New Jersey

Engagement Pics - Are they necessary

Hey Everyone. My fiance and I have been engaged since July. I did a suprise proposal for her on a gondola ride in Boston where I had a special letter written to her that was wrapped in ribbon and placed into a bottle in the canal. We created our own engagment album from our trip there and took over 500 photos. Since we've been engaged for a while do you think I should pic a package that doesn't include engagement pics and use the additional money for a second photographer? I've seen people use the E-Pics for their save the dates but we were going to use a picture from the actual day of our engagement. I really want the second photographer because our venue has a juliette balcony that overlooks the ballroom and will provide some beautiful arial photos.

Re: Engagement Pics - Are they necessary

  • sgdc2011sgdc2011
    1000 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011
    We are using our engagement pictures in our guest sign in book.  We are also going to put some around the cocktail hour room.  It's up to you.  Ours was a free engagement session and we got to know how our photographer actually worked and to get us more comfortable with him.  We also have a 2nd photographer built into the package so we didn't need to choose between those 2 things.  I think you need to decide what is best for you and waht you want and do that.
  • edited December 2011
    Personally, I think engagement pictures are a waste and we couldn't justify spending money on them.  If you need pictures for your save the dates or other WR items, then you can just use pictures you already have that are meaningful to you (as in your case) or go out and have a friend or family member take a few shots of you together.

    I think I'm in the minority, but I just don't understand why people need 100+ (or however many) pictures of themselves posed in various ways.  I will admit that it's nice to have professional photos taken and I've seen some gorgeous e-pics, but with all the other expenses of a wedding plus the fact that there will be so many pictures of you taken at the wedding itself, I think that a nice romantic photo shoot is something that could wait until a few years after the wedding.

    Just my opinion.
    image 182 Invited
    image 0 Are ready to party!
    image 0 Will be missing the fun
    image 0 Can't find the mailbox...

    RSVP Deadline: June 15, 2011
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • goaliegirlgoaliegirl
    Eighth Anniversary 1000 Comments Combo Breaker
    member
    edited December 2011
    Is anything except the ceremony necessary for a wedding.  LOL   I don't think engagement photos are necessary if you really don't want to get them.   You can better spend you money another place especially if you have all the other photos as you describe.   
  • hcer0708hcer0708
    1000 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011
    I agree with Peaches! 

    My photog included an engagement session but if i wanted to keep the pics I would have had to pay $450 for them. We got engaged in Hawaii so i used a pic from there for our Save The Dates and for our guestbook I think i am just going to create one from Snapfish using photos of us through out the years.
  • GolfChick78GolfChick78
    100 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011

    The only choice between a second photographer and an E-session is budgetary.  I don't think the idea of engagement sessions even existed more than a few years ago.  It's nice to get some professional pictures done at an important time in your life.  It can also be a lot of fun and they usually aren't very expensive.  But it most certalnly is not necessary and very dispensible if you're pushing the limits of your budget.

    As far as a second photographer, we're NOT getting one becuase we just didn't feel it was worth the extra $'s.  Mostly, what it gets you are the groom's preparation pics.  Then you'll get some different angles of the same pics as well as the odd pic that's hard for a single photographer to get throughout the rest of your day.  At the end of the day, though, we decided to just let family and friends photograph him getting ready and put the $'s towards other things.  I actually think I would hate having two photographers around all day; jeez, I'm a simple girl from NJ and not a hollywood starlet!

    BTW, if getting a few pictures from the balcony is all you're looking for, I'm sure a single photographer can get some of those for you, and if they're any good, would probably would do so without you even asking.

  • edited December 2011
    Haha. I love the response GolfChick! I'll discuss things with my fiance and see if the groom preparation pics are super important to her. I'm a little sappy so I actually think I would like them. I don't have a ton of pictures with my boys so maybe now is the time to do them. Plus we will be getting ready in totally different locations. She'll be in the huge bridal suite at our venue and I'll be in the hotel.
  • edited December 2011
    I agree.. if you don't want engagement photos or don't have a need for them, then don't get them. We did not get them either, we think they are a waste of money.
    the pictures from your actual proposal would be much nicer to use for save the dates, and are actual memories of when you got engaged. I just think it is silly to have professional pics taken of the two of us in a random place, posing to show off my ring, etc.. We took pictures when we got engaged (we were on vacation) and that was enough for us.
    September 2011 Brides Siggy Challenge: Reception Venue image Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • edited December 2011
    You certainly don't need to have them. They came with our package--if they didn't, we probably wouldn't have done it. 
    BabyFruit Ticker
  • kristen8040kristen8040
    Knottie Warrior 1000 Comments Combo Breaker
    member
    edited December 2011
    You definitely don't need them.  I'd take a second photog over e-pics any day.
    Photobucket BabyFruit Ticker image image
  • edited December 2011
    Definitely do a second photographer over engagement pictures.

    Sure, I like our engagement pictures, but how often am I going to look at them? The wedding pictures are much more important. We didn't think we needed a second photographer, and didn't think we paid for one, well our photog I think mistakenly gave us the bigger package for the same price, so we got one. Having the pictures of the guys getting ready and other shots, I realize I would have missed out on a lot of great shots if the second photographer wasn't there.
    *~allie~*

  • Denise91980Denise91980
    2500 Comments Combo Breaker
    member
    edited December 2011
    We didn't do it and don't regret it...but we were engaged for about 7 years so I felt it was pointless.
    BFP #1 1/1/11 EDD 9/10/11 dx:no hb DNC on 2/2/11 BFP #2 12/28/11 natural m/c on 2/6/12 BFP#3 2/16/13 dx:ectopic on 2/27 (given methotrexate)
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • GolfChick78GolfChick78
    100 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011
    If having the groom's prep photograhed professionally is important to you, it's just not THAT many more $'s and you should do it.  I think for us, it would've been an extra $500.  One of my brothers will be with FI when he's getting ready and he's a pretty good amateur photographer so I'm sure we'll be plenty happy with what he shoots.

    If you speak with photographers who offer a two photographer package, you should ask how much it would save if they dropped the second photographer.  I get that you want one, but you should ask this question anyway just so you know what it's costing you so you can make a more informed decision.  It's already built into the package price, but remember, nothing is free.

    Let us know how your meetings go and what you decide.
  • edited December 2011
    Thanks GolfChick. Great points as always. I'm a big numbers person so I will definitely dissect everything. I'm seeing Robert Wayne this Sunday so I'll let everyone know.
  • mbcdefgmbcdefg
    10000 Comments 5 Love Its Combo Breaker
    member
    edited December 2011
    I didn't think that the engagement photos themselves were necessary ... but I was happy that our package included the engagement session, because it gave us a change to preview our photographer. His personality and style when he was actually shooting us, his turnaround time for the photos, the quality of the photos and editing. I wanted a chance to bail out if we were really unhappy with the pictures, so that we had time to find someone else (instead of only discovering AFTER the wedding that the photographer and his/her photos were no good). Luckily, we loved our photographer and his pictures, so the engagement session was just for our own peace of mind.

    We didn't really do anything with the e-photos themselves, other than print out one or two that we keep in frames around the house. And I put a few on Facebook.
    image
  • uppereastgirluppereastgirl
    2500 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011
    We didn't do engagement photos and I've never regretted it.  We had no doubt that our photographer would do a great job at the wedding, and had no idea what we'd do with even more photos of ourselves (particularly because photo save the dates are not our style).  And honestly I would have felt kind of silly walking around Central Park or whatever with a photographer following us.  Just not our thing.

    It wasn't an either/or thing for us, but we had a second photographer and I am so glad we did.  I'm so happy that we have more photos generally, and that we have prep photos of the boys.  If we had to pick between doing a second photographer and doing an engagement session, second photographer would have been the clear choice (particularly in retrospect).
    image
  • GolfChick78GolfChick78
    100 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011
    In Response to Re: Engagement Pics - Are they necessary:
    I'm seeing Robert Wayne this Sunday
    Posted by Pharo47
    BTW, as you'll probably find out on Sunday, his name isn't Robert Wayne; it turns out he named the business for his twin sons which we thought was kinda cool!
  • edited December 2011
    In Response to Re: Engagement Pics - Are they necessary:
    In Response to Re: Engagement Pics - Are they necessary : BTW, as you'll probably find out on Sunday, his name isn't Robert Wayne; it turns out he named the business for his twin sons which we thought was kinda cool!
    Posted by GolfChick78
    Its funny you mentioned that because we've been conversing via email and I saw his signature is a different name. Whats really funny is the person that we love from our reception venue is also named Bob. Maybe its a sign!! lol
  • Faith2730Faith2730
    Eighth Anniversary 500 Comments Combo Breaker
    member
    edited December 2011
    I am using a photographer that was recommended by Il'Villaggio.  I loved the pictures that he had taken there so I ended up booking him.  I had pics taken right when my fiance proposed that I used for my save the dates.  It happens that engagement pics were included in my package.  I am actually glad that I had them taken.   The actual engagement shots that were taken the day that we got engaged are really special but it's nice having the professional pics.  In fact my fiances mom got us a custom frame with one of our engagement pics for Christmas that I LOVE.  MY photographer told me that he didn't think I would need two photographgers.  He said he would bring another photographer for an extra $350 but he said he wouldn't waste the money on it.  He said the only reason we should get a second photographer is if my fiance wanted pictures of him getting ready at the hotel.  My fiance really didn't care to have that done.  He was fine having the photographer take some pics with the guys outside of the church. 
  • edited December 2011
    Our epics were a great way for us to get to know our photog better and to get some experience with her and in front of the camera. When the wedding day came, we were more comfortable with both her and the camera. So, for that reason, I personally thought they were important. However, not everyone has those concerns. As far as a second photog, our second got some really touching photos of my grandfather and H's father helping him to get ready. Our second was an extra $400, and those shots were worth every penny.
    BabyFetus Ticker
  • ginabean82ginabean82
    100 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011
    I would have to say skip the engagement pics.  I personally think they are a waste of money and really don't serve any purpose.  Spend the money on something else more worth while.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • edited December 2011
    Having an e-shoot was worth the extra money for us - we're both camera shy, so getting used to someone snapping away at us was a vital experience. Also, I learned from seeing the finished product that I shouldn't be wearing my hair down for the wedding. My hair ruined most of the photos ... but we still had plenty of great shots.

    Plus, it's nice to have professional, artsy and fun photos of us in non-wedding wear.

    If your budget is making you choose either the e-pics or the second shooter, get the second shooter. Down the line, you can probably get back in touch with your photographer and have the fun professional photos for your anniversary or whatever.
  • edited December 2011

    go w/ the 2nd photographer over the e-pics.  for sure.

  • viviannacviviannac
    500 Comments
    member
    edited December 2011
    We had both the e-pics and the second shooter and we don't regret the decision, however, we did have the room in our budget for both. 

    We had also been engaged for a while but the e-pics gave us a chance to get more comfortable with our photog and with the camera in general since we tend to be camera shy.  I love our e-pics and even used one for our x-mas card this year.

    If your budget dictates that you choose one over the other, then absolutely go with the second shooter.  BTW, we had the groom's prep photographed and the pics are awesome. 
    Anniversary
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards