Photography Preference

I feel like neither of those options are very good. It is so weird to me that a photographer would only edit 10-20 pictures. My photographers gave us almost 1200 pictures, all edited. That may seem like a lot, but they really documented the day well! Depending on your budget, you can have both quality and quantity.

Need a lot more info.. what are the prices? What are the reviews like for each? Do they both have 2 shooters? What are their styles (photo journalistic, portrait, etc.)? No one can give you an informed answer off the limited info.

Prices of each?

I think I agree with @hearts.

10-20 edited photos is a REALLY small amount of finished photos.

And 300-400 isn't that great either.

We had over 1,000 edited photos.

I prefer #1. I'm not a very sentimental person (i.e. I don't spend time looking at old photos typically), and so I'd prefer to have 20 fantastic extremely well edited which I'll keep. The rest I'll never look at and will probably end up in a USB somewhere that I'll lose in a few years.

I think it really depends on which style of photography you like best assuming these two photographers have a different way of capturing and editing

I had over 600 photos edited so I think both are a little odd. Between the 2 I would rather have the second because 10-20 seems so small.

With the limited information I'd say #1, I'd rather have 10 perfect shots and access to the rest. I think both options are kind of restrictive though.

I would definitely prefer option 2. I'd want more edited photos than a ton of unedited ones and just a few edited ones.

The photographer we booked is a full day, unlimited locations, unlimited photographs edited and loaded on a USB, an online photo gallery, and a 16x24 canvas...all for $1500. He has been a professional photographer since 1975 and does a phenomenal job of capturing emotions and lighting.

Prices are comparable to each other. Each photographer for 8 hours with a second shooter for 4-5 hours (which they both said would add 100-200 additional photos).

Photographer #1 says on their website "edited high resolution images with digital/print release" but when I talked on the phone and asked her specifically about the ability to edit a photos if me or my groom end up with a big zit, she said that would take more work but she could do it for our top favorite photos. Should I expect that kind of editing no matter what?

Based on these 2 options I'd go with #2. I'd rather have more edited pictures rather than 10-20.

Photographer #1 doesn't sound like a great option. I think that all pro photos you receive should be at least lightly edited.

On #2, have you asked him if 400 is a strict limit or just an expectation of the number of photos? Depending on the length of your wedding, 400 photos can be a good number. Remember that quality is more important than quantity. Some photographers pride themselves on only delivering the best photos and making sure they are edited well. Ask #2 for more details about his approach before you rule him out.

My photography package was initially limited to 150 photos for 5 hours. When I asked the photographer about it, she agreed to give me all the photos (no limit) for a small fee ($100). She estimated we would receive about 300 photos (50-75 per hour).

First one sounds a bit like a 'spray and pray' style with that many images before culling and why so few edits, but look at the portfolios of both. I'd honestly, as a former portrait photographer, would go with the second one if their portfolio was consistently great work. I'm never going to look at 800+ photos more than once or twice ...

Of these two options I'd also go with #2. Editing makes such a difference.

Hi Ashley! I might talk to photographer #1 again about edited / unedited images. The specific zit example you gave sounds to me like they were saying that they can do additional photo-shop type editing after the fact on a few pictures on request. I'd clarify this with them!

You don't need someone who has to take 2500 photos to take maybe 500 good ones...or delivers dirty files. That's sloppy.

Also you don't need more than 400-500 photos. You do need someone who thinks about what they're doing and delivers the best,.,.not tells you how they do it in a way that is this ambiguous. If option 2 is a great photographer, you're none the poorer to have that many really good ones....if not, keep looking,

I would pick option 2. Let them go through the pictures where peoples eyes are shut or they are making funny faces. You will get all nicely edited photos.

Whose style do you like better? Go with them.

BTW, I think it a disservice to yourself to hire someone based solely on image count.

We got over 1200 edited photos. How much are the packages for each?