I would still hire someone. I mean how are you really gonna take beautiful pictures at different angles of you and whoever you're marrying, if you are in the pic? It's not going to look right at all.

the photographer's job is to take the pictures, i don't think they even get a break to eat at the reception, let alone take vows at the alter. i would hire it done if i wanted pictures.

both

Depends on which wedding I'm thinking about:

At my first, we hired a professional.

At my second, I handed my camera to my nephew and he did the honors. (We were all barefoot on the beach)

At my third ... let's see ... I think I handed my little point&shoot to the Court Clerk who performed the 2 minute ceremony, and then we all went out to breakfast.

BTW, the bride for #2 and #3 ... same woman. I married her twice. We actually chose the same date (May 15) so that now we can celebrate both at once - most recently the 14th and 5th.

And even more strange perhaps ... bride #1 is always to one who calls to remind me that my anniversary(s) to #2/3 are coming up.

So you see... who take the pictures is probably the least of my worries.

Sorry. I'm getting weird. It's been a long day. Time for the old man to shuffle off to the kitchen and whip up some dinner.

EDIT: Next time I want to try it Mere Mortal's way. Head cam ... oooh, what fun!!

Hired one.

My brother-in-law snapped a total of four pictures with a 126 camera. One is OK, the other three have one problem or another. They were all taken on the courthouse steps with us squinting into the sun almost 34 years ago.

If the pictures are important to her, the bride should definitely hire a photographer.