Quick Opinion about Wedding Pictures

[cakersbride]

We have decided to use Randy Chapman based on recommendations from the board and examples of his work.

But here's the deal. We are getting married on July 16th. He is already contrated for an event that day and would have to leave by 2:45.

He told us that he'd be able to get all pre-ceremony shots, the ceremony itself, post-ceremony shots, and then probably the first 30-45 minutes of the reception which starts at 2:00 and lasts until 5:00. We realize that he will miss the majority of the reception, but he did tell us that if someone else could take pictures and we could send him the CD that he may be able to work them into the album.

Are we going to be a little upset in the end if we miss out on the 2:45 until 5:00 portion? Will we really miss those big moments? We are still going to have a videographer for the whole event?

Should we scrap Randy and try to find someone else? We really don't want to do so.

Thanks for your help!

 

[Codie]

That depends on when you do your first dance and your parent dances...if you do them right away, he can capture them. The rest of the pics are primarily just people dancing...the video gets that best...

 

[hmgolden]

I agree with Codie - if you do all the dances at the beginning, he'll have gotten most of the moments of the reception. The one thing he would probably miss is the cake cutting. The pictures of people dancing are fun, but you can just ask one of your guests to take those.

 

[Laurafoster]

It also depends on what you have at your reception - if you have anything like Mickey and Minnie, or if you want the cake cutting etc. If not then the first 45 mins should be no problem! LikeCodie said if your having a video that would capture the moments better anyway!

 

[UnderTheMistletoe]

Personally, if I was hiring a photographer, I would want them there the whole time. What if there was a special, once-in-a-lifetime moment that was missed?

You can always put the cameras on the tables and have the guests take the pics, too....

 

[princessblueeyzes]

Personally, if I was hiring a photographer, I would want them there the whole time. What if there was a special, once-in-a-lifetime moment that was missed?

You can always put the cameras on the tables and have the guests take the pics, too....

I agree with UnderTheMistletoe. It really depends on your personal preference.

 

[Mary626]

I agree with Underthemistletoe also. I know Randy Chapman is supposed to be the best, but that doesn't mean there aren't other really good photographers out there. I think I'd rather not want the extra "worry", but that is just my preference. In the end, decide what you'd be most comfortable with and won't have any regrets about later!

 

[Luvndisney]

I think I would want them there the entire time as well. But you need to make the decision based on what's important to you.

Sorry that this happened and I hope you work it out.
I noticed we are getting married the day before you in the WP! I leave some pixie dust for you when I am there.

 

[Rascal1003]

We used Randy and he is highly efficient and creative. I am sure he can get gather enough photo's to give an impression that he was there the whole time.

However, if you want an extra photographer, I will cover the whole reception at no cost if you want to fly me out there. (About £350 or $600).
I am currently trying to set up a wedding photography business here in the UK, very much influenced by Randy and his approach.

 

[cakersbride]

Thanks for everyone's help. We are going to go with Randy. We believe that he will make it work. In the first 45 minutes of our reception, he can get our first dance, the cutting of the cake, and us dancing with our moms and dads.