How do you make a choice with Las Vegas wedding photographers?

[jonas355]

Definitely, the budget is the primary consideration. Are there any details to ponder about?

Thank you.

[Guses]

Pretty simple:

1.Ask a friend that owns a DSLR (everyone has at least 5 friends like that).
2.Pocket what you would have paid for the photographer to do his thing.

3.Profit!

[CopperTex]

Pretty simple:

1.Ask a friend that owns a DSLR (everyone has at least 5 friends like that).
2.Pocket what you would have paid for the photographer to do his thing.

3.Profit!

Seriously? In my opinion the photographs are the most important part of the day - it's what you will have 50 years from now to remember your special day.  Do you really want your Uncle Bob giving you an awful set of blurry, underexposed photos?  I would get a second job to pay for good wedding photos and skimp on alot of other things like flowers, food, etc.

[Frankies Girl]

Pretty simple:

1.Ask a friend that owns a DSLR (everyone has at least 5 friends like that).
2.Pocket what you would have paid for the photographer to do his thing.

3.Profit!

Seriously? In my opinion the photographs are the most important part of the day - it's what you will have 50 years from now to remember your special day.  Do you really want your Uncle Bob giving you an awful set of blurry, underexposed photos?  I would get a second job to pay for good wedding photos and skimp on alot of other things like flowers, food, etc.

I am a trained photographer and graphic designer... and I would still say get someone that has a good DSLR to take the photos for you instead of hiring a professional if you're doing a wedding on a budget. You should ask to see examples of your friend/family member's photography, and as long as they can shoot reasonably well and know how to work their camera, you'll get some nice shots to remember the occasion for a whole lot less than a professional wedding photographer.

I'm not saying that a professional isn't trained to take great photos, but in the end, the advances with the digital cameras have removed quite a bit of the skill involved in getting a decent shot. If you have the budget, then by all means hire a professional. But make sure to vet several and check the packages and cut out the extras... no one really looks at hundreds of photos from their wedding "50 years from now" - especially the silly ones of the rings by themselves, and the floral arrangements... or just get a few professional formal ones of you and your intended, and maybe have friends and family shoot candids during the reception.

And frankly, I don't consider photos the most important part of the day. I consider getting married to the person you love and chose to spend your life with the most important part. All the rest of it is just frippery.

[m8547]

Re: having a friend take the pictures, you will get what you pay for here. I have a DSLR, and I would not shoot a wedding if someone asked me to. I get the sense (from photography forums an some experience) that if a "friend with a DSLR" is any good at photography they would (or should) also probably refuse to shoot a wedding, unless they do it on a regular basis. Photographing a wedding is a lot of work and often takes some additional equipment aside from what most people have (lighting, mostly). Renting equipment is expensive and if they don't already have it they probably don't have a lot of experience with it. There's a lot of planning involved, and some experience required to do it well. You have to know how to take good portraits, how to light different scenes, what kind of shots to take.

Keep in mind that owning a DSLR does not equal knowing how to use it. My parents own a DSLR and they can usually manage to take snapshots with it on auto mode. I own one and I still consider myself very inexperienced at taking god photos despite knowing what all the settings do and having a few lenses.

If you do have a friend do it, make sure to compensate them appropriately. Unless they are a really good friend or want to build a portfolio, it's not fair to expect them to work for free or cheap.

If you go with a pro, keep in mind that more expensive does not always equal better quality work. You should do some research to figure out what you want. What kinds of photos are typically done at weddings? Do you want them to be at the ceremony and reception? Portraits with every permutation of family members? I don't even know what the options are, but how much the photographer is doing for you definitely should correlate with the price. Talk to a few photographers and ask them lots of questions about what they will do, and what the pricing is. The better a photographer is the less they have to advertise, generally speaking. You probably don't need the best, but if you are paying for a pro you probably want it to be better than "friend with DSLR" work.

Most photographers make a lot of money selling prints. Ask to see some examples of their work. If you have a local friend with a DSLR, you  can ask them to help you choose and help evaluate work (maybe if they post samples online). Think about whether you want rights to the digital files.

Finally, be careful paying for any kind of wedding services in Vegas. They city seems to be designed around extracting as much money as possible from tourists.

[Spork]

Definitely, the budget is the primary consideration. Are there any details to ponder about?

Thank you.

We just went to a casino and picked a package.  Many, many, many, many years ago... but... I think it was $300 for a few pics and a preacher.  In the grand scheme of weddings: dirt freaking cheap. 

For me the memory and fun times were the thing... a few pics to see how young we were are nice to look at. 

[limeandpepper]

I agree with m8547. There are many DSLR owners who don't know how to use their cameras properly, but I guess if the couple can't tell the difference between a good picture or a bad picture and are easily impressed with some shallow depth of field shots, then hey, it could work out for everyone. AND, if you do have a friend who DOES know how to create good photos, it would be so, so wrong to expect them to WORK during your wedding instead of just relaxing and enjoying it as a guest (and probably working afterwards, too, doing post-processing, because that's what most serious photographers do) and not pay them and just pocket the savings, as another poster suggested. There may be some people who are happy to do this for a friend for free, but they'd have to be very close friends, or newbies who are just super-enthusiastic about getting that experience. I do note however that the OP said budget is the primary consideration... so if it's budget over quality, then I guess anything goes really. Probably don't even have to get a photographer, these days at weddings all the guests are taking photos and uploading them to Facebook afterwards on your behalf. ;)

[Jamesqf]

Seriously? In my opinion the photographs are the most important part of the day - it's what you will have 50 years from now to remember your special day.

Seriously?  If that's all you expect to have after 50 years, maybe you should re-think the idea of getting married.

[prof61820]

Make sure that you get your digital images as well as the option to buy prints.

[Guses]

If budget is the primary consideration, I don't see how you can beat paying 0$.

Quality of pictures is not correlated to the amount that you pay the photographer.

I understand that for many, especially in the american culture, a wedding is a sacred thing where paying for some things is not only expected but desired as well. I say break out of the mould and design YOUR on wedding.

When my wife and I married, we made that day what we wanted it to be. Including the wedding bands, food and the clothes, the wedding with 50 people cost maybe 3000$. And most of that was paying for a high quality caterer. Everybody was taking pictures with their own cameras. In the end, we collected all the pictures, worked on them a bit and kept the best to do a custom self playing DVD with the pictures.

Do you know what we regret the most? Paying for a wedding dress. Even though we ended up selling the dress (for a loss) we found out that buying the dress was an emotional decision and renting the dress would have been a much better choice considering that you only wear it once.

I think we looked at the wedding pictures once in the last 4 years. Maybe we are lucky to know people that are able to take good pictures but I think they look great. Of course, if you are looking for "fake" pictures (i.e., photoshopped magazine style pictures) then maybe you are better off hiring a photographer.

[CopperTex]

Seriously? In my opinion the photographs are the most important part of the day - it's what you will have 50 years from now to remember your special day.

Seriously?  If that's all you expect to have after 50 years, maybe you should re-think the idea of getting married.

I've been married 11 years and of course I don't expect to only have wedding photos after 50 years of marriage. I said having good quality wedding photos are good physical reminder of THE WEDDING DAY.  I realize not every one cares about the art of photography or art in any kind of sense.  But for me personally, not having fantastic wedding photos would of been a tragedy.

[Jamesqf]

I realize not every one cares about the art of photography or art in any kind of sense. 

I dunno...  I have real problems seeing "art" in wedding photos.  Photoshop in different faces, and any two sets of wedding photos would be pretty much interchangable.

[dragoncar]

I'd ask arebelspy to do it.  He probably has some really good telephoto lenses

[gooki]

We had a friend do ours. He had good pics on Facebook, so I borrowed a dslr camera from work. Couldn't have been happier with the quality of the photos.

I also shot my sister in laws wedding with my point and shoot. Again, great photos.

Just remember, you are not a movie star, nor are you a millionaire, so dropping $5k on a photographer should be a well considered decision.

[gooki]

And if you are dead set on hiring a photographer, consider a photography grad student, they usually charge 1/4 the going rate.

[Daleth]

Pretty simple:

1.Ask a friend that owns a DSLR (everyone has at least 5 friends like that).
2.Pocket what you would have paid for the photographer to do his thing.

3.Profit!

Seriously? In my opinion the photographs are the most important part of the day - it's what you will have 50 years from now to remember your special day.  Do you really want your Uncle Bob giving you an awful set of blurry, underexposed photos?  I would get a second job to pay for good wedding photos and skimp on alot of other things like flowers, food, etc.

I'm with CopperTex on this. DO NOT have a friend/relative be your photographer. There are a million reasons for this, including:

- If they screw it up (as they are highly likely to do) it will strain your friendship. Conversely, if they actually are semi-professional photographers, they will not appreciate being asked to take your photos for free or near-free. Wedding photographers are typically there for 6-8 hours, on their feet and working 98% of the time--it is NOT a SMALL favor to ask of someone; it is worth a lot more than any other gift anyone's going to give you, so asking a friend to do it for free or near-free is not really a fair request.

- They are HIGHLY LIKELY to screw it up because they're not professional photographers--they don't understand lighting, they're not necessarily good at portraits (i.e. knowing what angle/in what lighting to photograph different people so that everyone looks pretty good), they don't know how to be unobtrusive (especially since they will probably know some of the guests), they don't have the equipment professionals have, they don't have assistants (normally wedding photographers come with an assistant and typically they're either of opposite genders or both women, so that the bride and bridesmaids will feel comfortable having photos taken while they dress), yada yada yada.

- An additional reason that they're likely to screw it up is that it is NOT POSSIBLE to be both a wedding guest and a wedding photographer. Photographers get maybe a 20 minute break to scarf down some food and spend the rest of the day on their feet, taking photos left and right; your friend probably will not be capable of this because as a friend, especially one who knows some of the guests, he will inevitably start talking to people, hanging out, enjoying the party etc. As a result, whole swaths of the event will just not get photographed.

I could go on and on. Suffice to say it is a BAD IDEA. If you want to save money on a photographer, I can think of at least two ways to do it while still using a professional photographer whose work you like:

(1) get married at a somewhat unusual time (wintertime; Friday evening, Sunday afternoon/evening...). If you're getting married on a Saturday afternoon/evening in the summertime, so is everyone else. The photographer can't afford to give you a discount because they could be making full price shooting any of 20 other weddings that day. But get married at a less usual time, and they can afford to give you a discount.

(2) negotiate a shorter time for them to be there. For instance, instead of 8 hours, how about 4 or 6? They could do the hour before the ceremony (couple getting dressed...), the ceremony, and the first two hours of the reception, which is when all the main reception events happen anyway.

(3) DO NOT hire a photographer who's unwilling to give you full-resolution digital images to keep. In other words, don't hire one if they insist on hanging onto the negatives/full-res images and making you pay every time you want a copy.


If you want to be mustachian about your wedding expenses, here are my opinions on where to skimp or not skimp:

SKIMP:
- Clothes. You don't need to spend $2000-$10,000 as some lunatics do to get the bride and groom properly kitted out. Beautiful dresses can be had for under $600.
- Rings. There are several threads on this already. Rings are way overpriced. Avoid normal jewelry stores; try estate jewelry, lab-created gemstones (or no stones, just bands), metals other than platinum, etc.
- Alcohol. You can save massive amounts of money by eliminating hard liquor and cocktails--just do beer, wine and sparkling water, maybe some sparkling cider for the kids. Also, some caterers will let you buy your own drinks for them to serve; this is a lot cheaper than buying drinks through the caterer or the event space. Shop for caterers and event spaces with this in mind. Variants on this Mustachian approach include just doing beer/wine and one signature cocktail; having no alcohol at all; or, most bare-bones of all, having a potluck to which guests bring alcohol.
- Flowers. For weddings they are RADICALLY overpriced. Get creative here--find a source of flowers other than a florist, or get married at a beautiful place that comes with flowers (botanical garden, etc.).
- DJ. Save tons of money by making your own mix, copying it onto at least two iPods (you'll want backup in case one of them has a technical glitch), and bringing or having your caterer bring cords and speakers to play it.
- Cake. Also way overpriced for weddings. How about neat cupcakes or brownies that you make, or your caterer makes? How about a homemade cake? Make sure to ask your caterer (if you have one) if they have a "cutting fee"--a per-slice cost for slicing and serving cake.
- Favors, centerpieces, etc. This goes without saying.

MAYBE SKIMP, MAYBE NOT:
- Food. If the reception is a meal, and especially if many guests are traveling a ways, give them a good meal (do not skimp). If it's a cocktail-hour type wedding, good hors d'oeuvres cost a lot less than a good meal. Most bare-bones approach: I once went to a potluck wedding. It was great.

DO NOT SKIMP:
- A pretty location. You may be able to find a cheap or free pretty location, and if so great, but if not... the views and sounds are what set the mood, and the look of the place lasts forever in your photos. A place that is naturally pretty can save you a ton on flowers and decorations because it is itself the decoration. *However*, ask the places you're considering if they restrict which caterers you can use (most do) or, if this is something you want to do, if they'd let you partly self-cater (i.e., have some food that your mom or whoever makes). Also, obviously make sure it's appropriate for the likely weather.
- The photographer. Again, THIS IS WHAT LASTS FOREVER--by which I mean, this is what brings your memories of the day flaring back to life, forever. This is what you'll look at again and again for the rest of your lives. This is what your kids will look at.

[rachael talcott]

I'm not a photographer, but I once made a wedding cake for a friend who didn't have a lot of money for her wedding.  It was my wedding gift to her and her husband, and it turned out great.  So I can imagine a friend who can take pics doing something similar, and so I don't think it's an unfair thing to ask of a friend.  But if you're going to be mad if the photos aren't perfect, it's not worth losing a friend.

[Daleth]

I'm not a photographer, but I once made a wedding cake for a friend who didn't have a lot of money for her wedding.  It was my wedding gift to her and her husband, and it turned out great.  So I can imagine a friend who can take pics doing something similar, and so I don't think it's an unfair thing to ask of a friend.  But if you're going to be mad if the photos aren't perfect, it's not worth losing a friend.

That sounds like a great gift. The big difference, though, from the perspective of the friend giving the gift, is that if you make the cake, you get to be a guest at the wedding. If your "gift" is pictures, you don't. The photographer has to spend the entire wedding working, on their feet, not hanging out and talking with people, not enjoying the dinner. That greatly increases the risk that there will be a screw-up or a misunderstanding that damages the friendship. And then the other obvious difference is that if you somehow messed up the cake, you probably have time to make another--but there's no backup plan if the photographer screws up.

[arebelspy]

I'd ask arebelspy to do it.  He probably has some really good telephoto lenses

lol.

I was going to suggest Eddie.  He even does hats and t-shirts.

[rachael talcott]

I'm not a photographer, but I once made a wedding cake for a friend who didn't have a lot of money for her wedding.  It was my wedding gift to her and her husband, and it turned out great.  So I can imagine a friend who can take pics doing something similar, and so I don't think it's an unfair thing to ask of a friend.  But if you're going to be mad if the photos aren't perfect, it's not worth losing a friend.

That sounds like a great gift. The big difference, though, from the perspective of the friend giving the gift, is that if you make the cake, you get to be a guest at the wedding. If your "gift" is pictures, you don't. The photographer has to spend the entire wedding working, on their feet, not hanging out and talking with people, not enjoying the dinner. That greatly increases the risk that there will be a screw-up or a misunderstanding that damages the friendship. And then the other obvious difference is that if you somehow messed up the cake, you probably have time to make another--but there's no backup plan if the photographer screws up.

Fair enough on the working during the wedding point.  But the cake was assembled the day of the wedding, so if I had screwed it up, we would have had to eat screwed up cake.  Perhaps the solution would be to ask several friends to take pictures at the reception and just one to do the formal shots that get taken before or after the ceremony.  In general, wedding "stuff" is just so incredibly expensive that it seems like low-hanging fruit for the mustachian to find all kinds of ways around it.  I also once made a wedding dress for a frugal friend.  The silk and lace cost a few hundred dollars, and we designed it together.  I wouldn't try this for someone I suspected was going to turn into bridezilla, but for low-key friends who wouldn't be mad if everything wasn't perfect, it's great. 

[NinetyFour]

Why not have 2 or even 3 friends do the photography.  They can "work" in shifts, and no single one of them would have to miss the chance to just be a guest.

[Woodshark]

Daleth has posted good advice, please take it.

Does having a good pots and pans make you a gourmet chef?
Does owning a suit and a Mont Blanc pen make you a contract lawyer?
Does owning new Craftsmen tools qualify you to work on a jet engine?
Your vet has an operating room and a surgical tools. Does this make him/her a great heart surgeon?
No. Just like having "nice DSLR camera" does not make someone a good or even halfway decent wedding photographer.
 
 Geez the stuff I read sometimes makes me wonder.   Although I no longer do them I've photographed over 1000 weddings in the past 27 years.  No it's not rocket science but to do it right takes knowledge in the gear, the lighting, people skills, time management, grace under pressure and a good eye.

............................................

Daleth said
Seriously? In my opinion the photographs are the most important part of the day - it's what you will have 50 years from now to remember your special day.  Do you really want your Uncle Bob giving you an awful set of blurry, underexposed photos?  I would get a second job to pay for good wedding photos and skimp on alot of other things like flowers, food, etc.
[/quote]

I'm with CopperTex on this. DO NOT have a friend/relative be your photographer. There are a million reasons for this, including:

- If they screw it up (as they are highly likely to do) it will strain your friendship. Conversely, if they actually are semi-professional photographers, they will not appreciate being asked to take your photos for free or near-free. Wedding photographers are typically there for 6-8 hours, on their feet and working 98% of the time--it is NOT a SMALL favor to ask of someone; it is worth a lot more than any other gift anyone's going to give you, so asking a friend to do it for free or near-free is not really a fair request.

- They are HIGHLY LIKELY to screw it up because they're not professional photographers--they don't understand lighting, they're not necessarily good at portraits (i.e. knowing what angle/in what lighting to photograph different people so that everyone looks pretty good), they don't know how to be unobtrusive (especially since they will probably know some of the guests), they don't have the equipment professionals have, they don't have assistants (normally wedding photographers come with an assistant and typically they're either of opposite genders or both women, so that the bride and bridesmaids will feel comfortable having photos taken while they dress), yada yada yada.

- An additional reason that they're likely to screw it up is that it is NOT POSSIBLE to be both a wedding guest and a wedding photographer. Photographers get maybe a 20 minute break to scarf down some food and spend the rest of the day on their feet, taking photos left and right; your friend probably will not be capable of this because as a friend, especially one who knows some of the guests, he will inevitably start talking to people, hanging out, enjoying the party etc. As a result, whole swaths of the event will just not get photographed.

I could go on and on. Suffice to say it is a BAD IDEA. If you want to save money on a photographer, I can think of at least two ways to do it while still using a professional photographer whose work you like:

(1) get married at a somewhat unusual time (wintertime; Friday evening, Sunday afternoon/evening...). If you're getting married on a Saturday afternoon/evening in the summertime, so is everyone else. The photographer can't afford to give you a discount because they could be making full price shooting any of 20 other weddings that day. But get married at a less usual time, and they can afford to give you a discount.

(2) negotiate a shorter time for them to be there. For instance, instead of 8 hours, how about 4 or 6? They could do the hour before the ceremony (couple getting dressed...), the ceremony, and the first two hours of the reception, which is when all the main reception events happen anyway.

(3) DO NOT hire a photographer who's unwilling to give you full-resolution digital images to keep. In other words, don't hire one if they insist on hanging onto the negatives/full-res images and making you pay every time you want a copy.


If you want to be mustachian about your wedding expenses, here are my opinions on where to skimp or not skimp:

SKIMP:
- Clothes. You don't need to spend $2000-$10,000 as some lunatics do to get the bride and groom properly kitted out. Beautiful dresses can be had for under $600.
- Rings. There are several threads on this already. Rings are way overpriced. Avoid normal jewelry stores; try estate jewelry, lab-created gemstones (or no stones, just bands), metals other than platinum, etc.
- Alcohol. You can save massive amounts of money by eliminating hard liquor and cocktails--just do beer, wine and sparkling water, maybe some sparkling cider for the kids. Also, some caterers will let you buy your own drinks for them to serve; this is a lot cheaper than buying drinks through the caterer or the event space. Shop for caterers and event spaces with this in mind. Variants on this Mustachian approach include just doing beer/wine and one signature cocktail; having no alcohol at all; or, most bare-bones of all, having a potluck to which guests bring alcohol.
- Flowers. For weddings they are RADICALLY overpriced. Get creative here--find a source of flowers other than a florist, or get married at a beautiful place that comes with flowers (botanical garden, etc.).
- DJ. Save tons of money by making your own mix, copying it onto at least two iPods (you'll want backup in case one of them has a technical glitch), and bringing or having your caterer bring cords and speakers to play it.
- Cake. Also way overpriced for weddings. How about neat cupcakes or brownies that you make, or your caterer makes? How about a homemade cake? Make sure to ask your caterer (if you have one) if they have a "cutting fee"--a per-slice cost for slicing and serving cake.
- Favors, centerpieces, etc. This goes without saying.

MAYBE SKIMP, MAYBE NOT:
- Food. If the reception is a meal, and especially if many guests are traveling a ways, give them a good meal (do not skimp). If it's a cocktail-hour type wedding, good hors d'oeuvres cost a lot less than a good meal. Most bare-bones approach: I once went to a potluck wedding. It was great.

DO NOT SKIMP:
- A pretty location. You may be able to find a cheap or free pretty location, and if so great, but if not... the views and sounds are what set the mood, and the look of the place lasts forever in your photos. A place that is naturally pretty can save you a ton on flowers and decorations because it is itself the decoration. *However*, ask the places you're considering if they restrict which caterers you can use (most do) or, if this is something you want to do, if they'd let you partly self-cater (i.e., have some food that your mom or whoever makes). Also, obviously make sure it's appropriate for the likely weather.
- The photographer. Again, THIS IS WHAT LASTS FOREVER--by which I mean, this is what brings your memories of the day flaring back to life, forever. This is what you'll look at again and again for the rest of your lives. This is what your kids will look at.
[/quote]

[bmorestachian]

A friend of ours worked at a newspaper and knew the staff photographer. For 500 bucks (super cheap for around here), free food and booze (later on in the night), we got some great pictures. The person was experienced, knew how to deal with candids (which, IMO look better in our album than many professional set pics), and then did some finishing with the photos, as they would do with any pictures they take for their work. The big benefit I saw in all this is that I didn't have my photos held ransom any time I wanted prints. While I understand the reason professional photographers do this, if you're on a budget, and want good photos, this is a resourceful way to get it done.

Since most of us aren't lucky enough to know journalists, I guess one would have to look around for a local journal photog and see if they're into it. If the night is short enough, it could be easy money for them.

YMMV - The DW and I are not super picky about these types of things. That said, the photos were wonderful, and will serve us really well for Memories.