Photographer - yay or nay?

[adamsmallbone]

Hi, I'm getting married in 6 weeks and still haven't booked a photographer. It's a v small wedding, just close family, the idea is just to have the ceremony then a meal after and that's it. As its so small I can't decide whether to go to the expense of a photographer. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

We've decided not to have one. although many people tell us its a mistake. I'm not keen on having my photo taken at the best of times and object to the ludicrous expense (and time taken to pose for hundreds of pics I will never use or see again) so I am very happy with the decision. Friends will take a few snaps on the day and that will suit me just fine!

The time taken for all the poses is awful and boring and most posed photos look so false. We had a "documentary" style photographer who was there to take photos but didn't have any set groupings he just photo'd people enjoying the wedding. It was brilliant.

If you are going for a small and private wedding then I would not bother if I were you. I am sure you can find a friend or acquaintance with an interest in photography - it is a very popular hobby. If you do not know anyone then look up the local photography club or shop - they will often know someone who will do it cheaply. Also, do you have an art or technical college near you with a photography course? - again they might have someone who would be glad of the experience.

I worked as a photographer for 12 years before I retired and I only ever did one wedding - I simply wasn't bossy enough! Photographers at weddings tend to take over and push people about into various places and poses and generally disrupt the proceedings.

We had a photographer. Logic was that the only things we'd have forever (apart from each other of course) were photographs and the rings. We found a lovely photographer who suited our day- which was very informal. We only had 5 'posed' photos, and the rest were just reportage style. The photographer wasn't imposing at all compared to other weddings we'd been to. Possibly because we emphasised that we just didn't want people herded about!

I have been twice once with once without. I would say no for a small wedding you don't need a photographer but I would make sure that you have someone nominated to make sure you get a few snaps of you all on the day. My first wedding was small just parents and siblings and my brother took control of getting some photos which was great and we ended up with loads.
My second wedding was bigger and we had a friend who is a photographer. We had less than a dozen posed shots but hundreds taken throughout the day and I'm so glad we did. He caught things I had forgotten about and that I hadn't seen. I love my pictures.

I am not keen on getting my photo taken but I am so glad I did. We didn't have a huge number from guests and the day goes so fast I'm glad we can look back and remember things. I think you'll regret not having any photos at all but it doesn't have to be a pro. Just make sure someone knows you would like some pics and what of.

Oh and the minister that married us said if you only ever have one photo get a group shot of everyone there. He and his wife have been married a long time and their group shot has people no longer with them now and they still like looking back in that one.

Are you me? I've got exactly the same query, except my wedding is in 7 weeks. 12 including us for ceremony (plus maybe a few friends if they want to come - but that's to witness the ceremony only). Then the 12 of us for a meal afterwards. Mid week wedding.
Photographer would be for the ceremony only and they all seem to be 2-5 hour packages, we'd only want half an hour (obviously I appreciate the editing time afterwards).

I need to call a few people and see what they'd charge.

Only problem with getting guests to take pictures is it means they aren't in them.

Call your local college ask them if any art or photography student would like to do it for a small fee. They get some pics for their folio and you get some nice photos.

Thanks all. The main reason I want a small wedding is because I dont want a lot of fuss, but there's still quite a few decisions to make! We do have a college near us, I will make enquiries. I did speak to one who was willing to come along for an hour but sadly he wasn't available on the date.

If you look on You and Your Wedding forum there are often beginner photographers advertising who want to create a portfolio and will photograph your wedding for low or no fee.

We got a close friend to take 8 'posed' group shots with a really good lense (try calamet if you're in the SW) and we had 90 at our wedding. Friends took lovely, lovely pics - I was adamant that I wanted no strangers at our wedding and was a bit worried when other people said I'd regret it.

I also think that any amateur photos today will be better than pro ones 40years ago simply because of the technology!

I think you should still go for a photographer :) At my friend's wedding there were 18 of us, they had a photographer and have got some beautiful photos.