(Closed) 1 vs. 2 Photographers

posted 8 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
5978 posts
Bee Keeper

Personal experience, I’m so glad I had two. The second got so many additional pictures that the primary photographer just wouldn’t have been able to get. No one can be 2 places at once, and it was just great to have two of them. I loved the side shots of the formals that he took, and of course the back shots of my gown as I was walking into the church while the primary got the full frontal pictures. I’m all for 2 photographers and wouldn’t have done anything differently.

Post # 4
Member
11327 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2011

If budget is no obstacle– go ahead and have 2! You’ll get more pictures total and will get some shots you’d otherwise miss. 

However if you do have a budget– I’d go ahead and get the best ONE photographer that you can afford. I’m a quality over quantity person. Any good photographer will get the important stuff without a second shooter, and who really needs 4,000 pictures of their wedding day? I’d rather have 700 great photos than 2000 good ones. 

Post # 5
Member
7 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: May 2011

I’m anxious to see some more posts on here.  I’ve hired two and I’m hoping that neither one gets upset with the other, or crowded for shots, etc.

Post # 6
Member
529 posts
Busy bee

I have two hired, for the reasons others have listed above, but they were from the same company. Did you ask them if they knew each other or had worked together before? One way to reduce issues might be to give them different shot lists or hold a pre-meeting together.

Also, don’t forget to feed them! I totally blanked on feeding vendors in my count until someone on the boards reminded me!

Post # 7
Member
222 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

We negotiated with our wonderful photographer so that we could have two.  She’s going to hire a second shooter locally (that she knows & trusts) to shoot 3-4 hours of our day.  This will allow her to pull out some fun cameras (like her Holga/medium format cameras), and get shots she couldn’t otherwise get.  I’d recommend that route, if you have any extra budget for it.  Getting a second shooter for just a few hours only cost us like $400 (or something), but I think it will be well worth it.

Post # 8
Member
3564 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: August 2010

We’re having a second photog, and I think if it’s in your budget, then it certainly couldn’t hurt! It also depends how many guests you’re having. We originally only planned on having 120 people, but now it looks like we’re having around 180, so a second shooter would be useful.

Post # 9
Member
2781 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: July 2010

It was amazing having more than one photographer (we had 3 – all friendors). It also meant that we weren’t always waiting around for someone to find the one and only photographer at the reception as there was always someone nearby. Also the photographers felt a lot more comfortable knowing that if one person forgot to stage a particular photo then another one would, etc etc. 

Post # 10
Member
384 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: May 2011

We’ve hired a husband and wife team.  From day one, having two photographers was really important to me.  It was probably the 1st or 2nd question I asked all the photographers that I interviewed.  We ended up lucking into our photogs.  I won $50 off an engagement shoot with her.  Had it not been for that I probably would have ended up with someone way more expensive so that I could get my two photogs.

Since FI and I are both getting ready at the ceremony venue at the same time it was important to me to have some one that could capture both of us getting ready in real time.

Post # 11
Member
204 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: July 2010

Our photographer insisted on hiring him and his assitant, no questions! The reason why is because there is just so much going on during the day, thats its hard for one person to be everywhere at once. Plus, the 2 photographers are going to have different perspectives and as the end result, you will have a nice mix of lots of different types of shots.

Post # 12
Member
4123 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: October 2010

For opinions on how it works with one, see this thread

How to work with only ONE photographer???

Honestly, there are advantages, but they aren’t earth shattering or even that much different. One capable photographer can be just as good as two. I shoot alone 99% of the time and still get the bride walking down the aisle and the look on the grooms face! I hired a single photographer as well for my own wedding.

The rise of the 2 photog popularity is recent. Often times, the 2nd shooter isn’t even a qualified photographer. It is important to note that just because you have two shooters, you may not have two PROFESSIONAL quality shooters. It’s important to find out what kind of 2nds your photographer has. Are they professional? Are they consistent? i.e. is it the same person or just a random whoever they use at the moment. Can you see THEIR portfolio and images?

If your venue is spread out (i.e. more than one room) or you have a confirmed count over 225 it can be valuable. If you have under 150 2 people during the reception is way overkill. If you have under 100 there is absolutely no reason one photographer shouldn’t be able to handle it. 

Post # 13
Member
1585 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

We have 2 and I am so happy.  We even had 2 photographers for our engagement shoot which I am so happy about.

Post # 14
Member
7 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: November 2011

Personally, I hired a husband/wife team for my November 2011 wedding. It was the first thing I booked and insisted on finding a team who worked together all the time. I think a husband/wife team is ideal because the chemistry is undoubtedly there, and since they married each other they know the dynamics of each side (bride/groom) of the wedding and can work together that way. Another important thing, while not as relevant to the 1 vs. 2 photographer issue, is that we were very comfortable with both of them and it almost feels just like having another couple at our wedding.

 

Back to the 2 photographer argument – I am a photographer, and work exclusively with another professional photographer…neither one of us being the “primary” shooter.

 

Why do I need two photographers?

 Simply, it allows for more coverage of a wedding. The main focus for a single photographer is the couple and almost solely the couple. With a second photographer you get reaction shots from parents, friends, and family. Who doesn’t love remembering a father or mother crying over a first dance? In addition to two different vantage points, with us being two primary photographers, you get two distinct styles of photography that complement each other.

Also, having two photographers is like an insurance policy. Though uncommon, if for some reason there is equipment failure, someone gets in the way of an important shot, or any number of “hazards” that can occur at an event, there is another person to capture that moment.

Post # 15
Member
10367 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2010

@clearview: Hired one photographer who is bringing a second shooter with them, or hired a totally spearate second photographer yourself? If the latter, you could have BIG issues. It is actually in my photographer’s contract that you aren’t allowed to do that – they would both be thinking they were the primary photog, and would definitely have some not-so-happy feelings about the situation.

Post # 16
Member
7 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: November 2011

@crayfish: Yes, definitely. Most, if not all photographers have an exclusive clause in the contracts. That’s a major no no. Even if the contract doesn’t state that, it’s just awkward and a disaster waiting to happen.

The topic ‘1 vs. 2 Photographers’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors