Post # 1
I am in search of a photographer for my wedding and we aren’t on a super limited budget but I’ve got champagne taste so it makes it difficult. I’m wondering, for those whose photographer shot alone how did it go? Did you feel like he or she caught all of the important moments?
For the photographers out there, how do you feel shooting alone vs. with a second shooter. I’m surprised people even offer to do it alone anymore because a second shooter is becoming more and more standard but I feel like in some direction im sacrificing time or photos or albums or something if I choose to include one. Can you do just as good of a job without a second shooter?
Post # 3
We didn’t have a second shooter and we got all of the photos that I wanted (minus a few non-traditional ones that I forgot to tell *anyone* I wanted). That’s all on me.
I say if you communicate with them before hand about ‘must-have’ and ‘like-to-have’ shots, you’ll be just fine. A pro will know where to be, and if you’ve given them a run down of the day’s activites beforehand, they’ll be on their A game knowing what is coming next in the ceremony, reception, etc.
Post # 4
@MsBrooklynA: I am facing this with our photographer also…her husband is her second shooter, but he is in the military and may not be able to make it. I’m stressed about her doing it alone because we are in two seperate places entirely getting ready.
Post # 5
We only had one photog and she had amazing coverage. We literally got every single shot we wanted, bang on, and tons I never even thought to ask for. We were thrilled with our photos. I dont think a second shooter is necessary unless your ceremony has placement restrictions (many historical churches don’t allow the photog to move around during the ceremony, so it’s helpful to have two in different locations) or if you are having an exceptionally large wedding and want to make sure you have more coverage of guests during the reception.
Post # 6
We ended up picking almost all shots from the primary shooter anyway, so I don’t think it is a huge awful deal to not have two. Its a bigger deal if you are having a huge several hundred person wedding, but if you get a good photographer then they should get the important stuff.
Post # 7
we just met with our photographer who told us she likes to do smaller weddings by herslef. she was supposed to have a second shooter but she is not going to beable to make it. our photographer said that she mostly uses her own picutres anyway when it comes down to editing and selecting pictures b/c she feels like we are paying for her and she wants to use as many of her own pictures as possible, plus they are usually better. She will be doing our wedding alone, we love her and have a very small wedding party so its not a problem, we love her work!!!
Post # 8
We only had one photographer and I don’t think we missed out on anything. In fact, I was quite surprised to look at the pictures and see all of the things he caught that I had no idea was going on. He also was very good at getting individual shots of every guest. It was totally worth saving the money.
Post # 9
We had one shooter and one videographer who came with our photographer. He got all of our shots and I thought everything came out great. It didn’t even occur to me to have a second shooter actually.
Post # 10
We only had one ‘tog but he was fantastic and so far has managed to get shots we didn’t even know we wanted… if that makes sense. I’ve only seen 29 shots so far from our wedding on Saturday and he’s caught some amazing moments (like my husband bawling his eyes out as I walked towards him down the aisle).
Post # 11
This is the guy were looking at: http://www.drockphoto.com/
I’m just worried that all those special moments no one knows are happening will be missed. He does offer a photo booth and an album in his price without the second shooter and I think those might outweigh the additional coverage.
Post # 12
This is very comforting – we’re keeping our budget down by having only one photog, and I did have some lingering doubts. Now I feel really good about it. Thanks for the thread MsBrooklynA!
Post # 13
@ProfessorGirl: haha No problem! I definitely have had my reservations as well.
Post # 14
2nd shooters aren’t really a necessity. Sure, it’s a bit of a juggling act for a single photog to capture both you and your FI getting ready if you’re doing it at the same time (and okay, maybe impossible if for some reason you’re getting ready on the opposite sides of town or something), but seasoned photogs generally find a way. If you’re worried, then make your expectations explicit about what shots you absolutely want–including the “candids” like getting into your dress or something.
Some photogs work better by themselves, and that doesn’t mean they’re inferior quality. What WILL make the difference is the overall quality of your photographer–alone, or with assistants or a 2nd shooter–their experience (because if you’re having a formal nighttime wedding, then the photog better be good with low-light), and the match between your personalities. Trust me, when one of your BMs is handling your “back fat” as another laces your corset, you will not care about anything else but how your photog’s presence makes you feel!
Post # 15
I’m a photographer and a bride, so I’ll share both of my perspectives on this:
As a bride — I, too, have champagne taste, so I empathize with you! A second shooter would have added a fair amount to our photography cost, and I just didn’t feel it was worth it. The primary is going to cover all the important things anyway, I see the second as more of a bonus. My biggest factor in this decision was that I hired my photographer for her style — I know she would have picked a great second, but I’m picky!
As a photographer, I don’t offer second shooter coverage unless some asks (and then it’s a la carte.) I really don’t feel it’s necessary unless the couple is getting ready at two locations that are tough to travel between, in which case I’d recommend a second. I think I do this because I’m a bit of a control freak — I want to deliver the very best to my couples, and so the only seconds that I’d currently use are full time wedding photographers themselves, which means that they have their own bookings and are more expensive than most couples could probably afford.
Post # 16
It really depends on the coverage you want. My husband and I almost always shoot together, but we sell ourselves as sort of a his and her photographers. He focuses on the groom and his family and I focus on the Bride and hers. Our work is 90% candids so we would miss a huge chunk of the “story” if there was only one of us.
That said we do on occasion shoot alone and it can be done and done well with an established photographer. I have quite a few single photog friends who are well known and amazing photographers. They wouldn’t be in business if they weren’t making their clients happy.
There are for types of photographers out there: Two pros who always work together like husband + wife teams, singles, singles who always hire established pros, and singles who bring assistants or “husbands” with little experience in photography. they are mostly there to support the photographer, act as a back up for important moments and get an occasional different prospective.