I’m wondering іf іt’s חесеѕѕаrу tο һаνе both a photographer аחԁ videographer аt mу wedding? Dο I really need a photographer іf I һаνе a professional filming tһе entire day? If уου һаԁ tο сһοοѕе between a photographer οr videographer wһаt wουƖԁ уου ɡο wіtһ аחԁ wһу?
Tags: photographer, videographer
We had both - and I wouldnt trade it in for anything! Our pictures were awesome but the video caught emotions that you would lose on "paper".
Look for a local photograher that maybe has a package that would include both video and photography… Also - see if your photographer can give you your proofs digitially - then you can go to a Costco or Wal-Mart or Shutterfly (or any other of the thousands of websites) and make albums for your parents. That could save you hundreds (maybe even thousands) of dollars.
Well while they say a picture can say a thousand terms. A video can say a million. Pictures are excellent for the office and for family.. but when you and your husband or wife really want to sit down and remember it… video is much better than photos sometimes… I would get both if I were you… you will appreciate it much later.
We were on a limited budget and chose to use all of it on photography. We wanted the best photographer we could maybe afford. I have seen very few videos that I liked. You could always have a friend shoot some video. I also didn’t want to have every small flub of the day well-known on video. I wanted to remember only the excellent.
Anyway, fortunately for us, we chose a photographer who also place together a video slideshow of our proofs set to music. So we do really have a video of sorts.
We are pleased with our choice and feel we got very high quality photographs.
I would have both really. A video lets you see exactly what happened at the wedding, while a photograph captures a moment of what happened. Photos can be place into a book and looked at by your family, grandchildren, and fantastic grandchildren. And a video captures the sound and festivities of the day. If you take both you’ll doubtless be pleased later in life.
I urge going with both. If you are on a tight budget you should have a photographer cover the entire day but have a videographer catch the ceremony, and maybe the first hour or 2 of the reception.
Pictures last longer than video. Both are cool but if you have to choose, go with the photos.
i would want both but if i had to choose it would prolly be a photographer
Pictures are priceless. You can hang your wedding pictures and frame them but you can’t frame a video. At my wedding we had both but if I had to choose just one I would certainly pick the photographer. I look at my wedding album all the time.
photographer !!!!! go for that !!!!
Tough question:
I have two stills I’ve framed from our wedding — but nearly each year on our anniversary, we watch the video (it runs about 15:00) over champagne and take-out Chinese.
(what can I tell you? we’re humble folk.
You won’t get nice, frame-able stills from a video crew…. so if you had to choose, I’d go with stills. A photographer.
Or… to save money, you and your fiance could have a portrait taken together before the wedding (with your dress)… and then deliver disposable cameras to your wedding/reception guests for candids. (or question your guests with digital cameras to give you a CD of their pix as a gift)
Hope that helps.
Delight in your day!!
I’d go with the photographer. Chances are over the years, people aren’t going to want to sit and watch an hour (if you’re lucky) long video. They would much rather sit and look owing to pictures and hear the tales behind them.
If your gonna splurge on anything in a wedding it should be the photos and video, those are the memories that will last after the years. If you cant have both then go with high quality photos. But really try to get both you wont be sorry.
I would always go with a photographer. Pictures last forever where as videos of any sort can become obsoulete. You cant hang a video tape on the wall or place a video in a scrapbook.
skip the videographer and place more funds into the photographer. videographer make cheesy movies. you can just buy or borrow a tripod and camcorder. that’s what i did. and then i had a camcorder for my honeymoon and a photoalbum to die for. the images are on my yahoo 360 page.
i finished up hiring the photographer of my dreams. this really cut into my videographer budget but it was very worth it. we had a friend who knew how to use a video camera film a bunch of the wedding and reception. then my husband (who is handy w/ editing) cut and edit the raw film into a touch lovely.
it really worked out.
excellent luck
I had both but we never watch the video, we had a friend do the video, but a professional do the pics. Pics you can pull out and show friends, your friends dont wanna watch a 3 hour video. Go for the pics!
I’m choosing a photographer. I couldnt afford both. I’d sooner look at pictures than sit down and watch a whole video. And when you want to show off pictures, you can carry an album or a small package, not a whole dvd player or vcr and tv. Most people will not be attracted in looking at your video. It’s more for you and you will doubtless not get as much use out of it. You’ll surely want to show pictures around your home and share them with family, but you would have to pay the videographer $$$ to make copies of your video for everyone.
go with both-see what you can do about getting the pictures or video paid for as a wedding gift
In this day and age Videography is the way to go. I know there are people on both sides of the come forth but let me tell you why it’s far better than photography. Videography captures the emotion and romance of your wedding day. It captures everything as it happened. You don’t need to fill in the blanks with your memory. Your memory will fade with time. Every time you see the video, you may even find things happening that you didn’t see on your wedding day. Reason number two is that with digital video you can take still shots out of your video and make your own album. You can have the videographer do that, or do it yourself with your PC, for practically nothing. Photo paper and a excellent quality printer are very cheap. Finally, videographers are a heck of a lot cheaper than photographers. I would go with video for those reasons, but you must make your own choice. If you want to see a demo and get a feel for style and pricing check out http://advancedvideo.50webs.com They have an on-line demo and pricing, and photo montage too.