Getting married, very small ceremony, different kind of wedding photographer

DrPips

DrPips

Suspended / Banned
Messages
310
Name
Dom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, I recently got engaged and my fiancé and I have just started planning our wedding.

Now it’s both of our second weddings so we’re having a very small ceremony (12-15 people including us) and it’s going to be very informal. The plan is in the morning to go for a walk and a couple of pints, back to the venue (country pub) for a mid afternoon ceremony, then nice meal and drinks in the evening. Because of this we want a similar level of informality from the photos and we certainly don’t want to be spending £700-£1000 on a photographer which seems to be the going rate for a micro wedding.

I have absolutely no doubt that the photographers earn and are worth this amount of money but it’s just not something we value particularly highly, especially when we’re looking at spending around £4-5k total.

Having said that, we would like some record of the day, so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions? My fiancé thought about contacting the local university and seeing if there were any students looking to develop their portfolios?

We’re planning on getting married in the Lake District if that has any effect.

What do you think?
 
Whilst you've complained about the pricing of a 'micro wedding', the time scale that you've laid out is considerably longer stretching from the late morning into the late evening.
A 'micro' or small wedding would typically have about three hours coverage at most - more likely two.

On the other hand, given what you've said, I'd suggest not hiring anyone but getting your friends to take photos of the event.
 
The cost is not just the photos ,but also photographers travel expenses- editing- printing - insurance- time your paying for. Maybe the photographer has to pre survey where the marriage is to take place to get the best photos. Also getting permission to take photos where the wedding is taking place.
No doubt you also would like an album with the photos in which would add to costs. Don't forget a photographer will be wanting to spend a bit of time beforehand to discuss what you want regarding to your requirements such as how many and how you want to look position wise in the shots

My youngest son had the same financial worries, and to keep the cost down I did all the photography for them, which wasn't easy being one of the main guests as well. It kinda worked out ok but would not recommend it. But I did have ideas which helped

Photographs last forever. wedding cake and flowers food and drink only last for that day. So worth spending a bit of money that will last you both througout your marriage.
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
The cost is not just the photos ,but also photographers travel expenses- editing- printing - insurance- time your paying for. Maybe the photographer has to pre survey where the marriage is to take place to get the best photos. Also getting permission to take photos where the wedding is taking place.
No doubt you also would like an album with the photos in which would add to costs. Don't forget a photographer will be wanting to spend a bit of time beforehand to discuss what you want regarding to your requirements such as how many and how you want to look position wise in the shots

My youngest son had the same financial worries, and to keep the cost down I did all the photography for them, which wasn't easy being one of the main guests as well. It kinda worked out ok but would not recommend it. But I did have ideas which helped

Photographs last forever. wedding cake and flowers food and drink only last for that day. So worth spending a bit of money that will last you both througout your marriage.
Click to expand...
Like I say, I completely agree that those who pay thousands get value for money, I do appreciate the amount of work that goes into it, it’s just not much of a priority for us, so was wondering if there are any alternatives. I remember when I was younger some people used to buy a load of disposable cameras and leave them on tables for guests to take their own pics.

Not bothered about an album to be honest. The last one I had sat in a drawer and never got looked at . If we end up coming away for a few half decent pics we can have as memories, then great, but also understand if we hamstring the photography budget we may get nothing, and we’re fine with that.
 
KIPAX said:
I am not a wedding photographer so nothing to gain from saying this.. But your approach? you could end up with little or no pictures... You want pics.. Pay someone proper IMHO
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. If our priority was to get an album for dozens of professional, artfully composed, skilfully processed pictures then we would pay the money, but it’s just not. I agree that it’s a gamble, but one we’re willing to take
 
In some senses, if budget is a thing is just ask your guests to take loads of photos and just pull them all together into an album.

I’ll probably get slammed for saying this but i think wedding photos are overrated anyway - been married 20 years and i don’t think I really looked at mine more than a couple of times. I think there are probably better things to spend money on for a lot of people.

It’s your call - you want something guaranteed quality / look etc you got to pay for it - if you just want snapshots for memories, do what i suggested… it will be fine.
 
An alternative approach: buy some disposable film cameras, hand them to guests and ask them to take pictures. Intimate memories, lower budget, no fancy posing.
 
When we got married, we had the guests take the pics. We ended up with a superb album! Much more memorable....

That was 31 years ago....divorced now!!

And no, its not because of the wedding pics!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Another vote for the guests as photographers.

Like as not they'll all have camera phones and be delighted to send you copies. Just think of a friendly way of encouraging them.
 
Can't you just ask the guests? Either nominate someone who is a photo enthusiast to be chief snapper or just collate the phone pics.

Just have your wits about you and check someone is taking pics at important moments!
 
Having been married now for 53 years back then digital photography wasn't about. So we had a photographer with a film camera. A lot of family and friends have now passed away but it is nice to be able to remember them from the pictures taken on that day
 
You are not going to get a cheaper photographer because your wedding is smaller. The price of a photographer is dictated by many things, location is a big one. A NYC one will be much more than one in Nambia (I am guessing).

The 2nd aspect is time. Sure, you think asking for 4hr coverage would mean a lower cost than all day, but if you flip it the other way. A photographer who sign on a 4hr package isn't going to shoot 2 other weddings on the same day to make up the difference in potential loss of earnings had he or she got a 12hr job. So there is a potential loss of earnings there. Which is why a lot of photographer would just do a 8hr coverage as minimum. (unless you are having your 4hr coverage at like 8am, and the 2nd job is at like 2pm and the distances between the 2 jobs are 1hr travelling time apart (allowing 1hr for leaving a bit late, traffic, and to arrive promptly on time in the next job, and checking gear etc etc). How often does that happen though? Basically never.

If you are looking for all day coverage then it's going to be a price for all day, not really dictated by the size of your wedding party.

(I charge the same rate whether it is just the bride and groom eloping vs 120pp. Same number of hours, just as challenging, in many different ways. One could argue it is much more challenging with a smaller wedding party as there is only so many photos I can take of Uncle Bob.
 
Last edited:
cuthbert said:
In some senses, if budget is a thing is just ask your guests to take loads of photos and just pull them all together into an album.

I’ll probably get slammed for saying this but i think wedding photos are overrated anyway - been married 20 years and i don’t think I really looked at mine more than a couple of times. I think there are probably better things to spend money on for a lot of people.

It’s your call - you want something guaranteed quality / look etc you got to pay for it - if you just want snapshots for memories, do what i suggested… it will be fine.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I completely agree. We want some photos / memories but certainly not the whole posed photo / fake natural shots.

One of the posts above said about the food and drink only being for that day and I know it's true, but I'm far more willing to pay good money for a meal I'm going to really enjoy.
 
Even at minimum wage (£12.21), multiply that by the hour for shooting....consider that time double or tripled for editing.

So, 12hrs would be like 36hrs-48hrs in total. Let's pick the middle,, 40hrs with shooting and editing time.

Add in travel, fuel cost.

Add in insurance cost.....

Even at minimum wage, £500 would be borderline illegal if an employee from a company.
 
DrPips said:
Yeh, I completely agree. We want some photos / memories but certainly not the whole posed photo / fake natural shots.

One of the posts above said about the food and drink only being for that day and I know it's true, but I'm far more willing to pay good money for a meal I'm going to really enjoy.
Click to expand...

To be honest, if it was a choice between throwing £2000 at a photographer or £2000 (or extra towards) a honeymoon, I'd take the honeymoon.

I see modern wedding photographers these days supplying like a gazzion images, and I'm like.... what am I even going to do with those.

I get that the cost of doing everything has increased, but there is a point, where the cost of something, even if it's a true cost becomes too much for the benefit and I'm just not spending £££ on a bunch of photos I'm not going to look at. Maybe if you are spending 50K on your wedding in Lake Como you can justify it... but small wedding in a little venue that's probably dark / not that photogenic anyway... yeah..... I'll keep the money.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You are not going to get a cheaper photographer because your wedding is smaller. The price of a photographer is dictated by many things, location is a big one. A NYC one will be much more than one in Nambia (I am guessing).

The 2nd aspect is time. Sure, you think asking for 4hr coverage would mean a lower cost than all day, but if you flip it the other way. A photographer who sign on a 4hr package isn't going to shoot 2 other weddings on the same day to make up the difference in potential loss of earnings had he or she got a 12hr job. So there is a potential loss of earnings there. Which is why a lot of photographer would just do a 8hr coverage as minimum. (unless you are having your 4hr coverage at like 8am, and the 2nd job is at like 2pm and the distances between the 2 jobs are 1hr travelling time apart (allowing 1hr for leaving a bit late, traffic, and to arrive promptly on time in the next job, and checking gear etc etc).

If you are looking for all day coverage then it's going to be a price for all day, not really dictated by the size of your wedding party.

(I charge the same rate whether it is just the bride and groom eloping vs 120pp. Same number of hours, just as challenging, in many different ways. One could argue it is much more challenging with a smaller wedding party as there is only so many photos I can take of Uncle Bob.
Click to expand...
If that's your business model and it's working for you, then fantastic I'm pleased it's working. I don't disagree with anything you say apart from that I’m not going to get a cheaper photographer for a smaller wedding. Of course I will. Plenty of photographers do hourly rates or ‘elopement” style packages.
 
Given that a low budget is your non negotiable. Have you contacted your local camera club - there may be someone there who might be willing to do it for you
 
taxboy said:
Given that a low budget is your non negotiable. Have you contacted your local camera club - there may be someone there who might be willing to do it for you
Click to expand...
Not a bad shout. Not getting married locally but I’m guessing the Lake District has a few camera clubs!
 
Just a cautionary tail.

When I got married my wife wanted a very quiet wedding with as little fuss as possible and she definitely didn't want anything like an "event." A family member was a part time photographer who'd done a few weddings and we thought we'd get them to do it and in doing so put some money in their pocket, I'm not tight, this wasn't to save money and I genuinely thought I was helping them. All I can say is that things didn't go well and the shots didn't appear despite us asking for an update over a period of months and months. Eventually I managed to get them to give me the unprocessed raws. The pictures weren't great but they'll do but the hassle I/we went through to get even the raws out of a relative left a bad taste.

I think you should give this a lot of thought Dom. If you pay peanuts what do you get? If you and your future Mrs are ok with taking the risk of not having good professional photos then continue down this route but in your place I'd make sure that your intended is fully on board and wont have a melt down if the pictures aren't of the standard she expects or of the standard her mates got.

Good luck with it.
 
woof woof said:
Just a cautionary tail.

When I got married my wife wanted a very quiet wedding with as little fuss as possible and she definitely didn't want anything like an "event." A family member was a part time photographer who'd done a few weddings and we thought we'd get them to do it and in doing so put some money in their pocket, I'm not tight, this wasn't to save money and I genuinely thought I was helping them. All I can say is that things didn't go well and the shots didn't appear despite us asking for an update over a period of months and months. Eventually I managed to get them to give me the unprocessed raws. The pictures weren't great but they'll do but the hassle I/we went through to get even the raws out of a relative left a bad taste.

I think you should give this a lot of thought Dom. If you pay peanuts what do you get? If you and your future Mrs are ok with taking the risk of not having good professional photos then continue down this route but in your place I'd make sure that your intended is fully on board and wont have a melt down if the pictures aren't of the standard she expects or of the standard her mates got.

Good luck with it.
Click to expand...
Haha, I fully appreciate what you’re saying, but this is her suggestion, so I think I’m safe. Might get it in writing just to be sure
 
Women have been known to change their minds so be doubly sure :D

PS.
I/we never look at our wedding pictures but in the future... Who knows? Our families did want to see them though and I think that's something else to think about and maybe factor in.
 
Last edited:
DrPips said:
If that's your business model and it's working for you, then fantastic I'm pleased it's working. I don't disagree with anything you say apart from that I’m not going to get a cheaper photographer for a smaller wedding. Of course I will. Plenty of photographers do hourly rates or ‘elopement” style packages.
Click to expand...

I am just trying to put you in the other shoe. I am aware that there are plenty who does hourly rate, but since you are asking both cheap and long hours. That is asking your cake and eat it, so something has to give, and unfortunately, it is going to be experience of the photographer in this case and that usually translate to quality.

So you need to set your expectations low, everything from quality, both in composition, timing of capture, sharpness, to processing and editing style.

From my perspective, the price the client wants to pay has zero correlation to their expectations, as cost is relative. Someone might think £500 is just as expensive as £5,000 to someone else which is why I work just as hard, in the same way, whatever packages and at what ever stage of my career, and even shoot OVER the number of hours promised often (I once just had someone who wanted make up to ceremony, I stayed until their little wedding breakfast. All took place in their back garden. They basically had to tell me its fine to leave).
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I am just trying to put you in the other shoe. I am aware that there are plenty who does hourly rate, but since you are asking both cheap and long hours. That is asking your cake and eat it, so something has to give, and unfortunately, it is going to be experience of the photographer in this case and that usually translate to quality.

So you need to set your expectations low, everything from quality, both in composition, timing of capture, sharpness, to processing and editing style.

From my perspective, the price the client wants to pay has zero correlation to their expectations, as cost is relative. Someone might think £500 is just as expensive as £5,000 to someone else which is why I work just as hard, in the same way, whatever packages and at what ever stage of my career, and even shoot OVER the number of hours promised often (I once just had someone who wanted make up to ceremony, I stayed until their little wedding breakfast. All took place in their back garden. They basically had to tell me its fine to leave).
Click to expand...
Oh in that case, I didn’t make myself clear. Certainly not looking for a whole day thing. None of the getting ready photos, just mid afternoon ceremony a few candid ones after. Nothing posed or staged.
 
Edit: Oops, just realised I’ve dug up an old thread…. Oh well.

Perhaps a photographer starting out professionally, who would appreciate the experience, without the pressure. (Expenses only?)

You could not guarantee the quality, but the arrangement could be beneficial to you both
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just a cautionary tail.

When I got married my wife wanted a very quiet wedding with as little fuss as possible and she definitely didn't want anything like an "event." A family member was a part time photographer who'd done a few weddings and we thought we'd get them to do it and in doing so put some money in their pocket, I'm not tight, this wasn't to save money and I genuinely thought I was helping them. All I can say is that things didn't go well and the shots didn't appear despite us asking for an update over a period of months and months. Eventually I managed to get them to give me the unprocessed raws. The pictures weren't great but they'll do but the hassle I/we went through to get even the raws out of a relative left a bad taste.

I think you should give this a lot of thought Dom. If you pay peanuts what do you get? If you and your future Mrs are ok with taking the risk of not having good professional photos then continue down this route but in your place I'd make sure that your intended is fully on board and wont have a melt down if the pictures aren't of the standard she expects or of the standard her mates got.

Good luck with it.
Click to expand...
ihasa said:
Can't you just ask the guests? Either nominate someone who is a photo enthusiast to be chief snapper or just collate the phone pics.

Just have your wits about you and check someone is taking pics at important moments!
Click to expand...
These two highlight some of the pitfalls: there are advantages of asking guests as you get a range of creative views and images and some might actually be pretty good as photoing, but to ask the guests is a bit different from expecting the guests and nominating someone into a quasi-official role. You have to know them quite well otherwise they might be questioning if they're there as a quest or as supplier. As as mentioned in the first quote that with no contractual obligation in place it can cause friction if your expectations are different from the photographers expectations.
 
Thats pretty much a whole day wedding. While the low number may make it sound easy, personally I prefere to shoot a larger wedding any day.
Getting 500+ pics from say 90 people without wearing out your welcome is easy, try that with a dozen people and you'll be getting death threats though the post ;)
From the photographers point of view the hours would be near enough the same as any other full days wedding, the traveling if they are local might not be too bad. The only thing less pictures saves is editing time, and that isn't a big part for me really.
Pros have expenses, vehicles, insurance, tax, offices, the list is endless. A £1000 might seem a lot to the customer, but only a small amount of that goes in the trouser pocket at the end of the week.
Your out of my area, so I've no dog in this fight. You might find a local member willing to help. Good luck and have a pint for me on the day.
 
Got married in 1999, didn't have a photographer - just asked anyone taking photos to send a spare set to us. They were fine about it - and we have some nice pictures. We only ever really look at a handful of them though.

Went to my niece's wedding this year - they had a little team of photographers, who were there all day. The 'official' set of images we were sent a link to had 800+, and it was exhausting just looking through them. Goodness knows how many they culled. There were so many, it was overwhelming. You only need one decent photo of the group, one decent photo of the two of you - and so on. Looking meaningfully into each others' eyes in a dozen different locations is no better than in just the one!
 
Bodian said:
Got married in 1999, didn't have a photographer - just asked anyone taking photos to send a spare set to us. They were fine about it - and we have some nice pictures. We only ever really look at a handful of them though.

Went to my niece's wedding this year - they had a little team of photographers, who were there all day. The 'official' set of images we were sent a link to had 800+, and it was exhausting just looking through them. Goodness knows how many they culled. There were so many, it was overwhelming. You only need one decent photo of the group, one decent photo of the two of you - and so on. Looking meaningfully into each others' eyes in a dozen different locations is no better than in just the one!
Click to expand...

100% agree, I think a couple hundred photos for the whole day is absolutely ample. There is just so much repetition in those big galleries.

I suppose in some ways, being a wedding photographer is actually very boring creatively - you don’t have the time or scope to try anything too wild so you are kind of stuck just doing the same thing and maybe some photographers eye gets dulled in some sense by the repetition and they loose their ability to cull?
 
There was one at the weekend similar to this on a local notice board - Photographers wanted for a quiet wedding just B&G and 2 witnesses - Just wanted 1-2 hrs.




SteveO69 said:
Edit: Oops, just realised I’ve dug up an old thread…. Oh well.

Perhaps a photographer starting out professionally, who would appreciate the experience, without the pressure. (Expenses only?)

You could not guarantee the quality, but the arrangement could be beneficial to you both
Click to expand...

This feels like the old - you get what you pay for and the Time|Quality|Price trilemma
 
Last edited:
The weirdest thing about this thread is someone on a photography forum, so who you would assume has an interest in photography, see’s no value in photography of one of the most important days of their lives.
 
f/2.8 said:
The weirdest thing about this thread is someone on a photography forum, so who you would assume has an interest in photography, see’s no value in photography of one of the most important days of their lives.
Click to expand...

Not everyone wants pictures of themselves, and if money needs saving then it might be an area that's expendable?
 
f/2.8 said:
The weirdest thing about this thread is someone on a photography forum, so who you would assume has an interest in photography, see’s no value in photography of one of the most important days of their lives.
Click to expand...

I think some people see marriage differently- i see a big wedding day as a bit of a waste of money and I’d rather put that money towards building our life together -,house, children etc than a meal and a disco for a couple of hundred people - luckily I got married so long ago that it wasn’t stupid expensive. if I got married today it would definitely be a quiet do at the register office.

You certainly don’t need to whack a few grand on a wedding photographer when a few snaps from the guests will be fine - there is a real point of pragmatism to be found I think
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
ancient_mariner said:
Not everyone wants pictures of themselves, and if money needs saving then it might be an area that's expendable?
Click to expand...
It just seems an odd choice for someone that you would assume has an interest in photography. It makes sense to assume that for someone interested in photography that photography would be important to them, especially for a one off day like a wedding.

Only a small part of a wedding day is about photos of the bride and groom. The rest is about capturing the emotion and feeling of the day and their guests etc. For example when my dad passed the only recent photos we had of him were from my wedding. The same applied to my wife's dad and my mums, uncle and aunty when they passed as well.

If it was someone who had no interest at all in photography, I would not think it was odd that wouldn't want photos from their wedding. Not everyone cares about photos and you can understand why someone who doesn't, if they are on a small budget would be happy to cut photography, many people do.

cuthbert said:
I think some people see marriage differently- i see a big wedding day as a bit of a waste of money and I’d rather put that money towards building our life together -,house, children etc than a meal and a disco for a couple of hundred people - luckily I got married so long ago that it wasn’t stupid expensive. if I got married today it would definitely be a quiet do at the register office.

You certainly don’t need to whack a few grand on a wedding photographer when a few snaps from the guests will be fine - there is a real point of pragmatism to be found I think
Click to expand...

Romance hanging out of you there bro. :D

Each to their own all that but generally speaking as a wedding photographer when we have a bride or groom who has an interest in photography they generally see photography as an important part of the day.

We have shot weddings for all sorts of different types of photographers including other wedding photographers and for all of them photography was something they really cared about. Even with amateur photographers if they have an interest in photography, it is usually a must have service for their wedding. Just a few weeks ago we shot a wedding for a couple whose budget for everything excluding us was only 1k more than they paid us. The reason for that was because the groom is a keen car photographer and photography was very important to him, so they were happy to do without other things so that we could be their photographers.

If you only care about being pragmatic about your wedding is their any point getting married at all?
 
Yes. When we got married, there was a huge (potential) tax advantage. Had I died before we were married, my estate would have attracted a significant IHT burden for my now wife but with the bit of paper, it'll be tax free.

We've looked at our photos two or 3 times, each time being to show people who weren't there.
 
Nod said:
Yes. When we got married, there was a huge (potential) tax advantage. Had I died before we were married, my estate would have attracted a significant IHT burden for my now wife but with the bit of paper, it'll be tax free.

We've looked at our photos two or 3 times, each time being to show people who weren't there.
Click to expand...
Each to their own. Personally I wouldn’t be getting married because there is a tax advantage.
 
We had been together as a couple for well over 20 years before and are still together. It was pointed out to me that the chancellor would take a 6 figure chunk without the certificate...
 
Nod said:
We had been together as a couple for well over 20 years before and are still together. It was pointed out to me that the chancellor would take a 6 figure chunk without the certificate...
Click to expand...
Glad it worked out for you, but I wouldn't be getting married personally to gain a tax advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top