I often receive enquiries that go something like this:
My fiance and I love your photos and would love it if you could shoot our wedding! The only thing is that we don’t want to have a photographer there all day. What would it cost for you to be there for, say, 6 hours?
I hope you don’t mind if I answer it here once and for all … just to save a little time
First, the short answer: 6 hours of wedding coverage costs the same as 14 hours of wedding coverage. I totally respect that some people don’t like the idea of being photographed throughout their entire wedding day, but I don’t discount my wedding package on this basis.
Here’s why (just read the bold bits if you’re pressed for time):
- The best moments happen all day. The energy, emotion and beauty of your wedding day will start early and finish late. If I’m only there for a few hours, I’m going to miss many of the details and interactions that make it yours, and as Aerosmith would say, “I don’t want to miss a thing”. I don’t want YOU to miss a thing either, which is why I don’t give discounts for short coverage. I’d hate to give you an incentive to choose it!
- I only book one wedding per day. Whether I’m shooting for 4 or 14 hours, I give each wedding my undivided attention for the entire day. If I were to offer a cheaper wedding package with shorter coverage, I’d need to start photographing multiple weddings per day, and that’s just not the way I roll.
- You won’t even know I’m there. Some couples ask about short coverage because they’re worried about the whole paparazzi vibe thing, which I can totally understand! It’s why I include an engagement session to help build your confidence, and it’s why I work very hard on being invisible throughout your wedding day. Not using much flash helps, too
Don’t like my answer? No worries! My approach to wedding photography isn’t for everyone. But if you like my photos, you need to know how much time it takes me to get them
by luke
2 comments