1 or 2 photographers & 1 or 2 videographers? Is it worth going over budget?

Photo/video is all that's left at the end of the day. So I would say yes, decor is less important than photo/video.

We chose not to do video. I sort of regret that. I'm not losing sleep over it, but I wish I had video of our ceremony. Reception I still wouldn't need.

We can't really tell you if those quotes are good as it depends on locatio, but I'm in the DC metro area and I paid about 3k for 1 photog + assistant (who also took some photos), 8 hours, all pictures with rights, engagement shoot, and an album.

I'm only doing video for the ceremony, we also don't think that video for the reception is worth the money. Like @Stephanie it's worth spending less on the decor for amazing pictures and video. Those last forever.

$3,500 is a lot for just one photographer (I think). Most of the quotes I've received offer 2 and may of those were still under $3,000. If it's your favorite photographer though, I would just talk to him/her and see what they think. The one I think I'm choosing is by herself and said I could have a second if I want for an additional fee, but she didn't really think I needed it and seemed confident about it. Depends on a lot of factors. I'm not help with videography since I won't be using any.

Having a second photographer is worth it. I had two at my wedding and I'm glad I did. They both had different lenses or were in different positions to get different pictures. I loved how the pictures turned out and there was such a varitey. Well worth it.

I'm not sure about a second videographer. How important is the video to you? If it's really important then have two. For the same reason as having two photographers. But if video isn't that important just go with one.

As for prices, that varies by location.

As for giving up decor for photographers/videographers, I'd say go for it. From my experience, you should keep decorations to a minimum. To quote my mom "the guests will add the colour and decoration to the room" which I found to be true. So yes I think giving up fancy decorations to keep things simple and afford a good photographer is worth it.

FH and I skipped the videographer and spent more on our photographer. Realistically, we knew that we would probably watch the video 1 time but that's about it. It would've been a waste of money for us. If you're going to watch the video tons, then it'd be worth it for you. We just chose to splurge on 2 photographers for better pictures and additional coverage; I like that 1 will be at my house with the girls, and the other will be with FH and the guys.

Not sure what city you are in..that is a pretty high budget for just 1 photag and 1 video....2 videographers if you want angles and a cinematic approach to your wedding video instead of a documentary style...

I initially wanted 2 photogs but we ended up only getting one..yes, you would have different angles and stuff..but at the end of the day you are just paying for the same pictures of the same thing...

yes photo/video is VERY important, but if you can do without it, don't waste you money...especially if it is not that necessary to have 2

also I have heard of people that say they liked their main photo pictures better and wish they wouldn't have gotten the 2nd one...so just think about it..talk to vendors and see what they have to say.

That's a normal budget for my city.

I would definitely have 2 photographers and pare down from there (and this is coming from someone who had 2 photographers and 2 videographers). The second shooter caught moments that were amazing from another angle.

I think you can also make adjustments to your decor to pare it down in a way that doesn't impact the wow factor. Photography, for me, was really really important though.

Whoa, $3K for just 1 photographer sounds like a lot! In my area (which averages $9K above the national average for weddings), every package I've seen for over $3K provides a second shooter. But, I guess it is what it is.

I also agree that pictures are a priority, and I'm all about mementos. I'd say, pay for great photography (and TWO shooters), and just have a member of the wedding party, or maybe an important friend who isn't in the wedding party, be loosely in charge of getting videos of guests during the reception.

Our videographer came with two shooters, so we are going to use them. Since we have two video, we decided on having only 1 photographer....didn't want to have too many cooks in the kitchen! Though I think quotes will be different depending on where you live, have you looked into more than one company (I didn't read comments my apologies if this was asked/already answered).

I went over budget on both video and photo, but that was partly due to my lack of knowledge about what everything costs. I decided to diy a lot of my decor if it would cost less...and hunted for sales to help offset some of the costs

We've decided to only have professional photography/videography for the ceremony. for the reception, the photographer will be there for the first hour. After that, we hired a student photographer.

Too much depends on your event, size of the area and guest count, etc. AND most importantly how your photographer works. I've seen videographers work both ways, but I'm no expert at that. I seldom use a second shooter, but always go assisted. You're better off finding out how your photographer works best, and get their recommendation rather than asking a bunch of people on the web. My honest 2 cents

I have 2 photographer because i have one for him and one for me. Its for the morning when we both get ready for the day. Different pictures from different angles from the two photographer. I also have 2 videographers because we the bride is walking down the aisle the guest stands up, so the one videographer has to tell the ppl to move out the way vs if u have 2 the other one has an better angle of the wedding. I also have the drone too