Is it worth having a photographer?

In all honesty, I have only ever heard people regretting not having photography or not having had a "better" photographer than a relation who offered to "do the photos". It is one of the key seminal days in your life. If you can afford something, I believe that you would come to regret it if you didn't......

Peter

I agree with Peter - if you can fit it in your budget then go for it. Based on what I've seen at other weddings (including mine), photos taken by guests can be a nice addition, but I would never rely on them on their own.

I am deffo going to have one now, I think I just needed to hear that it wouldn't be daft to have one for such a short amount of time. Thank you both for your replies.

It depends on who you are as a person and what your perception of a photographer is.

Most couples would like a ledger of the day and this can take many forms. I've had weddings where I've been asked to shoot everything as it happened and unstaged and others where there were lots of formals and staged stuff.

It's not unusual to question if one is necessary but they tend to be the best value for money as it's one of the few things you'll have remaining after the wedding other than memories and each other.

I think 2-3 hours is probably the minimum you'd get one for. If it's on a weekday then it will be easier to get a professional photographer - on weekends we are often booked for full day weddings.

There's no harm in asking! I did a few short coverage ones this year, they were usually on days after I'd done a full coverage wedding. I'm not keen on doing two x 12 hour weddings back to back as they are so tiring! So if I have a 12 hour booking and an enquiry comes in for 2-5 hours the next day I will often take it.