Student photographer for wedding

pjcox2005

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I'd rather a professional photographer with an iPhone took photos rather than an inexperienced student with a dSLR and set of lenses.

Also - undercutting professionals is a bad idea for us all. Would you use an amateur electrician? Or a student gas engineer?

I'd use an trainee hairstylist if was the cost/quality balance for what I wanted, or a trainee mechanic or accountant for simpler jobs. I'd have an unknown designer over a more expensive one if I liked their work.


It's not undercutting, it's paying a lower price for a likely lower quality of work.




For the question as a whole it depends how big a deal it is, we had a high budget for photographer as my wife loves photos and refers back to them regularly.


If it was me, I'd probably go lower budget as whilst nice to see when they crop up on a slide show I don't refer back really so only needed one or two reasonable ones for the wall.


There is no correct answer, you just need to work out your priorities and go in eyes open.


As for redoing a whole wedding on insurance, that sounds bizarre, does the insurance cover full food and drinks for guests coming back so you can capture the "moment"

GrumpyDil

Batman2017 wrote: »

What a load of tosh. I am an amateur photographer myself who has recently been to a wedding. The couple used an app that guests could download on their phone so they upload their wedding photos to one convenient place for the couple and everyone else to view. I can tell you now that as somebody who used an experienced photographer that these 'camera phone photos' are rubbish in comparison. People have no idea how to take a photo. They just point and click as if it were that simple. Don't expect to cheap out and then get great photos.

Somewhat harsh as I went to a wedding last year where there ended up being a fair number of decent photos (more than just quick snaps) taken by guests. That said I would use a professional photographer unless there was no choice.

Grenage

Don't feel the pressured into getting a professional photographer just because everyone seems to. You'll probably never even look at the things!

andygb

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Is this something that people expect from a professional photographer? I've never heard of that!

This is exactly what they expect.
Getting the photos done correctly is a once only chance, so if it goes wrong there has to be a backup plan.
It does matter what equipment you use, particularly with wedding shots, where someone may want to enlarge to 20" x 16" or a similar size. Good lenses cost money, and that money ensures their build quality and most importantly their image resolution.
A wedding photographer should have two camera bodies at least (both with dedicated flash guns) and three or four lenses on the day, along with good tripod and reflective brollies.
They will also need loads of fully charged batteries, and spare memory cards.

tho_2

Unfortunate as it would be, I don't think I'd be wanting to go back and getting them done again. The photos you really want - the first look, dad seeing the bride, first dance, most "natural" shots, going to look forced and not the memories you want.

Although I would say, if you're going that route make sure you check many examples of the students work, don't be their first wedding.

Other perks to a pro though aside from spare equipment and insurance, they'll also have a network, should they be ill or have a family emergency on the day, they tend to be able to get someone of identical quality to stand in for them.

Pollycat

There's a specific 'Weddings' board that this should be moved to.
It would be interesting to see if any brides & grooms to-be think it's a good idea.

I've read the odd thread on there about upset caused by duff photos.

AndyBSG

FirstTimer4Me wrote: »

Anyone know of any pitfalls using a student photographer

I honestly wouldn't do it.

When I had my wedding we cut costs wherever we could, from the cake to the dress and the table decorations.

However, the photographer is the one thing we didn't scrimp on.

I have seen some truly awful wedding photo's over the years which have been taken by friends and family or photographers with no wedding experience.

Your photo's are the one thing from the wedding that you will be able to look back on in years to come so I really wouldn't take the risk.

hazyjo

If you're truly not fussed about the photos, ask all your guests to click throughout the day/night. You won't get professional ones, but you will have a few natural ones that you can either get printed singly or in a book or whatever you choose to do. My second wedding was a bit like that, as was a friend's - although theirs was a pain when they wanted staged pics as every man and his dog wanted to take a picture and someone was always missing.


Be prepared for not many of the evening though, or lots of drunken ones of other people!


If you want staged ones, hire a photographer.


I think photographers are fairly reasonable in the scale of things actually.


Jx

Out,_Vile_Jelly

A lot depends on what type of photos you want. A friend had loads of expensive arty shots; their hands with rings over the cake, the dress before she got in it, close-ups of the place names and flowers on the tables, pretty shadows in the chapel etc. If you prefer more reportage style shots, ie crowd scenes that may be a bit blurry but less staged and more fun and spontaneous, then a cheaper option is less risky.

It's not all about the visuals; at a wedding you need someone with a clear voice and an authoritative manner who can group people efficiently. Make sure they sound like they can do this.

[Deleted User]

In retrospect, we'd have paid more for better videographers. We watch our video a few times a year, but very rarely ever look at the photos.