Wedding Question-no drama!

[onelilspark]

I have two quick wedding questions for everyone and I'd like some input. There's no drama involved, just mainly questions about pictures and the like!

1) Our wedding will be October 29, 2011, and all I know so far is that the reception cocktail hour starts at 6. The sunsets that day around 6:10pm (I made sure to avoid daylight savings issues!) We met with a photographer last night and when I mentioned I wanted the ceremony to be at 4:30, she kept saying we wouldn't have enough time for pictures...mainly lighting issues. My concern is that I hate going to weddings and having ages in between the ceremony and the reception. The reception site is ~25 minutes from the church, so people would be there around 5:30, and the cocktail hour is at 6. It's at a hotel, so people would be able to head upstairs, freshen up, and then come back downstairs for the party. Am I crazy? Will I have horrible pictures because I'm having the wedding too late? I mean, what if it rains? Then we wouldn't have those outdoor pictures anyway... I guess what I'm asking is if you would move up the ceremony start time and if so, by how much?

2) Looking at albums that photographers put together...they're nice, but I don't know if it's worth it to be spending $500-1000 on an album when I can use Shutterfly or another online photo album site. The online one obviously won't be as nice, but is it worth that kind of difference?

 

[dgr1973]

Well I don't really have advice on the wedding time except that maybe it would be nice to have a little extra time inbetween ceremony & reception. I am a crazy overplanner and when I got married I made sure there was time so I wouldn't have to be rushed.

About the photo album, I got married almost 15 years ago and I paid about 900 then! The way I thought about it was, I was only doing this once so I wanted really nice pictures since you will look at them for years to come. I am so glad I did because they are still so nice to look at, and that was even before digital cameras!

 

[TLuvsD]

Having had two family members with recent wedding photo crisises, I'd spend the money. And those photos will be increasingly more important as time passes, while many of the other items will be increasinly less important.

As far as time goes, how long is the ceremony--30 minutes? Are you likely to actually start on time? Right now start at 4:30, finish at 5, guest mill around a bit (visiting, watching the pictures), guests drive to reception location...I'd think you could start at 4pm and still not have too much time inbetween. How many pictures could be a factor as well....I'd likely at least consider what the photographer is saying. Have the worked in your venue before?

 

[onelilspark]

She's worked at the reception site, but not at my church.

It'll be a fairly traditional Lutheran ceremony, which doesn't take long (15-20 minutes.)

 

[Kirby]

I don't have a clue as to how to answer question 1. But as far as the online books, I think that they are just as good and wouldn't pay $500 for one made by the publisher. That is if he/she will release all the pictures they took of you. It's been a long time since I've been involved in a wedding so I don't know what the photographers do nowadays.

I've made photo albums through My Publisher and Kodak and have been very pleased with the final product. There are so many ways you can personalize your album without having to pay that much for it.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I don't understand why you would have lighting issues. Many photographers actually prefer shooting when the sun isn't too bright, so you should be fine on time. Also, some of the best wedding pictures I have seen have been when it is overcast. It really seems to heighten a lot of the colors. So, there is good news even if it rains!

And I for sure think it is worth the money. My wedding seemed to go by so fast, I barely remembered what my bridesmaids looked like or how great my husband looked that day! Those pictures are the best remedy for a day when you have the blues! The perfect pick-me-up and worth every penny!

 

[Shmily1]

1-For my first wedding we did the pictures of everyone before the wedding so that the guests wouldn't have to wait forever for the pictures to be taken and my make-up wouldn't be all smudged. The ex and I weren't in the pictures together or see each other until after the wedding, but we did all the family shots and all that ahead of time to get them out of the way. It worked great.

2-About the photo album, it is great to look back at those photos and if you're married to them 30 years from now, will the quality of the photos still be what yu want it to be? I have some great photos with my brother that I wouldn't trade for anything. He died 4 years later so that opportunity is gone for more pictures there.

3-Congratulations!! Enjoy your day most of all!

 

[Muushka]

I just attended a wedding that the ceremony was at 2 and the reception started at 6.

The time in between was not that bad. I would rather have pictures shot in proper lighting.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Heck having a 4:30 start time might ensure that your guests are not even there for cocktail hour let alone you even getting in ANY pictures.
That is cutting it way to close for me.

I most certainly change your wedding time, esp if the reception is at a hotel. Go for the 2pm wedding time.

Pictures are one of the reasons for doing a blowout fancy wedding. Congrats!

 

[onelilspark]

I don't know if it matters, but 80-90% of the guests will be from out of town. So it's not like they'll go home, or know what to do besides head back to the hotel. I guess that's why I don't want to have too much time in between the ceremony and the reception.

 

[scrapquitler]

If the ceremony is at 4:30, there's not going to be any time for pictures if you think you will be at the cockatil hour for 6.

Realistically, the wedding is unlikely to start right on time (usually it's delayed about 10-15 min because they don't start if guests are still being seated). Even if the wedding DID finish by 5, it's going to be at least 30 minutes before everyone leaves the church (the receiving line at my wedding 130 guests was almost an hour long with people wanting to greet DH and I, our parents, etc). That leaves you getting out of the church at 5:30 at the earliest.

My wedding was at 5, the cocktail hour was at 7, and DH and I, the wedding party and our parents did not arrive at the reception venue until almost 7 and we only had a few pictures done at the church and the gazebo outside. The reception was about 30 minutes from the church.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I don't know if it matters, but 80-90% of the guests will be from out of town. So it's not like they'll go home, or know what to do besides head back to the hotel. I guess that's why I don't want to have too much time in between the ceremony and the reception.

There is nothing wrong with going back to the hotel and resting up a bit. Especially for the out of towners!!!!! It is a blessing to be able to rest in a room before the reception starts.

 

[golfgal]

She's worked at the reception site, but not at my church.

It'll be a fairly traditional Lutheran ceremony, which doesn't take long (15-20 minutes.)

How many people are you inviting and how are you planning on doing a receiving line? If your ceremony is about 30 minutes (considering processional, recessional, etc.) it can take upwards of 30-45 minutes to have a receiving line at church.

Why not do the pictures, or most of them, before the ceremony? Most people do that around here if they are having an evening wedding. If you don't want your groom to see you before have the photographer take all the bride/bridesmaid/bride family pictures and then all the groom stuff before, then between the wedding and reception you can take some group shots where ever it works.

We had an evening wedding and the pictures from the ceremony are pretty dark-very nice looking, but dark. A lot of churches don't allow any flash photography during the service so that might cause an issue too.

I would spend as much as you can afford on your pictures because that will be the one memento from your wedding you will always have.

 

[Hoodie]

Maybe bump it up to 4? I'm with you, I hate when there's a big gap between the ceremony and reception. Especially when people are out of town.

 

[onelilspark]

Thanks everyone, I guess we'll look at 330/4. I don't plan on being at the cocktail hour. As far as I'm concerned, that's not really meant for us.

I hadn't thought of how long the receiving line will take, we should have about 120-130 guests.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Thanks everyone, I guess we'll look at 330/4. I don't plan on being at the cocktail hour. As far as I'm concerned, that's not really meant for us.

I hadn't thought of how long the receiving line will take, we should have about 120-130 guests.

Or going to the bathroom? Seriously everything seems to take forever to do. I was Matron of Honor for my sister and it took a long time to do everything.

Do you have a train? If not that will chop off some time.

 

[Scurvy]

I don't know about the album. I bought the negatives to my photos and didn't even bother to print most of them. I'd probably be fine with an online album and just printing the ones I really liked, personally.

1) Our wedding will be October 29, 2011, and all I know so far is that the reception cocktail hour starts at 6. The sunsets that day around 6:10pm (I made sure to avoid daylight savings issues!) We met with a photographer last night and when I mentioned I wanted the ceremony to be at 4:30, she kept saying we wouldn't have enough time for pictures...mainly lighting issues. My concern is that I hate going to weddings and having ages in between the ceremony and the reception. The reception site is ~25 minutes from the church, so people would be there around 5:30, and the cocktail hour is at 6. It's at a hotel, so people would be able to head upstairs, freshen up, and then come back downstairs for the party. Am I crazy? Will I have horrible pictures because I'm having the wedding too late? I mean, what if it rains? Then we wouldn't have those outdoor pictures anyway... I guess what I'm asking is if you would move up the ceremony start time and if so, by how much?

I am not a fan of having lots of time between the ceremony and reception. If it's a destination wedding and my hotel room was at the reception location that might be different, since I could crash in the room until time for the cocktail hour. Since not all your guests will have rooms at the hotel, will you make the timeline clear to everyone so they know to kill time and not show up too early at the hotel? I've been at weddings before that didn't specify actual times, just "reception to follow at (location)" and so people went straight to the reception location and ended up getting there an hour early and then stood around waiting for the doors to the ballroom to open. It wasn't pleasant and everyone was getting cranky by the time they could go in. If they had known how much time they had, most people probably would have found a different way to spend that hour.

If the ceremony starts at 4:30 and lasts 20 minutes, you'll be done by 4:50. Allowing 25 minutes to drive to the reception location, you need to leave by 5:35. (Since you say you don't plan to be at the Cocktail Hour, you would actually have a little more time.) That gives you 45 minutes for pictures. How many pictures are you wanting? Are there lots of wedding party members or family members who will need to be wrangled for the pictures? For a smaller wedding I think 45 minutes would be plenty of time. If you have lots of people involved and you want pictures of all sorts of combinations of people, then that will take longer. If you think the time is iffy, would be it possible for you to do what Shmily1 mentioned?

1-For my first wedding we did the pictures of everyone before the wedding so that the guests wouldn't have to wait forever for the pictures to be taken and my make-up wouldn't be all smudged. The ex and I weren't in the pictures together or see each other until after the wedding, but we did all the family shots and all that ahead of time to get them out of the way. It worked great.

We did that as well. My husband and I didn't see each other before the ceremony, but we each did pictures with other people. We spent very little time after the ceremony doing the few pictures we couldn't take beforehand.

ETA - I see you mentioned a receiving line. Are you planning to do it at the church? Most people I know do it at the reception. There's a new trend that some people do if their guests are seated at the reception. Instead of having the guests line up and walk by the couple, the couple goes to each guest and greets them during the reception. I really like that idea because I am not a fan of receiving lines.

 

[cluvsdisney]

I think a 4:00 ceremony would work perfectly. I can't imagine the ceremony & receiving line taking more then an hour. Then you'll have 2 hours to take pictures. You could also take pictures before the ceremony. I did that and it worked out beautifully. The photographer set it so that I came up behind DH and was able to capture his expression when he turned around and saw me for the first time that day.

As for the album, I think it's worth the extra money. You would need to purchase a copyright release to reprint the pictures from shutterfly or similar online sources anyway. A photographer would really do an outstanding job much better then you can get with online templates unless you are familiar with programs like photoshop.

 

[madcam]

Both your questions have to do with wedding photos. I am not going to try to answer each one specifically, I am just going to tell you something I wish someone would have told me when I was planning my wedding:


Do not cut corners on your pictures. Do not take the cheaper alternative. Do not compromise on what the photographer knows will and will not work. I am not saying to go over your budget but get the very best that you can afford.

I used a family friend who was a photographer in his spare time. My mom set it up and as she was paying for the wedding and knew him well, I just trusted that and didn't feel right asking her to pay any more money than she was paying. (FWIW, she would have happily paid more if I had pushed the issue and told her I wanted XYZ Photographer instead.) Well...I have pictures of the wedding itself and most of those are decent. But all the pictures from before the wedding and at the reception were mostly terrible. The guy was pretty amature and if the shot was not set up for him like in the church, well they were just ok at best.

Here's the deal. 5 yrs, 15 yrs, 50 yrs from now, this is only thing that you will have left from that day. Sure you may have your dress in a closet somewhere or your bouquet perserved somehow but the worst thing is not having pictures that you cherish and can share with your children.

 

[Bren's Mom]

I think 4:30p is cutting it a bit too close. While I'm totally with you about not having too much time in between, I think a 3:30pm or a 4pm ceremony would be much better.

I would do as many pictures beforehand as possible. Do you alone with your parents, bridesmaids, flower girls, etc. Do you with your siblings. And you alone.

After the ceremony you'll only have to do 'everyone together' photos and photos with your new dh.

I would do my best to finish up the pics in a timely fashion. And when you're done with people for pics, send them on to the reception site. So get your parents done and send them off. Get the siblings done and send them off. Get the wedding party done and send them off. And that will leave just you and dh to have some quiet time, private pics taken. And your wedding party will appreciate getting to enjoy the cocktail hour even if you don't make it there for all of it. (Although I'd get there as soon as you can!)

I would definitely spend the money on a good photographer, although I had my sister take my pics and they came out just great...so I wouldn't dissuade you from using a friend/family member if you knew they took fantastic photos.

However, I wouldn't bother with the big $$$ for an album. They're huge, bulky, take up too much space and hardly anyone ever looks at them. I would definitely spend some $ to order a beautiful photo album from Kodak Gallery/Snapfish/similar service afterward. And have a great 11x14 printed for your living room or wherever.