Not doing a Receiving line... Now what??

kmarr86

Ok, so we are NOT doing a receiving line, we'll have about 200 guests and know that would take way to long. So instead we are going to go around to each table while guests are finishing up dinner and grew them all and get a picture with each table.

But my question is.. so we exit the church, then what? How do you get guests out? I don't need a grand "exit"? I'd really like to just get pictures rolling with the family and bridal party then hop on the party bus to tour the city then get to the reception. But logistically, how does that work? Has anyone done this before??

chibiyui

No, you don't need a grand exit. Do you have a day of coordinator? they'll help keep things moving. After my wedding, we exited, waited for a couple minutes for parents/grandparents to get to where we were, and then started taking more pictures as our guests moseyed on over to cocktail hour.

A day of coordinator, or a family member can "dismiss" your guests to cocktail hour/reception.

kraccoon

I'm writing in the program explaining that there won't be a receiving line, and how we will meet and greet guests later on so there's no confusion.

Mkincaid2014

Is there a side entrance of the church you can walk back in through?  We are exiting the church and immediately walking around to the side to enter again near the altar for pictures inside the church.  I've seen DOCs sequester bridal party members in a corner of the church lobby in plain sight of the guests, and it's just awkward.  People will want to give their "congratulations" and it holds everything up. 

I'd recommend walking out and immediately walking around to another entrance if you don't want to hold up your pictures inside the church.  If you're not taking pictures inside the church, pick a gathering spot a little further away from the doors your guests will use to exit.     

Emmy1493

We did table visits, and luckily got to everyone! I would just keep the convo's super short, but just really thank them for coming, etc and go to next table. With DH and I, we kept getting interrupted to do cake cutting, dances, etc but would go directly back to greeting after.

SapphireCounselor

kmarr86 said:

Ok, so we are NOT doing a receiving line, we'll have about 200 guests and know that would take way to long. So instead we are going to go around to each table while guests are finishing up dinner and grew them all and get a picture with each table.

But my question is.. so we exit the church, then what? How do you get guests out? I don't need a grand "exit"? I'd really like to just get pictures rolling with the family and bridal party then hop on the party bus to tour the city then get to the reception. But logistically, how does that work? Has anyone done this before??

We didn't have a receiving line either. What we (DH and I as well as wedding party and family) did was to walk down the aisle from the ceremony and immediately into a separate room at the front of the church that could be closed. (Basically hiding us from guests.) We waited for a few minutes, and then when everyone had cleared out (that only took a few minutes) we took our pictures at the alter and then hightailed it to cocktail hour.

RebeccaFlower

Honestly, I think you should re-think doing table visits. Table visits & pictures will actually take a lot longer. We had 17 tables and about 135 people and it took 45+ minutes. 

RebeccaB88

What's the "tour the city via party bus" thing?  You're supposed to get to the reception ASAP after you finish pictures. Please don't make your guests wait on you while you drive around aimlessly.

You can do the receiving line at the reception. I personally hate table visits. It's a pet peeve of mine to be interrupted while eating a meal. But table visits are a fine alternative.

photokitty

I think table visits are far more personal and the way to go. Table pictures are great as well and wish I had gotten them. It's a great way to ensure you have a photo of all the guests.

Have your parents and anyone else in the first row follow the bridal party up the aisle and have the last person in the aisle make sure the next row follows them. When people get outside and aren't handed bubbles they'll get the hint that it's time to drive tot he reception.

JCbride2015

Yeah, what's going on with this party bus?

Viczaesar

kmarr86 said:

Ok, so we are NOT doing a receiving line, we'll have about 200 guests and know that would take way to long. So instead we are going to go around to each table while guests are finishing up dinner and grew them all and get a picture with each table.

But my question is.. so we exit the church, then what? How do you get guests out? I don't need a grand "exit"? I'd really like to just get pictures rolling with the family and bridal party then hop on the party bus to tour the city then get to the reception. But logistically, how does that work? Has anyone done this before??

That sounds like it's going to take longer than an hour (you know, the cocktail hour, at which you're hosting your guests while you take pictures).

missnc77

Sorry to hijack, but I'm curious for those that had around 100 guests and did a receiving line, how long did it take to get through?

l9i

We plan to exit (the entire group) and then just the groom and I will come back in and dismiss each row as our receiving line.  I've been to a couple weddings where they did this and I liked it much bettter than the traditional receiving line.  We also won't be doing an "exit" from the ceremony so after guests are dismissed they can head to cocktail hour and we can get pictures underway.

getaclue44

missnc77 said:

Sorry to hijack, but I'm curious for those that had around 100 guests and did a receiving line, how long did it take to get through?

It took us about 10 minutes and we had both sets of parents in the line with us. We did it at the end of cocktail hour to get people to their seats.

larrygaga

I went to a wedding where the B+G passed around cake to everyone personally in order to thank them for coming and talk for a bit. MUCH better than a recieveing line. I'll be doing this at my wedding, too. 

wabanzi

My grand plan is to do table visits in combination with releasing them to the buffet.  We go to a table, take a picture, they leave to get their dinner.  I think that will really cut down on people wanting long conversations at the table.  Food trumps conversation, generally.

Besides, we don't want to sit an eat when our guests do not all have a plate. 

mysticl

Table visits with photos is going to take a lot longer than a receiving line. It's also going to disturb the other tables as you get half the people out of their seats to stand behind the people still sitting and squeeze you and the groom in there for the picture. And like other's said, what's up with the tour of the city?

wabanzi

mysticl said:

Table visits with photos is going to take a lot longer than a receiving line. It's also going to disturb the other tables as you get half the people out of their seats to stand behind the people still sitting and squeeze you and the groom in there for the picture. And like other's said, what's up with the tour of the city?

Yes, you shouldn't get people out of their seats for a table photo. They just turn to the camera. Very easy, not disruptive.

mysticl

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

Table visits with photos is going to take a lot longer than a receiving line. It's also going to disturb the other tables as you get half the people out of their seats to stand behind the people still sitting and squeeze you and the groom in there for the picture. And like other's said, what's up with the tour of the city?

Yes, you shouldn't get people out of their seats for a table photo. They just turn to the camera. Very easy, not disruptive.

At round tables that doesn't work.  Someone's back will be to the camera.  The seats are usually too close together to allow people to turn sideways, plus it looks awkward.  They will either have to get up and move behind other people or stand up, turn their chairs around and then sit back down.  At rectangular tables they could attempt to take the shot from the head or foot of the table but then the people in front are going to block the people behind them.  Plus you have the photographer trying to frame the shot and the bride and groom trying to squeeze in.  Your best shot is to do half the table at a time but then that doubles your time.  

Personally, I don't get the point of pictures with every table.  They will never see the light of day, I don't know anyone who is going to fill their wedding album with pictures of people sitting at tables with half eaten food in front of them.  

wabanzi

mysticl said:

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

Table visits with photos is going to take a lot longer than a receiving line. It's also going to disturb the other tables as you get half the people out of their seats to stand behind the people still sitting and squeeze you and the groom in there for the picture. And like other's said, what's up with the tour of the city?

Yes, you shouldn't get people out of their seats for a table photo. They just turn to the camera. Very easy, not disruptive.

At round tables that doesn't work.  Someone's back will be to the camera.  The seats are usually too close together to allow people to turn sideways, plus it looks awkward.  They will either have to get up and move behind other people or stand up, turn their chairs around and then sit back down.  At rectangular tables they could attempt to take the shot from the head or foot of the table but then the people in front are going to block the people behind them.  Plus you have the photographer trying to frame the shot and the bride and groom trying to squeeze in.  Your best shot is to do half the table at a time but then that doubles your time.  

Personally, I don't get the point of pictures with every table.  They will never see the light of day, I don't know anyone who is going to fill their wedding album with pictures of people sitting at tables with half eaten food in front of them.  

*******

Stuck in the box--

Depends on how you do it, but as I stated above we are visiting the table to release them to the buffet (so no food).  And it is a casual shot --usually a toast with each table. No big deal.  I'm not a fan of the posed shots.  I've seen these causal table pics and I like them.  To each their own.

mysticl

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

Table visits with photos is going to take a lot longer than a receiving line. It's also going to disturb the other tables as you get half the people out of their seats to stand behind the people still sitting and squeeze you and the groom in there for the picture. And like other's said, what's up with the tour of the city?

Yes, you shouldn't get people out of their seats for a table photo. They just turn to the camera. Very easy, not disruptive.

At round tables that doesn't work.  Someone's back will be to the camera.  The seats are usually too close together to allow people to turn sideways, plus it looks awkward.  They will either have to get up and move behind other people or stand up, turn their chairs around and then sit back down.  At rectangular tables they could attempt to take the shot from the head or foot of the table but then the people in front are going to block the people behind them.  Plus you have the photographer trying to frame the shot and the bride and groom trying to squeeze in.  Your best shot is to do half the table at a time but then that doubles your time.  

Personally, I don't get the point of pictures with every table.  They will never see the light of day, I don't know anyone who is going to fill their wedding album with pictures of people sitting at tables with half eaten food in front of them.  

*******

Stuck in the box--

Depends on how you do it, but as I stated above we are visiting the table to release them to the buffet (so no food).  And it is a casual shot --usually a toast with each table. No big deal.  I'm not a fan of the posed shots.  I've seen these causal table pics and I like them.  To each their own.

So people have to wait for you to get to them, take pictures, toast, to be able to go to eat.  You're right to each their own but as a guest I would be incredibly annoyed to have to wait for all of that to get my food.  

wabanzi

mysticl said:

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

Table visits with photos is going to take a lot longer than a receiving line. It's also going to disturb the other tables as you get half the people out of their seats to stand behind the people still sitting and squeeze you and the groom in there for the picture. And like other's said, what's up with the tour of the city?

Yes, you shouldn't get people out of their seats for a table photo. They just turn to the camera. Very easy, not disruptive.

At round tables that doesn't work.  Someone's back will be to the camera.  The seats are usually too close together to allow people to turn sideways, plus it looks awkward.  They will either have to get up and move behind other people or stand up, turn their chairs around and then sit back down.  At rectangular tables they could attempt to take the shot from the head or foot of the table but then the people in front are going to block the people behind them.  Plus you have the photographer trying to frame the shot and the bride and groom trying to squeeze in.  Your best shot is to do half the table at a time but then that doubles your time.  

Personally, I don't get the point of pictures with every table.  They will never see the light of day, I don't know anyone who is going to fill their wedding album with pictures of people sitting at tables with half eaten food in front of them.  

*******

Stuck in the box--

Depends on how you do it, but as I stated above we are visiting the table to release them to the buffet (so no food).  And it is a casual shot --usually a toast with each table. No big deal.  I'm not a fan of the posed shots.  I've seen these causal table pics and I like them.  To each their own.

So people have to wait for you to get to them, take pictures, toast, to be able to go to eat.  You're right to each their own but as a guest I would be incredibly annoyed to have to wait for all of that to get my food.  

Typically, tables are called for buffets to avoid people standing in (long) lines. We are doing it personally. Since we have 2 served buffets set up, it will take 12 minutes from first to last table call, with us (bride and groom) going through last. ETA: It's just one, unposed picture at each table--like I stated earlier, no big deal other than I like the shots I've seen of this type.

Jen4948

I don't mind table visits, but don't take "table photos" when you do them.  As a guest at receptions, I have always hated being expected to stop eating, drinking, and talking to others at the table to pose for a group photo-especially if it means turning my chair around or getting up to pose in the grouping.  To make matters worse, it always seems to happen just when the food hits the table, and I am often at one of the last tables served, so I am intensely hungry when it happens, and the delay really annoys me.

Jen4948

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

wabanzi said:

mysticl said:

Table visits with photos is going to take a lot longer than a receiving line. It's also going to disturb the other tables as you get half the people out of their seats to stand behind the people still sitting and squeeze you and the groom in there for the picture. And like other's said, what's up with the tour of the city?

Yes, you shouldn't get people out of their seats for a table photo. They just turn to the camera. Very easy, not disruptive.

At round tables that doesn't work.  Someone's back will be to the camera.  The seats are usually too close together to allow people to turn sideways, plus it looks awkward.  They will either have to get up and move behind other people or stand up, turn their chairs around and then sit back down.  At rectangular tables they could attempt to take the shot from the head or foot of the table but then the people in front are going to block the people behind them.  Plus you have the photographer trying to frame the shot and the bride and groom trying to squeeze in.  Your best shot is to do half the table at a time but then that doubles your time.  

Personally, I don't get the point of pictures with every table.  They will never see the light of day, I don't know anyone who is going to fill their wedding album with pictures of people sitting at tables with half eaten food in front of them.  

*******

Stuck in the box--

Depends on how you do it, but as I stated above we are visiting the table to release them to the buffet (so no food).  And it is a casual shot --usually a toast with each table. No big deal.  I'm not a fan of the posed shots.  I've seen these causal table pics and I like them.  To each their own.

So people have to wait for you to get to them, take pictures, toast, to be able to go to eat.  You're right to each their own but as a guest I would be incredibly annoyed to have to wait for all of that to get my food.  

Typically, tables are called for buffets to avoid people standing in (long) lines. We are doing it personally. Since we have 2 served buffets set up, it will take 12 minutes from first to last table call, with us (bride and groom) going through last. ETA: It's just one, unposed picture at each table--like I stated earlier, no big deal other than I like the shots I've seen of this type.

Buffets don't necessarily prevent the long lines.  I was at a wedding once where they did a dessert reception afterwards (it was in the afternoon), and unfortunately, they had all the guests wait in one long line to go around the buffet.  There was no "dismissal to the buffet" but I have to admit I would not appreciate that-I would rather be able to go to the buffets when I see fit.

phira

I would recommend against table photos. You can talk with your photographer about getting photos during the reception, but table photos during table visits is very time consuming (so your table visits will take forever), and it can make guests feel like you're not having your picture taken with them because you want to (different from, "Oh wait, let's find the photographer, I want a picture of the three of us!" during dancing).

Nix the party bus city tour.

wabanzi

Typically, tables are called for buffets to avoid people standing in (long) lines

oid. We are doing it personally. Since we have 2 served buffets set up, it will take 12 minutes from first to last table call, with us (bride and groom) going through last. ETA: It's just one, unposed picture at each table--like I stated earlier, no big deal other than I like the shots I've seen of this type.

Buffets don't necessarily prevent the long lines.  I was at a wedding once where they did a dessert reception afterwards (it was in the afternoon), and unfortunately, they had all the guests wait in one long line to go around the buffet.  There was no "dismissal to the buffet" but I have to admit I would not appreciate that-I would rather be able to go to the buffets when I see fit.

Calling the tables helps prevent the long lines, not the buffet itself.

Jen4948

wabanzi said:

Typically, tables are called for buffets to avoid people standing in (long) lines

oid. We are doing it personally. Since we have 2 served buffets set up, it will take 12 minutes from first to last table call, with us (bride and groom) going through last. ETA: It's just one, unposed picture at each table--like I stated earlier, no big deal other than I like the shots I've seen of this type.

Buffets don't necessarily prevent the long lines.  I was at a wedding once where they did a dessert reception afterwards (it was in the afternoon), and unfortunately, they had all the guests wait in one long line to go around the buffet.  There was no "dismissal to the buffet" but I have to admit I would not appreciate that-I would rather be able to go to the buffets when I see fit.

Calling the tables helps prevent the long lines, not the buffet itself.

But nobody wants to be at the last table to be called, or even the second-to-last table.  Seeing a buffet and being told that no, you can't go to it, is going to piss off your guests-especially if they finally get to a buffet table only to find that there's nothing left.  Are you going to have the buffet refilled after each table visits it?

wabanzi

Calling the tables helps prevent the long lines, not the buffet itself.

But nobody wants to be at the last table to be called, or even the second-to-last table.  Seeing a buffet and being told that no, you can't go to it, is going to piss off your guests-especially if they finally get to a buffet table only to find that there's nothing left.  Are you going to have the buffet refilled after each table visits it?

That's true. Just like nobody likes to be at the last table served at plated meal, or waiting in long wrap around lines --people especially hate the lines. Of course both buffets will be continuously filled until they are broken down, with more than plenty for everyone to have what they like. We have done a full walk through with our very experienced caterer on site. Everything is planned to get people their food as quickly and efficiently as possible Hence, the double served buffet. I trust my caterer. He knows what he is doing. And yes, the photographer will be snapping photos as we go to each table. Guests do not have to do a thing. The photographer will be taking pictures throughout the entire reception. I and my groom will be the last to go through because it is rude to serve yourself (plated or buffet) before your guests, IMO.

Jen4948

wabanzi said:

Calling the tables helps prevent the long lines, not the buffet itself.

But nobody wants to be at the last table to be called, or even the second-to-last table.  Seeing a buffet and being told that no, you can't go to it, is going to piss off your guests-especially if they finally get to a buffet table only to find that there's nothing left.  Are you going to have the buffet refilled after each table visits it?

That's true. Just like nobody likes to be at the last table served at plated meal, or waiting in long wrap around lines --people especially hate the lines. Of course both buffets will be continuously filled until they are broken down, with more than plenty for everyone to have what they like. We have done a full walk through with our very experienced caterer on site. Everything is planned to get people their food as quickly and efficiently as possible Hence, the double served buffet. I trust my caterer. He knows what he is doing. And yes, the photographer will be snapping photos as we go to each table. Guests do not have to do a thing. The photographer will be taking pictures throughout the entire reception. I and my groom will be the last to go through because it is rude to serve yourself (plated or buffet) before your guests, IMO.

That's really nice and gracious.  At most weddings the couple is the first to be served.

photokitty

Jen4948 said:

wabanzi said:

Calling the tables helps prevent the long lines, not the buffet itself.

But nobody wants to be at the last table to be called, or even the second-to-last table.  Seeing a buffet and being told that no, you can't go to it, is going to piss off your guests-especially if they finally get to a buffet table only to find that there's nothing left.  Are you going to have the buffet refilled after each table visits it?

That's true. Just like nobody likes to be at the last table served at plated meal, or waiting in long wrap around lines --people especially hate the lines. Of course both buffets will be continuously filled until they are broken down, with more than plenty for everyone to have what they like. We have done a full walk through with our very experienced caterer on site. Everything is planned to get people their food as quickly and efficiently as possible Hence, the double served buffet. I trust my caterer. He knows what he is doing. And yes, the photographer will be snapping photos as we go to each table. Guests do not have to do a thing. The photographer will be taking pictures throughout the entire reception. I and my groom will be the last to go through because it is rude to serve yourself (plated or buffet) before your guests, IMO.

That's really nice and gracious.  At most weddings the couple is the first to be served.

It is gracious, but I can see a down side. As a guest I'd have to wait for you to finish to open he dance floor...assuming you plan t do a first dance. Even if you did it before dinner, I'd fell awkward dancing while the B&G were eating.

On the B&G downside, they typically eat first so they can do the dancing, cake cutting etc while people finish their meal...bc no one is all that interested in watching all that stuff (sorry). If you eat last you might not get to eat to keep the flow of the evening from being disrupted.

I'd rather have the B&G eat first than sit there waiting on them IMHO

wabanzi

That's true. Just like nobody likes to be at the last table served at plated meal, or waiting in long wrap around lines --people especially hate the lines. Of course both buffets will be continuously filled until they are broken down, with more than plenty for everyone to have what they like. We have done a full walk through with our very experienced caterer on site. Everything is planned to get people their food as quickly and efficiently as possible Hence, the double served buffet. I trust my caterer. He knows what he is doing. And yes, the photographer will be snapping photos as we go to each table. Guests do not have to do a thing. The photographer will be taking pictures throughout the entire reception. I and my groom will be the last to go through because it is rude to serve yourself (plated or buffet) before your guests, IMO.

That's really nice and gracious.  At most weddings the couple is the first to be served.

It is gracious, but I can see a down side. As a guest I'd have to wait for you to finish to open he dance floor...assuming you plan t do a first dance. Even if you did it before dinner, I'd fell awkward dancing while the B&G were eating.

On the B&G downside, they typically eat first so they can do the dancing, cake cutting etc while people finish their meal...bc no one is all that interested in watching all that stuff (sorry). If you eat last you might not get to eat to keep the flow of the evening from being disrupted.

I'd rather have the B&G eat first than sit there waiting on them IMHO

No one will need to wait for us to finish eating.  The buffet should take 20 minutes to get everyone through (that includes an 4 minute "buffer"), dinner is slotted for 45 minutes total, finished by two quick toasts, followed by our thank you (short) speech, then to our first dance.  We have an excellent, well thought out timeline. My caterer and wedding planner  (and me) are on top of it. Just for me, I would never sit and eat while even one of my guests was waiting for food.

If people finish eating early, like at any event, they may chat amongst themselves, get another drink,  go to the photo booth, take a quick tour of the historic venue, sign the guest book, and/or opt for second a helping. Most will do the latter because our food is awesome :-)

Our caterer is also fixing us to go plates, because let's face it --regardless of whether you serve yourself first or last, the B&G will hardly have a chance to eat.  

----

My apologies to the OP for straying off of the original topic/question.