There are many good arguments for and against hiring a professional photographer, your decision should rest on the answer to this question: How important is your wedding photography to you? A professional photographer brings training, skill, and experience to your event. Not just experience in taking pictures, but experience in posing large groups of people quickly and efficiently; experience in dealing with varying family groupings to include divorced and separated families; experience in photographing many different situations. He will have professional quality equipment and backup equipment to guarantee against failure. Most importantly, the photographer is not a guest; he is hired to do a job. He will not miss pictures because he is dancing, eating, drinking, etc. If the outcome of your pictures is important, then a professional photographer is a must. If you are not as concerned with the possibility of missed images or no pictures altogether, then you can probably rely on a friend or family member for snapshots of the day.

As soon as possible. Once you have chosen and confirmed your wedding and reception site, you should begin looking for a photographer. Many photographers are booked 6 months to a year in advance. Really good ones can be booked up to 2 years in advance. When you find one you like be prepared to put down money - at least the package price – right now. Most photographers will not consider the date confirmed until they have some kind of financial guarantee.

Before we discuss professional and technical qualifications, I want to stress the importance of style and personality in choosing a photographer: Photography is a very personal thing. No matter who's event I'm photographing, the images I present in the end are still a reflection of how I see weddings, and how I saw your wedding in particular. To ask or expect a photographer to change his style just for your wedding is like asking a rock musician to switch to classical "for just this one concert". Look at the samples the photographer shows: Are there an abundance of posed portraits or heaps of candids and photo journalistic shots? Are the albums designed and laid out in a way that looks good to you? Is there black and white coverage mixed in or is it all color? Is this what you want your album to look like? If not, this is not the photographer for you. Do the pictures and albums speak to you? If they don't, this is not the photographer for you. Make sure that the photographer's vision and style mesh with yours or you will be disappointed. The Photographer's personality is also of the utmost importance. Make sure you truly like and get along with the person who is shooting your wedding. Remember that you will probably spend more time with your photographer on your wedding day than with any of your other service providers. Your photographer will have to give you and your families directions at some point and needs for you to be willing to listen and follow his directions, especially if you are having a more traditional style of Wedding Photography with posed shots that require the organization of many people. He may or may not have to touch you to adjust a veil or a bow tie, move a strand of hair, etc. If you don't like this person, or are uncomfortable around him, your pictures will reflect it. Even if the samples you look at are stunning, you will resent the requests and instructions of your photographer and it will color your perception of your wedding day.

Always look at a photographer's work before making a decision. Far too many people book a photographer on price alone without even seeing a sample. Make sure you see more than just a "best of" album. Anyone can get lucky and take a few good pictures. Ask to see a complete album or a complete proof set – this will give you a very good idea of the overall style of coverage, the photographers consistency and skill, as well as the number of photographs you can expect to receive. Look at the following: Are the pictures crisp and in focus? (Do not confuse diffusion or a romantic hazy effect for out of focus!) Are the compositions pleasing? In group shots can you see everyone? Are there harsh shadows where there shouldn't be? Or are any of the images muddy and underexposed looking? Make sure that the photographer conforms to any business regulations for your area. Does he or she have a valid sales tax permit if needed? If he or she is a member of the Chamber of Commerce or the BBB, this can be a good referral, but is not a necessity. I, for example, am not a member of my local CofC because I don't have time for all the meetings and whatnot. Membership in a national affiliation such as Professional Photographers of America, Wedding & Portrait Photographers International, etc., can be a good indicator, but a lack of affiliation doesn't always indicate a non-pro. Ditto with awards. A photographer that has lots of award ribbons can be a great photographer. He can also be coasting on past awards – check the age of the awards he is claiming. Some people have said that the awards are usually for a model based shoot and not taken from real life; while I'm sure this is true some of the time, at least one of the organizations I belong to requires that any work you submit for judging be from an actual client event and not photographed "for competition" (i.e. with a hired model and controlled situations).

Whether your photographer is home-based or works out of a store front studio should have no bearing on your decision overall. A great many excellent photographers work out of their homes in order to avoid the additional cost of paying for expensive store-front or studio space. This is common especially for wedding photographers who don't tend to need a studio or camera room and do most of their work on location (at the church/reception). Many times home based photographers are able to pass on that savings to the customer. Even a small storefront, for example, can tack on $300.00 - $500.00 or more to a package cost per wedding -- just to cover rent, utilities, additional insurance, etc. Remember that your photographer must charge enough to cover his or her expenses as well as make a profit. The higher the photographers expenses, the more you will pay for your photography. If you are considering a home-based photographer there are some things you should look for: A professional appearance is a must. The showroom should be separate from their home life and pleasantly decorated. The photographer herself should be dressed cleanly and neatly. If their showroom is part of the living room, with kids running through, the phones ringing, animals around, etc., or if the photographer meets with you in dirty jeans and a ragged t-shirt, then I would have second thoughts about their operation. Please note that I no longer meet clients in my home office. I create wedding images exclusively, all shot on location. I have no need for a studio and recent research has indicated that a more convenient location to meet is preferred by my clients. Usually in your home at your convenience.

Couples have applied anywhere from 7% to 20% of their total budget to the photography. This is very much a subjective question, however. The bottom line is that you need to determine how important the photography is to you. In most places minimum coverage begins at $1500.00 and goes up from there. Style will influence this, too. For example, choosing a photojournalistic style of coverage will cost more because a of the larger number of photographs taken (see Traditional vs. Photo journalistic, later in this FAQ and Why Is Wedding Photography So Expensive?, below). In my part of the country (Worcester, MA) you should expect to pay $1500.00 and up to get nice wedding coverage with an album.

There is a large misconception out there that wedding vendors in general, and photographers in particular are out there charging exorbitant prices and raking in money off of weddings by playing to the emotionalism of the couples involved. Understandably, folks who have never hired a professional photographer (Sears doesn't count here) to work on location are shell shocked by their first exposure to the prices. They have a hard time reconciling Wal-Mart’s "150 photographs for $12.95" special with a custom wedding photographer's rates. From the photographers perspective, an average package consisting of 6 hours of photography, a couples album w/ 48 8x10’s and two parents albums of 24 5x7’s each will cost the photographer around $800.00. In addition, the photographer has to make enough over and above the cost of each wedding to pay for his equipment or equipment maintenance, his advertising, his studio cost (if he has one), his telephone, etc. Now you have to consider what kind of profit do you think a photographer should earn. Keep in mind that the photographer has put in not only the 6 hours of photography time on your wedding, but between meetings, prep time, labeling film and negatives, arranging and packaging your albums, and delivery, he's probably worked 30 or more hours. A final item to keep in mind is that, unlike a florist or a baker, a photographer is limited in the number of weddings he or she can do. While the florist can do 10 weddings a week, the photographer can do only one or two, depending on the length of the ceremony and reception. What is this expertise and time worth to you? Hopefully enough to at least allow your photographer to pay his or her bills!

Many photographers require that the package be paid up front before any photography be performed. Many, many brides are unhappy with this, feeling that it leaves them no recourse if there are problems (see What If My Photographer Screws Up? later in this FAQ). My first comment to this is that if you are that uncomfortable or doubting of your photographer's abilities before you've even signed the contract – find another photographer, NOW!!! In the meanwhile, the main reason why photographers demand total payment up front is the sheer cost of doing weddings. (see also Why Is Wedding Photography So Expensive? above) Too many times the couple pays the deposit and in their minds, that's an issue resolved. The photographer gets the deposit, makes the investment in time, materials, etc., and then the couple runs out of money after the honeymoon. Occasionally they even find a reason to not pay the balance, by nitpicking at the quality of photographs they were formerly pleased with. Even if they don't claim their albums, the photographer is still out the substantial amount of money required to complete the album in the first place. Now, this is not to say that every or even most couples will do this, but it has happened, and it happens often enough that most photographers feel the need to protect themselves by requiring money up front. If you are still uncomfortable paying all the money up front and you are not prepared to change photographers, consider putting your payment on a credit card. At least you will have the security of being able to dispute a charge through the credit card company if you really feel it's necessary. Do keep in mind, though, that you should have a *very* good reason to charge back payments against your photographer. If he or she has performed according to the terms of the contract and you initiate a charge back, you could be sued.

This is another area where the pros love to disagree -- which is the better style. It's also another topic on which your personal preference should make the decision. Consider carefully how you'll want to use your photographs: to tell the story of your wedding day, as an opportunity to get portraits of family and friends from around the globe, or as a combination. Traditional wedding photographer includes lots of formal pictures, lots of posed and/or choreographed shots, lots of direction from the photographer, and some time to set up and obtain these shots. Traditional photography allows the photographer much more control over the event and the corresponding results. Working from a set posed list, this photographer can provide a guaranteed number of photographs for your albums. He can shoot as much or as little film as is required to capture the portrait images required. The resulting images and albums are usually reminiscent of old master's paintings with classic lighting and composition and exquisite posing. The time and effort put into traditional photography may seem a lot, but the results are usually worth it if you're looking for classical, perfectly posed, beautifully done wedding portraits. Photojournalistic style photography, on the other hand, involves very few to no formal pictures, no posing or prompting whatsoever, and a photographer who is completely unobtrusive. This style demands that the photographer be alert and prepared to capture all the events of the day, because there is no pre-formatted shot list for them to work from. Most PJ photographers capture a limited number of posed formal photographs, but the majority of the images are completely unaware. Many use a combination of color and black & white or even exclusively black & white. In order to fully cover an event, some photographers shoot anywhere from 500 to 1500 images. Overall, photojournalism is the best choice for a natural, realistic reporting of your wedding day with flair. The majority of wedding photographers use a combination of the two styles, taking a selection of formal posed portraits to capture family members and the bridal party and combining them with a mixture of prompted and true candids to tell the full story of your wedding day. One thing to keep in mind when selecting the style of your wedding photographer is the use of the word "candid". Traditionalists and Photojournalists each use this word to mean different things. The Traditionalist generally uses the word candid to refer to photographs of events that are not instigated by the photographer (like the cutting of the cake or the tossing of the bouquet) but are somewhat directed. For example, a Traditionalist might show you how to pose your hands while cutting the cake, or show you how to stand when throwing the bouquet. The Photojournalist uses the word candid to describe a photograph that was taken with little to no awareness by the subject. A Photojournalist will not direct any part of the picture, but rather waits for the pivotal moment to capture the image.

This is an issue that the pros can't agree on, so don't plan to find a definitive answer here - just some general guidelines. Each format has pros and cons and many photographers use a combination of both, depending on the circumstances. 35 mm has the advantage of being faster to work with overall than Medium Format and many photojournalistic style shooters use 35 mm exclusively or in combination with MF. Film and processing for 35 mm costs less than for MF. A properly exposed, well-focused image can be enlarged to 11x14 and sometimes larger with no noticeable loss of quality or increase in grain. Finally, there are many more types of films available in the 35 mm format, which gives the photographer more opportunity to be creative and different in his approach. Medium Format, on the other hand, can be as fast at 35 mm in the hands of a photographer experienced with his/her equipment. The larger negative gives all-around better quality, in both grain and color saturation. MF images can be enlarged up to 40x60 or larger, something that is difficult at best to do with a 35mm image. MF also allows more flexibility in cropping images. Finally, there are many professional quality films that are available only in MF (although most of the standard films are available in both formats). Truthfully, the format of the camera should not be an issue for you if you have seen samples of your photographers work and you like them. There are many variables that effect the format each photographer uses and the bottom line, after all, are the results. Think of it as you would a question for the baker -- does it really matter if he uses a hand mixer or a Kitchenaid, as long as the cake looks and tastes great?

According to United States copyright law, all images taken by a professional photographer are copyrighted by that photographer. {17 USC 106.} Even possession of the negatives does not transfer copyright to you -- the only way you can obtain the copyright is by a transfer from the photographer - either verbally or in writing. That means that the photographer has the exclusive right to authorize reproduction of your images, whether by photocopying, scanning, duplicating, etc., unless you have an agreement stating otherwise. If you violate this law, you and the person or company that made the copies can be taken to court by your photographer. The definitive case is Professional Photographers of America (PPofA) and Olan Mills vs. Linn Photo. The US Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled that Linn Photo had committed "clearly infringing" acts and had not acted in good faith. Linn Photo agreed to pay $115,000.00 ($28,500 per photo) to settle the copyright infringement suit, plus honor an injunction. No, it may not seem fair - after all, the pictures are of you, right? Look at it this way – if Tom Hanks hires someone to write his biography, the book is still copyrighted to the author, even though it's Tom Hanks' life. On the lighter side, most photographers will willingly give permission for you to scan in your pictures on disk or for use on your web site. Also, you might be able to negotiate a discount if you are ordering a substantial number of reprints.

If you are going to spend the money to have a professional photographer at your wedding, you should hire one who specializes in wedding and portrait photography. You should not rely on a sports, fashion, or newspaper photographer - unless, of course, you have seen samples of their wedding work and find it to be acceptable. Despite what some folks may want you to believe, sports photography, etc., are not like wedding photography. There is a misconception (even among a lot of photographers) that weddings are what you do when you can't do anything else - that they're low end and unskilled, which is simply not true. A wedding photographer must be a photographer, but also a combination of diplomat, social coordinator, hairdresser, emergency florist, etiquette expert, calming influence, and organizational genius! While a friend may take excellent action shots, he or she does not have the experience in looking for and finding the events and items that make the wedding day special for the couple. Also, you can't expect someone who's never had to do it before to organize and arrange the 5 or 10 or 15 members of a family or attendant groupings in a short amount of time between ceremony and reception - never mind deal with the issues that can come up between divorced parents, feuding relatives, and nervous brides and grooms. Another issue to consider is that many sports, fashion, and newspaper photographers will shoot 400 or 500 frames of film to come up with 2 or 3 perfect images for use in a magazine or newspaper. Wedding photography involves capturing a high percentage of quality images to preserve, as well as document the event. Creative use of both flash, and available light is necessary. Interaction with the subjects is vital, and knowledge of posing the subjects is required (more so if the Wedding party and/or family is large). Experience with shooting Weddings is a big factor to anticipate where to be, and how much film is required for any given situation.

This is a matter that is completely up to you. It is easier to take the formal photos before hand, both from the photographer's standpoint and from the couples standpoint. The formals will always be their best if they can be done with everyone's hair, makeup, and clothing still fresh and unspoiled by tears or whatnot. If done properly, it will allow the two of you some private time before the ceremony to talk quietly and admire each other in your finery before the photography starts. Many couples feel that having this private time helped calm them for the actual ceremony and was beneficial. On the other hand, many people are uncomfortable with the idea of seeing each other before the ceremony. Some people think that having wedding pictures that were taken before they were married feels false -- although I look at wedding pictures as just that -- pictures taken on your wedding day -- and not "marriage pictures". However, if it is truly important to you to have your pictures together taken after the ceremony, then you should not let yourself be swayed by a photographer who insists on a pre-ceremony schedule. It is possible to take some before and some after and still maintain the tradition of the bride a groom not seeing each other. Many photographers schedule 1 to 1 1/2 hours before the start of the ceremony to take pictures of the bride, her attendants, and family, then the groom, his attendants, and family. All the pictures are made separately, with the couple not seeing each other. Then after the ceremony, the only shots needed are the couple together at the altar, and the couple with their various family combinations. If you want this to work you MUST be ready on time! Your families and attendants MUST be prepared to cooperate for the post-ceremony pictures. Most photographers can get the photos done in 20 minutes or less -- with cooperation. The biggest stopper is when the photographer gets to the church before the ceremony and the bride is not dressed, still waiting for her hairdresser, her attendants are running around in jeans and t-shirts, the groom won't arrive until 20 minutes before the ceremony, etc. When the time comes to do the family groupings, photographers spend innumerable minutes waiting for "Uncle Joe" to stop talking to someone or "Aunt Mary" to come back from the bathroom. By the time it's all over, we've had to do ALL of the pictures post-ceremony, and it's taken three times as long as it should. Something else to consider with having pictures done at the reception: most receptions have a schedule of some kind to maintain, between the dinner/buffet, first dance, toasts, garter, bouquet, etc. My worst problem with reception pics is when I approach the bride or groom about the "your requested pictures". They start to follow me out of the hall for their pictures, but are constantly stopped by people wanting to talk to them -- which is only natural. By the time we make it to the picture site, we've got less than 5 minutes to take all the pictures they want and then get back to the hall/room because it's almost time for an "event". If you truly want pictures at the reception, be prepared to allow time at some point for the photographer, even if it means that you have to tell your guests that you can't talk right now, you'll be right back. So the bottom line is: anything is possible -- IF you are well prepared. Just don't expect your photographer to work miracles.

Of course we all hope that this never happens, but, face it, your photographer is human and mistakes do happen occasionally. There are lots of variables to wedding photography and a lot of places for accidents to happen. Most photographers are just as appalled as you are when something goes wrong -- after all, it's their reputation that's on the line. A true professional will offer to do anything in his power to fix the situation, including restaging the missed shots and paying for the appropriate expenses (flowers, tuxes, etc.) himself, digitally altering the photographs to come up with an acceptable image, or providing a free studio sitting, should all else fail. Occasionally, however, couples will run into someone who just won't follow through. At this point you have several options if your photographer does not live up to your expectations. First, ask your photographer to try to work out an agreement from the ideas above. If that doesn't work, check your contract and see what recourse you have. Many times the contract will limit your compensation to the return of all moneys paid, but that could still be better than nothing, if the situation should get ugly. Make sure any requests you make of your photographer are documented. If necessary, send a registered letter with your requests for compensation. If the photographer is a member of any professional organizations, a complaint to them may produce results where your personal requests may not. The same goes for a complaint to the local Better Business Bureau, and/or your local Chamber of Commerce. Make sure you put these in writing and copy the photographer on all correspondence. Another option in a serious situation might be to contact your local newspaper's or TV station's consumer advocate -- most cities have one who will be willing to research the situation and usually get faster results through the possibility of negative publicity. If you truly believe you have been wronged and no other options will work, you might consider asking a lawyer to write you a letter indicating your course of action. This should only cost you about $50 or so and sometimes a letter from a law firm can be a powerful motivator to a photographer who is dragging his feet. If all else fails, you can usually take your photographer to small claims court to resolve the issues. Take note, however, that your complaint must be valid in order for this to be a viable option. One photographer I know had a couple sue him for non-performance and breach of contract because he failed to deliver one image that they specified on their pose lists. The reason that the image wasn't delivered? The groom didn't arrive at the church until 15 minutes before the ceremony and there was no time to get the requested photograph. The couple, despite receiving over 200 images that they readily admitted they were thrilled with, decided that they wanted all their money back because of this one image -- but they didn't want to surrender any of the other photographs or their album. Needless to say, their case was dismissed by the judge, but not before it cost both the couple and the photographer significant amounts of money, time, stress, and ill-will on both sides.

This is yet another topic where personal preference will make the decision. Video and photography are two entirely different media, and eliminating one in favor of the other should be carefully considered. Whether one is better than the other is mostly personal choice. Certainly video has features that can't be captured in a photograph. Sound and movement, dancing, hearing your vows spoken again – all of these things are great reasons for having a video. On the other hand, video is not, strictly speaking, portable, the way pictures are. It's hard to hang a video on a wall, or present a framed video as a present. A framed photograph on your desk, bookcase or wall, however, is something you'll glance at daily. Only you can make the decision as to which one is better for you -- or if you should have both.

Next to "How much?", this question is the one that seems to come up most frequently on the alt.wedding and soc.couples.wedding boards. As with the 35 mm vs. Medium Format debate, everyone has an opinion on this, and they're all valid. You have several options as to how to handle "feeding the photographer". You can provide a full meal for your photographer the same as the other guests are eating (or you can allow them to eat off of the buffet, if you're having a buffet). You can discuss with your caterer the possibility of them providing box lunches or snack meals for your vendors (most caterers will do this at a fraction of the cost of the full meal). Or you can allow your photographer to take a set amount of time to leave the reception and get something to eat or to eat a home packed lunch. Obviously this last option is the least desirable because it means the photographer is not available to take photographs during the time he is gone. The other thing that you need to keep in mind is how long is your photographer going to be at your event? Remember that they will often start an hour before you even see them and not get home until an hour or more after they leave your event. If they're going to be there more than 6 hours, they are going to need to eat and at least drink some water or soda, whether it's food and drink that you provide or food and drink that they provide for themselves. It's not reasonable to expect a human being to work hard for 6 or 8 hours without some kind of sustenance to keep the energy levels up (not to mention the blood sugar). The most popular argument against feeding the photographer is, of course, "I'm paying him to come take pictures, why should I feed him as well?" Admittedly most people don't get meals provided as a part of their regular employment. But also consider that most people are allowed time off for a lunch break, something that is difficult for a wedding photographer who needs to be there to capture the events of your wedding and reception. Will a photographer do a bad job for his clients because he doesn't get fed? Absolutely not. But it's human nature to give a little more and go a little further for people who are nice to you. The bottom line is a little courtesy and thoughtfulness – treat your vendor the way you would want to be treated if you were in their shoes!

I am a firm believer in using disposable cameras. They are a great way to get photos of images your professional photographer might not get and they can be a lot of fun. I wouldn't rely on them to take the place of a professional - or even a talented amateur with "real" cameras - but they are fun. Do keep a few things in mind: You will not get all the cameras back. There *will* be someone (or a few someones) who will take the camera home with the intention of finishing the roll and sending it back to you or to develop it themselves as a gift. Sometimes it gets done and sometimes it doesn't. Don't rely on the "cheap Walmart kind". Buy one or two of the brand you are considering and take some sample photographs in about the same lighting conditions (dim room, dark outdoors, etc.). Not all disposable cameras are made the same and you need to find ones that provide acceptable quality for you. By the same token, get some recommendations for good places to develop the cameras. Not all labs are created equal, either. If you have the time and the money, take rolls of film to a few different places and see how the photos come out. Be aware that if there are practical jokers in your friends/family circle, you may get some photographs that are - well - not suitable for public viewing. I've heard of couples who got photographs of things like toilet fixtures and feet under the table. You never know what's going to come out on those photos. Make sure that everyone knows how to use the flashes on these cameras. Some brands of camera require that the flashes be charged up before use. Also remember that the flashes are not terribly strong. Anything more than about 10 to 15 feet away - or even closer in a darkened room - is not going to be illuminated by the little flashes in these cameras. Don't try to get overall "ambiance shots" or photographs of 30 people with a disposable flash. As an alternative to disposables, consider buying good quality film for friends who have their own cameras. A lot of times these photos will come out better because the people who have cameras are already comfortable with them... you stand a better chance of getting more usable pics.