Another first...

Regardless of what that particular couple did, that IS an exception to the "rule." Most weddings you will find that meals are provided. Sorry you had a lousy experience, they probably just didn't know any better. Occupational hazard...

mmahoney wrote in post #11032695
Most choose the meal but I can understand that in the more expensive reception venues where a plate is $100+ some couples may not think it's a great idea, and I'd agree.

you agree because you don't have the money. If you're spending $30,000 on food... what is $30,600?

sctbiggs wrote in post #11032813
you agree because you don't have the money. If you're spending $30,000 on food... what is $30,600?

i agree with you, if its that big of a wedding.
but if its 100+/plate for a smaller wedding, its a bigger deal. the proportions change.

plus, if you get thrown into the regular count the couple could get nailed for open bar, cake, etc.. for the hired hands
a good open bar can be as much per person as the $28 meal you bought your photographer..

RT McAllister wrote in post #11032284
What do you do at your day job when the boss who pays you refuses to buy your lunch?

My union sued and we got $100 per day we worked plus a $5,000 settlement per employee (of a 100+ employee company). Not feeding employees or allowing them to eat every 6 hours is highly illegal. And actually we were all given a one hour lunch break to leave and go eat but it was in the union contracts that the meal be served. They were not, so we got $$.

My contract says to provide full meals and break, or notify minimum 2 weeks prior so I/we may make arrangements. They never want you leaving for 30-45 minute break though, so in my 30 some odd weddings I have done I've never been skimped on food. Always a mother or two making sure we are eating food.

I don't typically drink much either, but on this occasion the father of the bride kept urging me to (they bought 8x the amount of champagne they needed) and it so happened I had 2 assistants as well, so one of them drove us home

sctbiggs wrote in post #11032782
Robert - As for a meal that exceeds 100 a person? A bride spending $100 or more per person for food for 300 plus guests probably isn't going to break the budget on 5 or 6 more plates for those all day vendors.

Indeed, I do expect and always have been fed regardless of the per plate cost. I was just addressing an earlier comment in the thread suggesting that providing meals simply wasn't expensive. It most certainly is and I'm sensitive to that which is why it's not an absolute contractual requirement. It is, however, an accepted courtesy that they should (and for me always do) offer regardless of cost.

That said, knowing that these meals often cost the couple north of $100pp, I wonder how many of us that require meals wouldn't rather take the $100 and pack a turkey sandwich.

I like the idea of stating that the couple either has a choice of giving us that thirty minute break or giving us a meal. I'm always so awkward when this question comes up.

i dont expect to be fed but i definitely eat when its offered.

btw, i had a wonderful filet mignon and crab cake at the wedding i covered this weekend!

Not a pro photog here, and never want to do a wedding. Ever.

Different point of view... I'm at the age where all my friends are getting married, so far at almost every wedding the photographers have been given assigned seats at the table with us - us being the single adults. There is enough space for them and the gear they need at hand. Meals and drinks are the same as ours. And being that they are in the room, if something photo-worthy happens, they are able to put down the fork, grab the camera, and get the shot. At the last wedding, the room was divided down the middle by an 'aisle' leading to the head table. We and the photographers were seated at the center table next to the aisle.

I can't say much for high end overpriced weddings, but around here everyone gets taken care of and always leaves with a full stomach. But it's a lifestyle here - feed everyone.

Jill-of-all-Trades wrote in post #11034123
Not a pro photog here, and never want to do a wedding. Ever.

Different point of view... I'm at the age where all my friends are getting married, so far at almost every wedding the photographers have been given assigned seats at the table with us - us being the single adults. There is enough space for them and the gear they need at hand. Meals and drinks are the same as ours. And being that they are in the room, if something photo-worthy happens, they are able to put down the fork, grab the camera, and get the shot. At the last wedding, the room was divided down the middle by an 'aisle' leading to the head table. We and the photographers were seated at the center table next to the aisle.

I can't say much for high end overpriced weddings, but around here everyone gets taken care of and always leaves with a full stomach. But it's a lifestyle here - feed everyone.

Customarily (or at least it's been my experience), the photographer and DJ get just the main course and that's served outside of the main space. I do dislike not having a view of what's going on, but the reality is, nothing is going on. They're all eating and the DJ is out with us.

isophotostudio wrote in post #11034059
I like the idea of stating that the couple either has a choice of giving us that thirty minute break or giving us a meal. I'm always so awkward when this question comes up.

I don't know if I agree with the concept of a 30 minute break whether they provide the meal or not. Even though I'm getting a meal and am probably eating it outside the main space, I know I need to and often do get up to grab a shot spontaneously. You're never off the clock, you're just trying to find some time to eat; time that will probably be interupted anyway.

I'm always either shooting with a second shooter, or have an assistant there that can grab the food for me, so I can eat it on site. Although as stated above, so long as you wait a few minutes for the first round of glass clinking to subside dinner is just a really long break anyway.

Really it's never been an issue, but I do notice that I'm noticeably more tired the next few days if I don't eat.

Peacefield wrote in post #11033978
Indeed, I do expect and always have been fed regardless of the per plate cost. I was just addressing an earlier comment in the thread suggesting that providing meals simply wasn't expensive. It most certainly is and I'm sensitive to that which is why it's not an absolute contractual requirement. It is, however, an accepted courtesy that they should (and for me always do) offer regardless of cost.

That said, knowing that these meals often cost the couple north of $100pp, I wonder how many of us that require meals wouldn't rather take the $100 and pack a turkey sandwich.

I love turkey! But I totally agree with you about not having it mandatory in the contract. I haven't had any issues so why create one?

This is a very interesting thread from my perspective hahaha.

Sometimes in my job I don't have the option of eating for much much longer periods of time than 6-12 hours. Sometimes 24 hours or more, or sometimes maybe 1 meal every 24 hours for 5-10 days in a row.


You really don't need to eat every day unless you have medical conditions, certainly not during a 6-12 hour session. However....

I would agree that it is rather rude to deny the people working at the wedding the same food as the guests. I can understand maybe a separate table off to the side or in the back, as the job of the vendors/workers is to remain unseen in the background. But to pawn off lesser foods as if the vendors are second rate citizens to the guests is somewhat rude.

NatDeroxL7 wrote in post #11035203
You really don't need to eat every day unless you have medical conditions, certainly not during a 6-12 hour session.

must have one of them medical conditions because if I am hungry I find it difficult to concentrate and get a headache.
I also get cranky.