Weddings aren't cheap, and with the cost of pretty much everything having increased over the last few years, it's completely understandable that couples are looking carefully at where they can save money. There are dozens of things to pay for, some of them considerably more exciting than others, and eventually most couples have to decide what's important to them and where they're prepared to compromise.

One of the questions I'm asked fairly regularly is how many hours of wedding photography somebody actually needs, and there isn't really a standard answer because there isn't such a thing as a standard wedding. A small afternoon ceremony at a registry office with twenty guests is completely different from a wedding where preparations start first thing in the morning and everybody is still on the dance floor late into the evening, so it doesn't make much sense to assume they both need exactly the same photography coverage.

Not every wedding needs a photographer there from breakfast until everybody is barefoot on the dance floor at midnight.

I probably shouldn't say that as somebody who makes his living photographing weddings, but it's true.

Some weddings are naturally shorter. Some couples aren't particularly interested in photographs of getting ready in the morning, while others are planning a later ceremony and want their photography to concentrate on the ceremony, their guests and the celebrations afterwards. Sometimes a couple simply wants a really good record of the most important few hours without booking somebody for the entire day.

One of the things I tell couples all the time is that your wedding isn't a photoshoot. You haven't invited all your favourite people, spent months planning everything and probably spent a frightening amount of money just so I can drag you around for three hours taking photographs. I want you to enjoy your wedding, enjoying it with everybody else, not spending half of it wondering when the photographer is finally going to leave you alone.