2 Hour Photographer

I would rather have the photographer for 4 hours and a videographer for 2. The videographer really just needs to get the ceremony and the first dance, cake cutting, etc; while the photographer can get the cute getting ready pictures and party shots. It's up to you though. If you'd rather have video than pictures, then go with it.

It is OK, sure, but think about your priorities. Personally, I'd be more likely to look at pictures than a video. I'd do way more photography and maybe just video the ceremony.. A reception video could get pretty bland. What photos are important to you? Are you OK with not having any getting ready photos, or party photos? 2 hours will cover ceremony, cocktail hour, and maybe first dances depending on your timeline. For me, that wouldn't be enough.

I agree with the girls! Photos are more fun; video would be great for the ceremony itself. But I'm having eight hours of photography coverage and no videographer so what do I know.

I agree, I think you should have photographer for 4 hours and videographer for 2

I think you'll end up regretting not having a photographer for longer than that. You'll pull out the wedding video every once in a while but probably print and frame pictures to hang that you will walk by everyday. If you do two hours, you will miss all the photos of you getting ready, and all the fun afterwards.

Uhhh...you can do whatever you want, but personally I would cut the videographer all together in order to have a photog for longer.

Viewing devices change (anyone remember VHS?) you'll receive a disc with your wedding video and play it once when you get it and to show others, but after that maybe once a year? And eventually you'll have to remember to switch the format of the disc to be compatible to whatever device is being used 5, 10, 15 years from now. But photos will last forever if you take care of them.

My parent's wedding video is still on VHS...they never watched it and my mom always kept saying she was going to have it transferred to DVD. She never did, its in a box in her basement.

I don't think 2 hours is long enough for a photographer but I had mine for just over 12 hours so ... Haha

I think that the pictures would be more useful/nicer to have than the videographer but that's my opinion. I feel that I will very pictures printed and hung on the wall vs the video being watched 1x a year

I have my photographer for 4 hours and it should cover enough of what I need.

I agree with the majority, photographer for 4, videographer for 2!

I agree with the rest of the ladies here. I have my photog for about 12 hours, and my videog will be just doing the ceremony and the traditional things like first dance, speeches, etc.

Thanks for your advice!! I will do 4 hours photography.

More photos. Totally.

I dont think the DVD is going anywhere anytime soon.

Take it from someone w/ 2 weddings under my belt.... the photos are worth more than the video. If u want to save $, Look into cutting the video or other things. Trust me, you'll want the time with the photographer.

More photos please

Most photographers & videographers can book the full day on Valentine's Day and may not be willing to work your wedding for only 2 or 4 hours.