Post # 1
My FI and I are looking for a photographer for our wedding and we’re weighing the pros and cons of having one vs two photographers. We are planning to use a personal friend who is an armature but her work is everything we are looking for. We are trying to stay around $1000 total which seems possible if we use amatures.
Without too much emphasis on price, I’d like to hear your experiences… From Bees that have used just one: did you get all the angles you wanted? All the scenes? For those that used two: did the photographers get in the way of each other?
I should mention that this is a smaller wedding (about 70 guests) and we will be doing a first look.
Post # 3
@pinkrose23: We had the same talk before our wedding – but we ended up choosing one really really good photographer. I am a photographer myself so I was really picky. I would rather have one great photographer than two amateurs – you could get lucky and get some good people but there is so much that goes into good photography, I just wouldn’t risk it. If you get one photographer just make sure they know what they are doing and how to get multiple shots from different viewpoints. I was told by many photogs I talked with that since our wedding is going to be small (65) two photogs would be overkill. I obviously haven’t had my wedding yet but I would really advise getting one person who knows what he/she is doing rather than two amateurs!
Post # 4
I would also make sure your friend has done weddings – they’re a whole different ballpark
Post # 5
@pinkrose23: I used two photographers but they were both really good and had slightly different styles (they were also married). If the photographers weren’t used to working together then I would worry about shots being disrupted and not getting the best quality due to their comfort levels being thrown off
Post # 6
I used one photographer…with a second shooter. You can find one of those if you want a professional. But I didn’t go out and hire two separate people.
You’re fine with one photographer, I’d rather put more $ towards one than have 2 that aren’t as good.
Post # 7
I used just one and have no complaints. We staggered girls and guys getting ready, and otherwise everything went well. I asked my photog about it, and he said he shoots by himself because then he is SURE to get all the photos he wants to capture vs. thinking someone else captured it. He also gave us something like 8,000 photos, though, so we got plenty of what we wanted. He also didn’t take a break for food or anything (though we repeatedly offered).
Post # 8
We had a senior photographer and a photojournalist. The senior photographer managed the posing and positioning while the photojournalist took candids all day. They worked well together, and I liked getting the different angles and feels.
However, it’s not a necessity at all. Like @Jess1483: said, one photographer can definitely do the job! 🙂
Post # 9
We are using one photographer. I even talked to her about this asking her advice on it because she offers a package featuring two photographers. She advised we only go with one.
We are having a very intimate wedding of 8 (including us), if you count the vendors then 12 in total at our wedding. So, it’s not like she’s going to miss anything.
The only reason I entertained the idea of two photographers was for the ‘getting ready’ shots. My fiance and I will be in seperate areas for this, so I thought it might be interesting to see how that looks.
I do think if you hire two photographers it would be best to get them from the same company.
Post # 10
@pinkrose23: We’re having two photographers…when my FI and I talked about it and I was trying to explain to him why I basically broke it down like this: If you and I both take pictures of the same subject, each picture will turn out completely different because each person is shooting from a different point on view. Having two photographers (not a main photographer and an assistant…but two actual photographers…sorry but I ran into a lot of people trying to convince me that their assistant is the same as a second photographer. As someone that works with lots of photographers..its not) is good because you will get different perspectives on the same shot…and you never know which one you will be in love with more…or which moment one photographer might not catch that the other did.
Post # 11
- Wedding: April 2013 - Rhode Island
I would only use a professional photographer for something as important as a wedding. Friends and business just don’t mix. I’ve heard way more horror stories on this subject than happy ones.
We had 2 photographers and since they were professionals, they knew how to stay out of each other’s way. I absolutely recommend two! Some angles didn’t work out as well as others and the lighting would be completely different sometimes too. I wouldn’t have been happy with only one. Our wedding was 48 people total.
Post # 12
Our max guest list is 80 people and we’re using one photographer. Every single photographer I interviewed said that one would be fine for an 80 person event. Every single one. Our photographer showed us full wedding shoots where she was the only one there, and they looked just as nice and comprehensive as her shoots with multiple photographers. All of the essential shots were there and it didn’t feel like she missed anything important.
Post # 13
We’re using two. Our main photographer and a “second shooter” who is also a professional photographer, they often work together. I wanted it this way for the getting ready photos, and also to have multiple perspectives of the actual ceremony/walk down the aisle. That’s one part of the day where there are no do-overs.
Post # 14
@pinkrose23: I’ve posted many times about this 1 vs. 2 photographers thing. With your budget in mind, I would reeeeally recommend getting the best single photographer you can get vs. just hiring a pair for $1,000 because there are two of them. Two photographers charging that low means neither of them are very experienced, likely aren’t insured/don’t have professional equipment/backup equipment, aren’t paying taxes, etc. $1,000 for a single photographer still likely means they are very very new to photography, but I would hope you’d end up with a better end result than basically two $500 photographers.
For what it’s worth, I shoot 30-40 weddings a year and maybe only have a second shooter at 5% of those weddings. It’s completely possible to have great coverage with one shooter so it always makes me laugh when I see people saying that it just can’t be done without two. The photography team thing is a product of the recession – before that it was almost all one-shooter coverage and somehow people still managed to get great photos from their wedding day. 🙂
Post # 15
Make sure your friend has done weddings before because they are a completely different skill level. I would personally go with two photographers because they can get many more of the shots and angles. Photos are one thing I wouldn’t skip on because they are going to be the things that everyone will look back on including you for your wedding day. I always tell people never skimp on the photos because I have seen and talked to people who have and they are regreting it because their photos were not what they wanted/expected to get.
Post # 16
- Wedding: August 2013 - Brookfield Zoo
I would say get two photographers, but not two different “companies”; get a photographer with a second shooter. The main photographer is there to catch all the big (and small) moments, and the second shooter should really be there to catch the stuff that you’re not seeing… like the groomsmen getting ready while the bridesmaids are getting ready, or the reactions of the guests and bridal party while the photographer is capturing you and your husband on the alter. At least, that is the way I see it. Most pro photogs will also have a clause in their contract stating they must be the sole photographer – I suspect this is so that they don’t have to deal with someone they are not used to getting in their way, or conflicting lights/flashes/etc.