used up and we had them developed. That is all we have. I wish we hadn't skimped on the photos.

Oh and our favourite photo, the one we have on the wall, was taken by my 10 year old nephew.

My ex SIL had her FIL take hers because he had a flash camera (or did it as a sideline?) Anyway, she never got the photos because it was always something "he never got round to" and she was too polite to push it without offending someone. If she had a professional who wasn't family then she would have been able to be assertive with upsetting anyone.

They have split now and I don't think she ever got them

I'm lucky to have a cousin with an MA in photography who has photographed several family weddings. He did mine and all it cost was food for him and his family as I invited them to the whole day too. We have some amazing shots, I was so happy.

However, had I not had someone in the family who I knew could do it, I'd have definitely paid for a professional. As pp have said, it's worth getting someone who knows what they're doing.

Going against the grain here too, if we'd had the money we might have gone for a professional photographer but it would have been a sizeable chunk out of our budget. However we have some lovely natural photos people took on their phones on the day. I would recommend you ask a friend or close family to be in charge of organising group photos and ensuring everyone looks THE SAME BLOODY DIRECTION at one specific point. I have lots of photos of guests looking in different directions at different cameras, i'm going to have to photoshop a fake family wedding photo!

We had a professional photographer in 1997. We had 90 proofs to choose from for the album. The album (that is absolutely lovely) is somewhere in the loft now but I couldn't lay my hands on it in a hurry TBH. Seemed massively important at the time.

Some of the informal ones friends took are much more interesting.

We spoke to lots of people and got a recent photography graduate to do ours - £100 cost 18 years ago. My DB was the usher in charge of photography and bossed everyone around for the groups. He was with the photographer for a few hours ensuring he checked all the photos and we'd given a list of what we wanted. It worked brilliantly and allowed the student to set up his business using our photos as his first highly recommended job.

We didn't have a wedding photographer, but had loads of disposable cameras and asked people to use them. We collected most of them and had them developed and got some super photographs. Some wonderful ones taken by children, where the perspective was from their height and really interesting.
Some people took them the cameras away and posted the prints to us, which was a lovely treat.
I have no regrets about not having a professional photographer.

Agreeing with everyone who says photography is so important. In years to come you'll really enjoy looking at them because memories do fade We considered not having a photographer and compiling together family/friends' photos, but I'm so glad we didn't rely on those.

I think you should keep looking and try and get some cheaper quotes rather than give up entirely. My husband does some wedding photography and wouldn't charge half of your cheapest quote (and we're in an expensive SE county, although outside London). I'm sure you could find similar.

Going against the grain, we had a very good professional photographer for our wedding, but the only photo now on display was taken by a friend and it just captures exactly the right moment. I also got irritated with the photographer because there were so many photos to do and I just wanted to chat to people!

DH has done photography for some friends' weddings. He does key groups and the standard poses and then lots of candid shots through the day. All are given to the B&G. If you've hit someone you know who can do that it can work really well.

To put it into perspective, my parents had a family friend who had had a professional wedding photography business for many ŷears take the photos first time round - they were grim. Second time round, future BIL took them and the dog ate all of the spools before they were developed! We therefore have no wedding photos, paid no exhorbitant fees for them and our most precious photos are the ones we’ve taken ourselves over the past 38 years!

It really depends how much the photographs matter to you. But be wary of approaching a college and asking the students to do the job for little or no money - there is a lot of resentment in the wedding photography industry for people who are too tight to pay a professional but expect professional work from students who don't know the couple, for no money.
If you happen to have a photographer friend/relation who is willing, you might ask them, but be prepared for them to get pissed and not do too much of a job...
If you do decide you want a professional do not try to barter them down, do not place an advert saying 'cute' things like how great you and your H will look in their portfolio, or how you will mention them on your Instagram account with 30 followers, etc.

I know wedding photographers seem expensive but I'm looking to move into this from teaching (not exactly well known for being a high paying job but a decent income). After cost of kit, software, insurance, travel, no sick pay, minimal work over winter, I'm looking at a HUGE pay cut- even when I think about reaching my 'best price/income', which I predict will take minimum 24 months.

If you're very lucky, you'll be able to find someone like me who knows their stuff but is just starting out in the wedding business. Just have a really close look at their work and remember that ever photographer will only ever put their very best work in their portfolio. Because of my searches, I have so many suggested adds pop up on Facebook for around £300-£500. Some are amazing and some are shockingly bad. Have a look around the Facebook selling sites and gum tree. Anyone who pays for Google adds is going to be charging £800+

And if you're in the North West give me a pm