I am conficted between having a videographer or not for my wedding. A part of me really wants one because I think watching it later in life will be awesome. Pus FH and I will be so busy with the formalities of the wedding (ie greeting all the tables, taking pics, etc.) we might miss things going on that a cameraman might catch.
On the other hand. I feel like this might be a good place to cut some costs? I amhaving a big wedding and my parents are awesome and are helping ALOT I just don't want them to go broke for my wedding...
Any advice? Or can anyone recommend a reasonably priced one?
Celeste617
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
We're not doing a videographer. The only aspect of the wedding I'd like to see is the ceremony and I know that friends and family have plans to record that. Other than that, I don't see a need to pay for a video that I know we'll watch once and store it away somewhere. Obviously, this is just a personal choice.
Annoulak
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
I am personally in favor of a videographer. You may not watch it a lot in the beginning, but you will probably want to show your children their grandparents dancing and laughing.
I don't expect to watch it every week or every year for that matter, but then again I don't plan to wear my dress, headpiece or veil ever again. And DH will never wear his tux again because it was rented. In that sense, our day-of clothes were SUPER expensive because they will never be used again. But if we watch the video even 4 or 5 times in our lifeime, then it will be less expensive than what we wore for all of 12 hours on 1 day of our lives.
Just something to think about if you're looking at it from a monetary perspective.
Annoulak
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
Posted by leeserd
No one ever wants to watch them!
Actually, we have friends and relatives calling us to ask if our video is ready because they want to watch it. And a lot of our relatives who live overseas and couldn't make it to our wedding will be waiting anxiously to see the video this summer when we visit them. So, there ARE people who want to watch the wdding video, including the bride and groom in some cases.
MnM182008
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
We really wanted to hire video, however it was an extra for us. We tried to stay on our budget, so what we did was we purchased a good video camera, and we had a family member tape our wedding. We edited it on the computer, it looks amazing, looks pretty professional and it only cost us 600 bucks, for the camera.
GraceAndAdam
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
I would say definitely have a videographer. I loved watching my video and reliving the day and getting to a lot of parts of the day that I missed. I would recommend cutting costs elsewhere if you need to. I chose to give up big floral centerpieces because I figured the flowers would just die in a few days and get thrown out, but we'd have the video to cherish forever and to watch with our kids and grandkids someday.
T E R I
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
I couldn't imagine not booking one, I want to be able to watch it and see all the things that I missed the day of because I was too busy all caught up in what was going on.
lawoman11177
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
I was having the same conflict. i decided that I would probably regret not having the video after the wedding. I found a reasonbly priced videographer that had many options. I chose their basice package and it really wasnt as expensive as I thought. You just need to weigh in if you feel you will regret it or not. Fh didnt want it by the way!
jtgarsik
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
imo a videographer is not the place to save on money. Your video and photos are the only things you'll have to look back on...plus there are companies out there that do not charge an arm & a leg...u have a lot of time - so instead of asking your parents & feeling bad, why not book a reasonable one & gradually pay it off untill the wedding? Having one for us was not a question..but everyone is different! I say go for it
soontobecruz
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
Thanks all! That is the plan I am convinced 100 times over that we should have one. I appreciate all the responses!
Mrs. V 2008
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
personally..It was a must for us!!! The day goes to fast to really take everything in..trust me..you miss so many things! Plus you get moments captured in the video that you just can't get in the photos alone (i.e. the speeches, mess ups (lol) and my dh crying as I walked down the aisle). Its great to know I have a video I can watch whenver I want to really relive that day! I'm also excited to show my kids the video someday as well..
jtgarsik
Posted:
Member since
Re: to have a videographer or not??
Posted by soontobecruz
Thanks all! That is the plan I am convinced 100 times over that we should have one. I appreciate all the responses!
if u are convinced then u will absolutely regret not having one! don't leave it as an option..just go for it yaay! and GL!
btw - we used Patken for video..they had great prices..all different packages for all different budgets..definetly give them a try!
