Is it possible to get a cheap wedding photographer?

It is possible. However for your budget I honestly wouldn't bother. If someone is charging that money their photos will be no better then your guests. Thats if you're lucky. For that budget I'd save your cash and just ask guests for copies of their photos
 
hollis_f said:
Ah, they're probably different from the cardboard things I remember. I was amazed that any of them survived the soaking in beer.
Click to expand...
They are the cardboard things, if you examine them carefully it's obvious they're recycled. Obviously there'll be casualties, but generally they're not 'single use' in design.
 
Hi Emily H
Have you found photographer yet .
As i would be willing to do it .I am 30 min up the road from harrogate >
I have been doing photography for 5 years now and just breaking in to small weddings so this would be perfect for me to get experience . I have just done a 5 day course with shoot smart & and Gary Gough and i am to do another 3 day down the lakes in oct . I do have a mini portfolio to show of my work > I use a canon5d ii i also have a panasonic GH4 back up or to use for artistic shots .i am looking to get as much experience as possible .
I am also looking for some 2 nd shooter experience if anyone interested .
If you have someone good and good luck with wedding .x
 
Phil V said:
if you examine them carefully it's obvious they're recycled.
Click to expand...

They are a plastic moulding with a cardboard cover. If you remove the cardboard you can find a flap on the bottom where the film is inserted.

It's a normal 35mm film cassette but when you get it, all of the film is wound out into the body and as you take each shot you wind it back in so when you send it back all they do is remove the film cassette and process like any other film.

The camera will then have a new film put in and a new card cover then it's off to the shop to be sold again.


Steve.
 
boyfalldown said:
It is possible. However for your budget I honestly wouldn't bother. If someone is charging that money their photos will be no better then your guests.
Click to expand...

Thats a matter of opinion and quite a small minded one... Bigger fees does not mean better photography...
 
KIPAX said:
Thats a matter of opinion and quite a small minded one... Bigger fees does not mean better photography...
Click to expand...


No Tony, its not a small minded opinion at all. Only the feeble minded would see it as such. Maybe you'd like to explain why you think anyone, with half an ounce of ability, would be charging £50 and working at a loss? Or maybe you think £50 wedding photographers are good value?
 
If I were local I'd happily do it, should be well within the capabilities of most on this forum and an easy way to make a few quid toward the next lens. It's quite obvious the OP doesn't want all that fine art b*****ks, so I don't see why the thread needs to get dragged down the what the bottom line of a working pro is because none of that is relevant.

For the record this is my kind of wedding, and I wish you both well!
 
Good news. Remember to come back and share some images of the happy day.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
If I were local I'd happily do it, should be well within the capabilities of most on this forum and an easy way to make a few quid toward the next lens. It's quite obvious the OP doesn't want all that fine art b*****ks, so I don't see why the thread needs to get dragged down the what the bottom line of a working pro is because none of that is relevant.

For the record this is my kind of wedding, and I wish you both well!
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
If I were local I'd happily do it, should be well within the capabilities of most on this forum and an easy way to make a few quid toward the next lens.
Click to expand...

I would also do it if I was local and had nothing else on. Some people seem to have forgotten what they are in business for - to make money. £50 - £100 for an hour or two of fairly easy work is £50 - £100 which you wouldn't be making staying at home watching a repeat of Columbo on the TV idiot box on a Saturday afternoon!

I bet a few people who claim they wouldn't do it here would actually do it in real life too!


Steve.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
If I were local I'd happily do it, should be well within the capabilities of most on this forum and an easy way to make a few quid toward the next lens. It's quite obvious the OP doesn't want all that fine art b*****ks, so I don't see why the thread needs to get dragged down the what the bottom line of a working pro is because none of that is relevant.

For the record this is my kind of wedding, and I wish you both well!
Click to expand...
Well said that man.
 
Steve Smith said:
I would also do it if I was local and had nothing else on. Some people seem to have forgotten what they are in business for - to make money. £50 - £100 for an hour or two of fairly easy work is £50 - £100 which you wouldn't be making staying at home watching a repeat of Columbo on the TV idiot box on a Saturday afternoon!

I bet a few people who claim they wouldn't do it here would actually do it in real life too!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Steve - you'd be 100% right IF and ONLY IF you had the option to dump the wedding at the last minute because you could book a higher fee wedding, portrait shoot or something else at some point in the next 3 months. IF you are an established photographer who COULD earn £1000+ for a wedding or more likely at short notice £500+ for a portrait sitting you wouldn't book it because of the possibility of making more on that day. Being in business isn't always about taking every job going as soon as it is offered - sometimes you take calculated risks that you can earn more by waiting for a different client. It isn't about taking every job either - you need time to process and complete images, albums or prints, time to learn, and indeed time to rest and watch some TV.

Full-time wedding photographers will quite often book their bottom package (say) a £1250 wedding and then turn down £2000+ weddings, often multiple times for the same date because they have made a commitment to a couple (sadly not true of all, and even not true of some high profile ones). You have to know when to pass and when to book - October 18th isn't a peak date but it is very bookable - and is before the clocks change which is often the point it dips picking up again in December for Christmassy weddings.

This is all without any disrespect to the OP, who's position I completely understand.

It is entirely a counter post to yours, which seems to be a continuation of your trolling of anyone who is either making good money as a pro photographer or giving it a fair crack when most of us know you have no experience in selling photographic services or any desire to understand or learn for those who do.
 
boyfalldown said:
No Tony, its not a small minded opinion at all. Only the feeble minded would see it as such. Maybe you'd like to explain why you think anyone, with half an ounce of ability, would be charging £50 and working at a loss? Or maybe you think £50 wedding photographers are good value?
Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you someone would do it because they understand the situation the op is in?
They are having an extremely low key wedding, with minimal guests. They are not looking for a wedding photographer, they are looking for someone competent to help them out. someone who knows their way round a camera and can take a decent shot. That is all.

I know, I had an equally low key wedding. The most expensive single item was the registrar fees. Although my wife's rather nice little black dress came a close second. Do you really think that such a low key event justifies spending more on the photographer than the entire rest of the entire wedding costs?

If Emily's wedding was local I would put my hand up and say 'I'll help' and I would do it not to make a profit, and not to provide good value. I would do it because I understand what Emily is up against, and while I'm no wedding photographer I know I would be able to bring my gear and get better photos that guests on a smartphone. Above all I would do it because I consider myself to be a decent person. Sadly I'm not close enough, I just hope someone who has similar life experience to me sees this and does a good thing.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Did it ever occur to you someone would do it because they understand the situation the op is in?
They are having an extremely low key wedding, with minimal guests. They are not looking for a wedding photographer, they are looking for someone competent to help them out. someone who knows their way round a camera and can take a decent shot. That is all.

I know, I had an equally low key wedding. The most expensive single item was the registrar fees. Although my wife's rather nice little black dress came a close second. Do you really think that such a low key event justifies spending more on the photographer than the entire rest of the entire wedding costs?

If Emily's wedding was local I would put my hand up and say 'I'll help' and I would do it not to make a profit, and not to provide good value. I would do it because I understand what Emily is up against, and while I'm no wedding photographer I know I would be able to bring my gear and get better photos that guests on a smartphone. Above all I would do it because I consider myself to be a decent person. Sadly I'm not close enough, I just hope someone who has similar life experience to me sees this and does a good thing.
Click to expand...


No actually. Because I read the OP and responded to what she asked. Try it. Anyone advertising £50 wedding photography isn't going to be providing a service that's worth paying for.

It's ok saying 'if I was local' but you ain't. So it's easy to say, but never have to stand by, you'll also note in your outrage that no where did I suggest the op should spend more money on her photographer. Simply she'd be better saving her money. I suggest reading what I said rather then what you think I did.

Prove me wrong, help the op with a link to a photographer you think provides something ok for £50. Can't? So you'd rather stamp your feet cause someone has dared say you'd be better off not worrying for the cash. Jeez. Sanctimonous much?
 
Last edited:
I'm withdrawing my offer (here) as I can no longer make it. I heard Columbo is on at exactly the same time. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
I sincerely hope the OP has found a decent local amateur to do this rather than someone who advertises their work for less than £100.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Did it ever occur to you someone would do it because they understand the situation the op is in?
They are having an extremely low key wedding, with minimal guests. They are not looking for a wedding photographer, they are looking for someone competent to help them out. someone who knows their way round a camera and can take a decent shot. That is all.

I know, I had an equally low key wedding. The most expensive single item was the registrar fees. Although my wife's rather nice little black dress came a close second. Do you really think that such a low key event justifies spending more on the photographer than the entire rest of the entire wedding costs?

If Emily's wedding was local I would put my hand up and say 'I'll help' and I would do it not to make a profit, and not to provide good value. I would do it because I understand what Emily is up against, and while I'm no wedding photographer I know I would be able to bring my gear and get better photos that guests on a smartphone. Above all I would do it because I consider myself to be a decent person. Sadly I'm not close enough, I just hope someone who has similar life experience to me sees this and does a good thing.
Click to expand...
I think if you read Hugh's post you'll see you failed to read it the first time.

For the 2nd time this week. People who advertise wedding services for less than £100 are worse than just getting your mates to do it for free.

That isn't the same sentence as 'grow up you'll never get anyone to do a decent job for such a paltry sum'! Unfortunately, the photographic community has a number of people who can't wait to have a dig at people who do photography as a business, and they like to jump in for an argument with 'pro's' at every opportunity. Nothing Hugh said in his original post is either factually incorrect or unhelpful.

And you offering help actually reinforces Hugh's point rather than arguing with it.

As I said in my previous post, if you want to PM me, I'll sow you what you can get from people who advertise cheap wedding photography, it's not the standard that anyone should book, and neither is it the same thing as finding someone to photograph you wedding for £100
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
realspeed said:
Why not give the guests a small throw away camera type and let them take pictures and then afterwards put them in a box after the reception? Just a thought
Click to expand...

you can also get an app forguests upload phone pics too - however that doesnt help if you've only got 6 guests and want a couple of group shots

your basic problem is going to be that no pro or semi pro will touch it for that money, while those who work for experience want to photograph a wedding, not 6 people in a registry office then going to the pub.

that leaves you with the walter mittys who's egos are writing cheques their photographic ability can't cash who will work for £50-£100 because they aren't getting any well paying gigs - kwalittee may be variable though.

one thought would be to forget the on the day photography and to put the money into a portrait session with your group on a different day (you might still have to up the budget though especially ifthe tog knows going in you arent interested in prints )
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Thats a matter of opinion and quite a small minded one... Bigger fees does not mean better photography...
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest tony how would you feel if it was someone asking where they could get sports photographer for 10% of the going rate ?
 
Phil V said:
I think if you read Hugh's post you'll see you failed to read it the first time.

For the 2nd time this week. People who advertise wedding services for less than £100 are worse than just getting your mates to do it for free.

That isn't the same sentence as 'grow up you'll never get anyone to do a decent job for such a paltry sum'! Unfortunately, the photographic community has a number of people who can't wait to have a dig at people who do photography as a business, and they like to jump in for an argument with 'pro's' at every opportunity. Nothing Hugh said in his original post is either factually incorrect or unhelpful.

And you offering help actually reinforces Hugh's point rather than arguing with it.

As I said in my previous post, if you want to PM me, I'll sow you what you can get from people who advertise cheap wedding photography, it's not the standard that anyone should book, and neither is it the same thing as finding someone to photograph you wedding for £100
Click to expand...

You see, I don't disagree with this one bit. I am sure people who advertise wedding services that cheap should probably never be booked but I guess that is the point I failed to make very eloquently. I read the original poster as looking for someone who was not necessarily a wedding photographer, but could step up for an hour. Maybe that was my mistake, reading into the situation based on my own experience rather than taking the post word for word. I don't know.

boyfalldown said:
No actually. Because I read the OP and responded to what she asked. Try it. Anyone advertising £50 wedding photography isn't going to be providing a service that's worth paying for.

It's ok saying 'if I was local' but you ain't. So it's easy to say, but never have to stand by, you'll also note in your outrage that no where did I suggest the op should spend more money on her photographer. Simply she'd be better saving her money. I suggest reading what I said rather then what you think I did.

Prove me wrong, help the op with a link to a photographer you think provides something ok for £50. Can't? So you'd rather stamp your feet cause someone has dared say you'd be better off not worrying for the cash. Jeez. Sanctimonious much?
Click to expand...

I apologise. I should probably not post on forums after a night on the beer. Much of my sentiments still stand, the inflammatory way I posted it was out of order. Sorry.

As I said above in reply to Phil, I didn't see the OP as looking for someone advertising wedding photography services, instead they were looking for someone competent with a camera to put an hour in.

I don't think anything I said justifies your suggestion that I would "rather stamp your feet cause someone has dared say you'd be better off not worrying for the cash" because that is simply not true. My intention in my post was to try and offer an alternative viewpoint from someone else who has been in the OP's situation. That does not makes me sanctimonious as you suggest, it just shows I understand the situation.and would respond accordingly.

Now, can we move this away from the personal digs please?
 
RichardtheSane said:
You see, I don't disagree with this one bit. I am sure people who advertise wedding services that cheap should probably never be booked but I guess that is the point I failed to make very eloquently. I read the original poster as looking for someone who was not necessarily a wedding photographer, but could step up for an hour. Maybe that was my mistake, reading into the situation based on my own experience rather than taking the post word for word. I don't know.



I apologise. I should probably not post on forums after a night on the beer. Much of my sentiments still stand, the inflammatory way I posted it was out of order. Sorry.

As I said above in reply to Phil, I didn't see the OP as looking for someone advertising wedding photography services, instead they were looking for someone competent with a camera to put an hour in.

I don't think anything I said justifies your suggestion that I would "rather stamp your feet cause someone has dared say you'd be better off not worrying for the cash" because that is simply not true. My intention in my post was to try and offer an alternative viewpoint from someone else who has been in the OP's situation. That does not makes me sanctimonious as you suggest, it just shows I understand the situation.and would respond accordingly.

Now, can we move this away from the personal digs please?
Click to expand...


No problems. I'm sorry for the dig.

It does seem when you give well intentioned advice that goes against the grain a little bit you do get attacked. I do stand you're better with a talented mate, or just the guests then someone, whom you don't know charging £50-£100 That money would be far better spent at the bar. Just because I make my living from wedding photography doesn't mean I think every wedding should be or needs to be an extravagant deal with people the couple have never seen before nor well see again and silly, expensive touches. The only reason I like weddings like that is they let me fed the kids ;)

FWIW my own wedding was't much bigger then yours sounds

KIPAX said:
Thats a matter of opinion and quite a small minded one... Bigger fees does not mean better photography...
Click to expand...


Tony didn't you say this? It is your website after all


http://www.kipax.com/index.php?e=weddings
 
£100 budget. Of course it is possible that you will find someone who can provide you with some decent images.

£100 budget. Of course it is possible that you will find someone that looks OK, but will provide you with a bunch of crap on the day.

It totally depends on how much value you place on your wedding photography. If you don't expect much, go ahead and roll the dice - you may be pleasantly surprised / you may not.

Whatever happens, I sincerely wish you best of luck :) Either way, I'm sure we'd all love to see the results of your beautiful Harrogate wedding.
 
mattyg said:
If you'd have said that in your first post, you would have been inundated with offers:naughty:
Click to expand...

LOL

I'll be back to post a photo and you can tell me whether my money was well spent :)

Thanks for all the good wishes
 
ianp5a said:
I'm withdrawing my offer (here) as I can no longer make it. I heard Columbo is on at exactly the same time. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

It's just about to start. Who is watching it?!!

On a slightly related note, this afternoon I saw a bit of iphone video from my cousin's wedding recently. She did all the catering, friends helped out, the groom even built an oak barn for the reception... and there were no photographers present, professional or amateur.

They could have easily afforded a flash, expensive wedding but they didn't want to. Instead they did it on a low budget and an enjoyable day was had by all.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's just about to start. Who is watching it?!!

On a slightly related note, this afternoon I saw a bit of iphone video from my cousin's wedding recently. She did all the catering, friends helped out, the groom even built an oak barn for the reception... and there were no photographers present, professional or amateur.

They could have easily afforded a flash, expensive wedding but they didn't want to. Instead they did it on a low budget and an enjoyable day was had by all.


Steve.
Click to expand...
This is the massive misconception that's the root of the 'wedding photography snobbery' round here. It's not about how much someone 'can afford' or what class they are. We run businesses, and those businesses cater for a market sector, and if people aren't our potential customers, that's fine. But when we say that, it's always read as a negative. But your example here proves that it's not a negative at all.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's just about to start. Who is watching it?!!

On a slightly related note, this afternoon I saw a bit of iphone video from my cousin's wedding recently. She did all the catering, friends helped out, the groom even built an oak barn for the reception... and there were no photographers present, professional or amateur.

They could have easily afforded a flash, expensive wedding but they didn't want to. Instead they did it on a low budget and an enjoyable day was had by all.


Steve.
Click to expand...


It's funny that you seem to be the only person on the forum who constantly points out that you don't need to spend a lot of money on anything to have a great wedding. Or marriage afterwards. I wonder why you constantly need to troll with this? Or are you genuinely surprised time and again by what the rest of us already know?
 
Last edited:
Emily, yes you can, but you might want to look for a new photographer especially 1st timer who wants to add his/her portfolio, or a photography student wanting to practise shooting the real wedding
 
GatoAzul1968 said:
Emily, yes you can, but you might want to look for a new photographer especially 1st timer who wants to add his/her portfolio, or a photography student wanting to practise shooting the real wedding
Click to expand...

Assuming you want your wedding covering by someone with no idea what they are doing - this is great advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top