Photos Between Wedding and Reception

I’m settling into the business of planning this wedding and something has come up which I’d like your take on. I’m aware that a lot of couples go somewhere and have photos taken between the wedding and the reception. When my brother did this, it meant the reception started about 3 hours after the wedding, if I recall.

What do you think about this? I’m afraid I find it appalling myself. To me, the reception is about the comfort and entertainment of my guests. Making people who are coming in from out of town cool their heels for an hour or two isn’t something I want to do. Yes, I know it’s a once in a lifetime experience and I’ll want photos. On the other hand, I’d just as soon have photos with some aunts and uncles who are coming in from England as I would of the bridal party. My fiance isn’t that thrilled about the idea, either, but he tells me it is customary to go somewhere and have photos taken, if only at the photographer’s studio. For what it’s worth, the church we’ll be getting married at is quite photogenic, even though we chose it because it’s the church I go to.

Some brides have this thing about the groom not seeing them in the dress before they’re married. I’ve even heard of some photographers who refuse to take photos of the bride and groom together before the wedding!

Personally, I think it’s outrageously rude to leave your guests for long periods of time like that. When my husband and I were married, we had the photos in the church before the ceremony, with a buffer period between the end of the photos and before the ceremony so that guests wouldn’t walk into the church in the middle of the photos, then perhaps a half hour or so of photos at the reception site before actually entering the reception. It’s worth noting that both the church and the reception site were quite lovely. IMO, if you have a nice-looking church, you’ll have some pretty photos and I don’t think you’d feel like you had to seek out a specific photo site elsewhere.

We planned it this way after way too many weddings from relatives or friends where the bored guests ate everything they were provided with, hit the bar too often, etc. At one summer wedding, we were stuffed into a hot church basement with a few fans to move the humid air around for the few hours it took for the wedding party photos.

We had our photos taken before the wedding, in terms of arty bride-and-groom style photos. Then we had family photos straight after the ceremony. It worked well for us, but then we aren’t traditional types so the whole ‘seeing the bride before the wedding’ thing didn’t bother us.

ETA: Ironically, our favourite bride-and-groom photo was actually taken during family photos. :stuck_out_tongue:

After my wedding, we had the typical groom and bride / family pics after the ceremony, and then hopped into the limo and went to the reception. If you want set-up pics like that in the church, there really is no other time to do so.

As a photographer, I can’t imagine if the bride and groom wanted these shots, when else we would fit them in – before the ceremony I’m too busy taking pics of the groom sweating. I would have already spent that morning taking pics of the bride getting ready as well. So if the lovely couple wants these type of pics, as long as its not a two hour photo shoot, I say, fine. A half hour between the wedding and the reception is no big deal. People come into the reception hall, get situated, have a drink, and they the bride and groom show up.

So, my advice is do whatever makes you happy. If you want the pics, take them. If you don’t, then don’t. Your wedding invitiation will give folks the itinerary so they can plan accordingly. If it says reception immediately following, well, don’t then plan to do after wedding pics at the church (or wherever you get married).

my .02

We did our photos immediately after the ceremony. It was on the same property and everything was outdoors, so yes, for about 15 minutes we did photographs about 20 yards away from the reception tent. I really don’t see anything wrong with it, especially if you provide well for your guests during that down-time. We had all sorts of food and everybody was loving it – most of the guests came out and took photos themselves.

But I guess, if you’re doing something big and formal inside a church or something, I could see how you wouldn’t want to go there. 3 hours is really excessive for a wait time. I went to a wedding last year where immediately after the ceremony there was a 3 hour cocktail while the wedding party did photos… and nowhere to sit down. I had a good time, but that was kind of annoying.

I guess it’s best to keep in mind that most guests are going to be hungry following the ceremony. If you have some way to feed them, keep them entertained during the pictures, it’s really okay. People expect it. Because if you can’t do it before the ceremony, when else are you going to be able to do it?

Edit: Oh, I just remembered what we did. We got the majority of wedding party photographs before the ceremony, so afterwards we only had to get the pics of me and my husband together with the wedding party. That significantly reduced photograph time after the ceremony, but we still got to keep the ‘‘groom doesn’t see the bride’’ tradition.

We did ours immediately after but the photographer went to business and it only took maybe half an hour. If you can’t do it quickly, then do them before the ceremony. I’ve been at weddings where the wait was significant and it makes me want to downsize the gift.

We had oue photos taken before the wedding, because we could get on the carousel (a 1910 antique) before it opened to the public that way.
Our reception was held in the same place as the reception, and followed directly afterwards. I’ve been to weddings where the reception was hours after the wedding, and miles away. Clearly many people don’t share the OP’s opinion that the reception is all about the comfort and convenience of the guests. In one case, all the people on one side had to be bussed in from out of state. They were provided with rooms to freshen up between wedding and reception. Clearly the bride and groom were concerned about the comfort and well-beimng of the guests, but that still didn’t mean they had the reception right after the wedding.

I’ve never heard of going to a third location for photos. That seems very inconsiderate.

I didn’t want my husband to see me in my dress prior to the wedding (a little silly, I know), so as others have, we took pictures after the ceremony. Our wedding and reception sites were in the same place, though, and the caterers were excellent about passing around hors d’oeuvres and drinks very soon after the ceremony, so I don’t think any of the guests were too bothered. We also had a very small wedding party, so we were able to get the pictures done quickly.

It’s the travel to a second site that really slows things up.

I think if you shoot before the ceremony, you run the risk of the bride and groom being nervous, and then not looking very good in the photos.

I would do whatever you feel is the best option for you, and then make arrangements for the comfort of your guests. You don’t necessarily have to do the photos after simply because it is traditional, but perhaps there are other factors.

I have been in wedding parties that worked well for all involved, including:

  1. photos before the wedding - very nice and it didn’t impact the guests at all
  2. photos taken after the wedding at the church itself - fairly minimal in terms of time impact to the guests, who went directly to the reception. The wedding party arrived at the reception very shortly after.
  3. photos taken after the wedding at a nearby botanic garden - this was very important to the bride and groom (coincidentally, both sets of parents had had their wedding photos taken at the botanic garden), and it turned out the garden had very specific hours when it was available for photography. The reception then had a delayed start, two hours after the ceremony ended. The bride and groom rented a bus that took the wedding guests to a local tourist attraction, and provided soft drinks and light snacks. This was, of course, optional. This was especially appreciated by the out-of-town guests.

The absolute worst was a wedding party (not mine, thankfully!) that had pictures after the ceremony. Unfortunately, some unexpected delays caused the photographs to take even longer than planned. When guests arrived at the reception, no food or drink was served until the bride and groom showed up. I would say this is the standard of what not to do!

If you’re going to have a delay and guests will be left to their own devices for any length of time, feed them. Most people can put up with quite a bit if they’re given a little bit of food and a vodka tonic to ease the pain.

For my brother’s wedding, the wedding party and select family members did go to a nearby park for pictures between the wedding and the reception. There were 2 other bridal parties there while we were there–I can only guess at their timing. Because it was a popular location, we didn’t linger–and we’ve got some nifty pictures of the wedding party on a bridge with a reflecting pond–the bridesmaids couldn’t be more identical if we’d tried, but the groomsmen are all over the place. (Note: bridesmaids ranged from 5’3" to 5’5", groomsmen from 5’2" to 6’6")

My college roommate’s wedding did not feature such a third location, but did feature hors d’ourves for the guests, and not the members of the wedding party–because we needed to be “announced”–and thus had to wait in a back room.

If I’ve ever attended a wedding as a guest with 3rd location photos between the Wedding and the Reception, I don’t know it. But while I don’t think some lag time for photos is unreasonable, three hours seems excessive. And if you think the church you will be married at is photogenic and significant (I can’t think of a better reason to pick a church to be married in than “It’s the one I generally attend”), I’d vote for pictures there.

Incidently, for my brother’s wedding, the groom’s family was all from out of state. So my parents rented a cottage with space for 5 people to sleep (groom’s mom and dad, groom’s mom’s brother, groom’s mom’s mother, groom) and several motel rooms across the parking lot–(rest of groom’s family). This made it convenient for family pictures of the groom and his family before the wedding–especially a fun picture with Mom and I (and her sister–hiding) and all the groomsmen–who had been invited for a pre-wedding brunch, so that Mom would know that the groomsmen were all present and accounted for.

Note (pointing out the obvious)–average age of groomsmen~21. The rules of Mother of the Groom behaviour towards groomsmen who are a trifle older than that are probably different.

My sister and brother-in-law did this before their reception but there was a one and a half hour shmooze and booze (cocktail hour) between the reception and ceremony, so they didn’t delay anything. Her wedding (the actual ceremony as well as the reception) was in a super-upscale hotel in Boston though and those fuckers come with their own MILF-y wedding planners who keep the train steaming and on track at all times (not kidding, they’re kind of scary).

However, she does regret it because it was incredibly hot that day and the photographer badgered them into going outside on the green for some pictures. My sister came back 10 minutes later dripping with sweat and her hair ruined looking like she wanted to kill someone. It was the only time she was upset the whole day even though the hairdresser accidentally burned her on her temples that morning with the curling iron so I’ll give her props for not losing it. My parents put her in the suite with a bottle of expensive champagne and the cocktail hour appetizers, I re-did her hair, helped her with her makeup and she came down happy as a clam and semi-tipsy afterwards.

For all that brouhaha they got 2 additional photographs with my sister looking like an angry cat.

So in my opinion, don’t do it unless you’re getting married somewhere without excessive humidity.

When my best friend got married a few years back, the 3-hour photo session was before the ceremony. Here’s one thing the photographer set up that makes photos before the wedding a good idea:

My friend and I (as I was the best man) had photos for the first 15 minutes. Then the bride came down to the photo area – with my friend looking away from the entrance. The photographer took pictures of my friend seeing his fiancee in her wedding gown for the very first time – a very touching moment that ought to be in every wedding album.

We had our photos taken between the wedding and reception at a third site. All the folks to be photographed were limoed to the site and then to the reception. The photo site was about 1 1/2 miles from the church and about 10 miles from the reception.

We directed our guests, not involved in the photos, to go directly to the reception where we’d arranged for the bar to be open and hors d’oevres to be served.

After completion of the photos, we headed to the reception. Those not part of the official wedding party joined the party upon our arrival. My bride, myself, bride’s maids and groom’s men cooled our heels in an adjacent room for about 15 minutes to let the others assimilate into the party and find their seats. Then the DJ announced our arrival and we made our entrances.

Seemed to work well. Of course my family’s Irish and there was an open bar…

Every single one of my friends did this, but it was done in a timely fashion. They arrived no later than 90 minutes after the ceremony ended. Of course, people went to the reception hall and had cocktails.

But people really won’t stand for waiting much longer than that. One of my cousins took FOUR HOURS between the ceremony and arriving at the reception. There was no alcohol available. The guests were ready to commit murder.

It’s not always photos which cause a gap between the ceremony and reception. Some churches, especially Catholic ones, will only allow ceremonies at certain times. I’m planning a wedding right now and the latest time my church would allow is 2:30. Since the ceremony will be over by 3:30 and we want a dinner reception with cocktails at 5pm, unfortunately this means there is a gap.

We are trying to think of somewhere to send our out of town guests, but we are on a tight budget.

I think there is a tendency among guests to think, “How rude!” when there’s a gap between things, but sometimes it can’t be avoided.

At my wedding, we did this: We had pictures taken after the ceremony at a Gilded Age mansion. People were welcome to come with us (we rented a trolley for the wedding). The rest of the guests proceded to the reception sight and has appetizers and an open bar. We only took about an hour. Of course, there was my husband’s aunt, who decided to take a tour of the mansion while we were there, and came half an hour later to the reception…Okaaay

I hate the big gap between ceremony and receptions - if you are from out of town - what do you do for those 3 hours? It seems odd…

[QUOTE=Ferret Herder]
Some brides have this thing about the groom not seeing them in the dress before they’re married. [ /QUOTE]

I suppose it depends on the circles you run in, but in my experience something like 80% of the brides I shoot for keep this tradition. Even a lot of “non-traditional” couples keep this tradition–for example, I had a rather punky couple a couple weeks ago–she wore pink Converse Chuck Taylors as her wedding shoes, he wore black Cons, but they didn’t see each other before the ceremony.

Anyhow, back to the OP. So, I am a wedding photographer for a living, and for me three hours is excessive. A typical wedding schedule usually looks like this for me: Ceremony @ 3 p.m. or 4 p.m., cocktail hour starts at 6:00 p.m. Given a full church service, that means we’re out of the church by about 4:30 or so. I spend a half-hour getting the main altar shots. (I don’t particularly care for these, but the parents and grandparents generally still want them). So I take care of the groups at the church. At 4:30 we might head out with the wedding party and bride and groom to another location, take a set of photos there, and be back at the cocktail, no later than 6:30 p.m., or a half-hour into the cocktail hour.

Schedules at weddings at, say, a country club are usually tighter, since they don’t require travel. A wedding like this may have the ceremony start at about 5:00. At 5:30 we finish, take pictures immediately after, and wrap up by 6:30 or posisbly 6:45.

So, for me, the ideal amount of times spent on group formals and portraits would be something in the 1 1/2 hour max range (30 minutes for groups, 15 minutes for wedding party, 30-45 minutes bride & groom). I’ve done them in as little as 45 minutes. I think three hours is excessive for the type of photography I do, plus I think during a wedding day that amount of photography becomes very tiring for the subjects.

My philosophy is that it’s a wedding day, not a day-long photo shoot. You want to get good pictures but not at the expense of the couple or guests’ fun. Just research your photographers to make sure they’re comfortable working with possibly a compressed timeframe. However, one hour for photos, once on location, is plenty.

above post would be me