Wedding Photography and Videography Forum

Photographer or No Photographer?

So I spent a little bit more money on my wedding dress than I originally planned and I was hoping to save some money somewhere. I was thinking about doing something different with the photos and just have some disposable cameras for people to take pictures. I figured that we could see our wedding as everyone else saw it. Has anyone else done this? What are your thoughts?

Re: Photographer or No Photographer?

  • I think in the end, you will be disappointed with your results.  Those cameras don't take great pictures and these are pictures you will be hanging in your home.  I fully recommend getting a professional.  It was the one thing I really wanted and H agreed.

    If you need to watch your money, check into local art schools or colleges with art programs.  I'm sure some of the students there would be willing to be your photographer for the day to help beef up their portfolio.  Just ask that they provide you with all images on disc.  Maybe work out a price before hand, if you want some pictures photoshopped.  Like say, $5 per image.  Finally, you can get great quality prints and photo books from shutterfly.  A student would be much more economical than a professional.

  • This is really a personal decision that depends on your priorities. For us, photography was the top priority (we spent 30% of our budget on it!). But we really like photos and felt it was important to put a lot of money toward one of the few things that would last after the wedding day. If I were in your position, I'd try to find a less expensive photographer or cut my budget elsewhere. But if you feel differently, here are some posts from A Practical Wedding that might help:


    Do remember that those disposable cameras take pretty crummy photos. I'm sure your friends have smart phones that can take prettier pictures.

  • Yeah. You girls are right. I wasn't too fond of the idea. I'm just trying to slim down! Thanks for your input.
  • Aside from the fact that those disposables don't work that well, your guests may not be reliable when it comes to taking pictures.  Some may not be good photographers; still others may take inappropriate photos.

    If photography is important to you, I'd budget for it and reduce the budget in a less important area.
  • Disposables are great fun for the guests.. but DO NOT use them as your wedding photography.  You will be disappointed.  I agree with Jen4948, budget for the photog and reduce the budget elsewhere.  I know other people may disagree, but flowers is a place that you can really cut costs if you're smart about it!
  • Photography is not the place to try to cut costs. 
    image
  • So I spent a little bit more money on my wedding dress than I originally planned and I was hoping to save some money somewhere. I was thinking about doing something different with the photos and just have some disposable cameras for people to take pictures. I figured that we could see our wedding as everyone else saw it. Has anyone else done this? What are your thoughts?

    I really think disposable cameras are dated.  Not to mention, you will most likely be disappointed with the photos (if the cameras are even used).  I'd cut back elsewhere to ensure you are able to hire a professional.  You'll be happy you did, especially years from now.
  • you'd be better off asking everyone to take lots of pictures with their digital cameras and sending them to you.

    Or getting one guest who's good at taking pictures to do it.

    My sis did get a student to do it as she spent all her money on the dress as well. The pictures were very good.

  • I actually found someone who is just kinda getting started with their photography and their pictures are actually quite good! 
  • Check your local board. They may have some ideas for someone in your area.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards