Photos and Video

Photographer's Photo Booth Vs. Rented One

We want to have some type of photo booth. Our photographer offers one, where she sets up a back drop, bring in props and signs, and the guests can operate the camera via a remote control. The pictures are then uploaded on the photographer's website so guests can browse them, purchase, etc. The photographer also makes up a book for us with all the guests' photos. 

If we don't go with that, we'll bring in a rented photo booth. If we use the photographer for this service we don't have to bring in another vendor, and we will save about $600-700 dollars! But, do you think the guests will be unhappy that they don't get instant photos at the reception and will have to buy photos from the website if they want them?

Thanks! 
Wedding Countdown Ticker

Re: Photographer's Photo Booth Vs. Rented One

  • As a guest I'd be really ticked off if I thought you were offering a photo booth (which, by definition, includes instant prints) and then found out that I had to purchase my pictures from the photographer's website.  I know you said you'd be saving $600ish, but it sounds to me like all you're really doing is transferring the cost of the prints from yourself to your guests.  That's really no different than having a cash bar or expecting guests to pay for their own meals or something - you're saving yourself money by making your guests fork over their own cash to pay for it.
    image my to-read shelf:
    Steph's book recommendations, liked quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists (to-read shelf)
  • casymecasyme
    100 Comments
    member
    We had precisely the same dilemma, and decided that the separate photobooth with instant photos was worth the extra cost.  In addition, we felt that the pictures would be of better quality, based on the website samples.  Also, the photos turn into favors for your guests, so you do save a little money there.

    I disagree that going with the photographers' option would be *rude,* however.  Many modern-type "photobooths" aren't really "booths" at all and aren't set up to do instant pictures; in fact, I went to a wedding this weekend with one like that, and no one was surprised.  I don't think your guests will be upset if that's the case, I just think it's *better* to have instant photos, as long as you can afford it.
  • edited May 2012
    In Response to Re: Photographer's Photo Booth Vs. Rented One:
    We had precisely the same dilemma, and decided that the separate photobooth with instant photos was worth the extra cost.  In addition, we felt that the pictures would be of better quality, based on the website samples.  Also, the photos turn into favors for your guests, so you do save a little money there. I disagree that going with the photographers' option would be *rude,* however.  Many modern-type "photobooths" aren't really "booths" at all and aren't set up to do instant pictures; in fact, I went to a wedding this weekend with one like that, and no one was surprised.  I don't think your guests will be upset if that's the case, I just think it's *better* to have instant photos, as long as you can afford it.
    Posted by casyme
    Just to be clear  - I don't think the rudeness is in the fact that the photos aren't instant, I think it's in the fact that the guests are expected to pay for their own photos.  What's the point in a photo booth in that case?  It's truly functionally no different than asking guests to pay for their own food - you're basically saying to them "hey, I'm offering you this service, but I'm not paying for it."  That's not cool.  If OP was willing to cover the cost of each guest obtaining a print of his/her own photos from the photographer, then it'd be fine for her to go with the photographer's setup.  But as it stands, it's wrong to set guests up to think they'll be getting pictures of themselves and then basically tricking them into having to pay for the print down the road.
    image my to-read shelf:
    Steph's book recommendations, liked quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists (to-read shelf)
  • edited May 2012
    In Response to Re: Photographer's Photo Booth Vs. Rented One:
    As a guest I'd be really ticked off if I thought you were offering a photo booth (which, by definition, includes instant prints) and then found out that I had to purchase my pictures from the photographer's website.  I know you said you'd be saving $600ish, but it sounds to me like all you're really doing is transferring the cost of the prints from yourself to your guests.  That's really no different than having a cash bar or expecting guests to pay for their own meals or something - you're saving yourself money by making your guests fork over their own cash to pay for it.
    Posted by StephBeanWed61502
    See - that's exactly how I feel about it! But I know a lot of people do this, so I wanted to check on here. I talked to the photographer earlier today about this and she said we can get a bulk rate to buy everyone one photo that we can send out with our thank you cards, or she can hire someone to stand there at the reception and print out instant copies for guests.

    Now I just have to figure out which option I think is best!
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • My vote is to go with the option that costs the least while still guaranteeing that everyone gets a free copy of his/her picture. 

    image my to-read shelf:
    Steph's book recommendations, liked quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists (to-read shelf)
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards