Photos and Video

In the wedding realm, is this a too "cheap" photog?

Hi! I'm struggling to decide between two photographers -- one team costs ~$2,000 for 7 hours (local) and another costs $3,200 (which includes travel and hotel accommodations as they're out of town). Should I be nervous that option A is significantly cheaper? Should I splurge for the more expensive one? They're almost the same in quality, but the more expensive team has a fashion background and that shows in the photos. However, I'm on a budget and also only having a somewhat low-key, 30-guest wedding -- so do I NEED that high caliber a photographer?

Re: In the wedding realm, is this a too "cheap" photog?

  • Do you know what photographer B would charge if they didn't have to travel? $2,000 for 7 hours seems like a reasonably good deal, not ridiculously low where I'd worry. I only booked 3 hours but my photographer has a full day package that isn't much more than your quote, and these are city prices, so it's expected to be more expensive here.
  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing Alaska
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    member
    Some of this depends on where you are. $2,000 seems fairly reasonable to me, not overly cheap, although I did pay a lot less than that because my photog was just starting out in weddings. 

    You say the quality is pretty much the same. Only you can say if you need the higher caliber photographer. Do you care about the fashion background? Personally, I don't. I don't need crazy editorial/fashion shots. Especially since you say you're on a budget, I'd go cheaper, especially since it sounds like the cheaper ones still deliver great photos. Get a contract in place and you should be fine and get wonderful photos to look back on. 

  • I'd go cheaper. 
  • I found a photographer that is only 3 years into her business so she is much less expensive. She still has experience and I have viewed the photos she posted on social media so I can see the quality. She quoted us $800 for 4 hours and a free engagement session (we are expecting 80 guests). Everything else in my area was $1,500-3,000 - for 4 hours, without the engagement session. We are having a casual wedding, so that seemed a bit too much for us... just want a few good pictures. We were going to ask a friend to take pictures for us - we would pay him of course - (he has experience in photography) but decided against it as we would rather have him there to have fun, not have to worry about "working" and taking pictures the whole time. For 30 guests, a "team" of photographers seems a bit overkill, in my opinion. Maybe ask how much they would charge for just 1 photographer? And maybe less hours? I don't know your schedule, but 7 hours seems really long. 
  • I'm in St. Louis and I booked 2 photographers (one for half day and one for the full 7 hours), 1 videographer, and 4 hour photobooth for $3800. Then I got an email from another photography company for 2 photographers all day, 2 videographers, and 3 hour photobooth for $2500. I'm totally switching! I will lose a $300 deposit but the quality of photos is virtually the same and I'm saving $1000 for one hour less of photobooth, an extra videographer, and an extra photographer! I'd say the one without the fashion background is probably good enough. It does depend on where photography lands on your importance scale.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards