Question about wedding pictures

I think it's personal preference, but I would want more. Even if she's only there for 4 hours, that's only 50 photos an hour.

Daughter had about 100 guests (personally, I'm not really sure guest list is a big factor in decisions about photography coverage). She had her photographer and a second shooter for about 11 hours (getting ready till the end of the night). Personally, no matter how small the guest list, I think the big advantage to two shooters is that they can cover more and can cover the same events from different angles (e.g., both of your faces during first look, as you enter the ceremony space, during vows, etc.), so if that's a possibility, I'd definitely consider it. Daughter received over 1100 fully edited photos from the day. Was that WAAAAYYYY more than enough? Absolutely! But, I'd be concerned that 200 may not be enough. When daughter went through all 1100 to make her selections for their album, she REALLY struggled to get it down to about 180. I'd be concerned that if you only get 200, what happens if there are events that were really important to you that you don't get? I'd also check to see if you'll be charged individually for any additional photos. You don't want to have to pay by the picture for download/print rights -- that gets expensive really fast. Good luck!

Great advice and insight. I agree.

In the end, 200 photos is a lot in terms of photos that come out the way you like. in other words, if they took 1000 shots, of those 1000 shots probably only a fraction of them are ones you'd make into an album or so, if you get what i mean. so 200 photos would mean that a smaller portion of them would be photos you love most unless all 200 happen to be really amazing. normally photographers take a ton just to ensure they get the right photos in the bunch

Our photographer shoots an average of **** photos per wedding and we get to choose 100 of those included in the cost. Is that what she means by 100 photos?