So I think I may have found a photographer

Acrosthec

What do you guys think? It's between these two for top billing. The main difference is price. One of them is a friend of mine, and the other is not. Obviously my friend is less expensive, but I'm not going to tell you which it is, because I want unbiased opinions. www.allisonreiszphotography.com www.michaelcosta.net

sapphirebaby926

I like Allison Reisz better - I just think the pictures look better than the other photographer

Ana_2985

I think they're both good, but I would pick michael costa.  I think those photos look more natural/casual and everyone looks so happy (but maybe that's just the people).  Whereas, the other photos seem more forced and posed.

mrs.rab

they are both amazing, really nice colors.... Buutttttt....... I think that allison is a little bit more creative and out of the box with the pictures, it seems to be a little more thought and planning with the pictures, locations, natural light, etc. HTH!

AnneAndJJ

I like Michael Costa - his photos were happier looking, which is what wedding should be (in my mind). I found the Allison Reisz photos were all too dramatic looking, and generally darker.

Goldlie11

I think they both look good and would go with the friend who is cheaper if I were you.

desertsun

Ditto Goldie. I like them both very much. Reisz seemed more "arty" and dramatic. Costa seemed more friendly. Both had some really fab shots. Yup, I'd go with whoever's cheaper.

Goldlie11

desertsun, you are so right. They both look very different, but still great.

MidniteRae

They both take beautiful pictures, but I'd go with Michael

Goldlie11

BTW, Acro, I hope you take my comments as being rude. I don't mean them to be. I truly think that you can't go wrong with either of them. Also, maybe your friend would appreciate the money (especially in this economy)

Button5807

I agree that bother photographers have pretty pictures but if it was me choosing I pick Michael, it seems that the subjects were more at ease and engaged with the photographer. They seem warmer. The other pictures reminded me of staged photo shoots with models and I didn't pick up on chemistry between the two people in the photos.

katanne9

they are both BEAUTIFUL! so I don't think you can go wrong!I think i would choose Allison... because I like her bright contrast and the lighting (but that's just my preference!) Also, if one's significantly cheaper, from what I see, I can't tell the difference.... so that might sway me either way! Best of luck!!!

Acrosthec

Thanks for the input, ladies!  Keep 'em coming!  I'll let you know by the end of today which one is my friend, because I know the suspense is probably killing you, right? 

AnneAndJJ

I actually am curious, because I have an idea, but I'm likely completely wrong.

Acrosthec

Anne, Michael is my friend.  Which is rockstar because a lot of his shots are awesome, AND he's cheaper.  However, you have to weigh that against Allison's pros, which are:She's got more experienceMore of her pictures are awesome (if you look through Michael's online store, a lot of his "normal" pictures that aren't touched up are kinda lackluster, which makes me think he may just be a genius with photoshop and effects.  Maybe not, but do you want to take that chance on your wedding day?)And she's shot at our potential venue before, so she knows it already and knows where the good shots are to be taken, and the pictures from other weddings she's done there are all incredible.I won't know if it'll be worth it until after Michael gives me a quote, but Allison's packages START at about 3 grand, so...it's a tough decision.

AnneAndJJ

I guessed Michael was the friend, because I found the part on Allison's website that says weddings start around $3000. I only looked at the wedding photos on each of their pages, because, in my mind, that's what matters for your wedding. I do agree though, see how much cheaper Michael will be, and then make the call.

desertsun

On a second look at both websites, I noticed some other things that I thought might be helpful to point out. To me, Allison's photos are AMAZING ART, but they don't show a lot of natural interaction between people, and they also don't show many people other than the bride and groom. They seem to be about composition and not so much about capturing moments. What strikes me about Micheal's photography is that it's more of that photojournalist style that captures the interactions between people. He also gets more photos of different people other than the bride and groom. Personally, I'd rather have lots of happy but maybe not brilliantly composed photographs with a variety of people and moments. Allison's pictures are BEAUTIFUL, but I almost get the feeling that it doesn't matter that it's a bride/wedding that she's photographing, if that makes sense. It's just a brilliantly photographed woman in a dress. but it'd look damn good on your wall! Just depends what you prefer. I think it's obvious what I'd prefer but I recognize that other people would prefer something else. One's not better than the other. But one IS more likely to be "you" than the other. Hope that helps.

MidniteRae

"She's got more experience" Michael will get only get more experience if given the chance/hired.

Acrosthec

I completely agree Midnite, and I know his potential. He used to take absolutely amazing photographs when we were in school together. I'm sure the majority of his stuff would be stellar. BONUS! He's getting married in April of next year, and his soon-to-be-wife is also a (hobby) photographer (but a damn good one), so I'd get both of them for the price of one because she tags along on his jobs and shoots some stuff as well. I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with him, just need a final quote and what the "package" includes.