My fiance and I are getting married next June and are paying for our wedding ourselves. Originally, we decided to pick a great photographer because we didn't want to have to pay $1000 or so for a videographer. While we are very pleased with our photographer, I'm now starting to get second thoughts about not having a videographer. I guess there's nothing like having a video to capture the details, people's faces/expressions, our vows... things that I might miss during the day as a busy bride, and that don't necessarily get captured in even the best quality photos.
For those whose weddings have already passed: if you had a videographer, are you glad you spent that extra money? If you did not go the videographer route, do you regret it at all?
Thanks!
Re: Is a wedding videographer necessary?
97 my bffs
So my answer is definitely YES on the videographer. I hate being videotaped, but I never even noticed him throughout the day (the photographer was actually much more intrusive!)
GOOD LUCK!
Shop around and see if you can find a less expensive videographer. I looked and looked and found someone for $600!
GL!