Separate photographer or not?

No 36 will not be enough but they may be operating a business model where they "up sell" extra photos to you which may end up costing the same as the other.

300 sounds a lot but consider that there could be 2 or 3 of each separate shot when it come to detail shots, shots of dress hanging up shots of the ceremony area, candid walking down the isle shots. then when it comes to just the two of you in some stunning scenery they will be wanting to get various angles, some closer some wide some posed some natural. Best to have too many than not enough to give you a good selection to choose your favourites.

I would pay for the separate photographer. Apart from your wedding rings, the photos are the only lasting things you have from your wedding, so it makes no sense to skimp on them, especially if that is going to be the only way that your family and friends get to experience your wedding.

This is why most couples who get married hire a destination wedding photographer, although considerably more expensive, we've seen the photographic quality of some of the 'venue photographers' who are usually friends of the family, or in one case, the bar staff! 36 is not enough photographs in the least. I would hire the other photographer depending on the quality of their work or look to seek a destination photographer from the UK. Reminds me of a time when I photographed a wedding in Bali alongside the 'hotel photographer' who then was also serving canapés when the camera was put down.

View quoted message They had a larger package with more photos and to be there for longer but after requesting to see a portfolio of the hotels photographer we didnt like the style it quite brochure like so will definitely be hiring our own, like you say a bit more expensive but will be worth it in getting what we want and good takeaway from the day. That's funny to be serving canapes when you'd expect them to just be a photographer! Thanks for sharing your experience