Post # 1
I wanted to see if any of you out there had a second shooter as part of your photo package? Was it worth it? Did one photographer work out just dandy for your wedding? Do you wish you would have had a second shooter? We’re thinking about adding one on to our package and just don’t know what hours it would be best to have them around. Thanks for your help and any suggestions!
Post # 3
My friends had a second shooter at their wedding last year and they totally felt it was worth it. While photog #1 was taking the BP formal pics, photog #2 was ALL over the place. She was amazing. She was in with the guests getting cocktail-hour pics, as well as out in the BP area getting more candid pics of us while we were doing the formals. They had both photogs there all night as part of their package and their wedding pics are awesome.
Post # 4
We had a second shooter so that they could be in two places at once. The guy photog took photos of the guys getting ready and the woman took photos of the girls getting ready. It was fun to see each other’s "getting ready" shots when we got the photos back.
Post # 5
- Wedding: June 2010 - Tannery Pond at the Darrow School
FH’s cousin runs a wedding and portrait photography business in Miami and that was her first and only piece of advice: Get a second shooter. I actually JUST emailed our photog today to see how much adding one is going to be…I think it’s worth it!
Post # 6
- Wedding: March 2010 - Calamigos Ranch
If you can afford it, I think it’s always worth it.
Post # 7
2nd shooters are helpful in getting different angles and capturing other parts where the main cannot be as well.
Ask your main photog if he has a 2nd she/he would want to bring along. It would be kinda weird to bring a 2nd that the main doesn’t know.
Post # 8
Our photographer has a 2nd shooter. I feel it is worth it, but after my wedding I’ll let you know. I know that getting all angles was really important. I might even bring in a portrait photographer to take formal shots – since I’m not doing them with family after ceremony at church.
Post # 9
2nd photographer is money well spent. Although an experienced professional can cover an event alone, it is always nice to have help. Do not expect your 2nd to be a master photographer though, that will cost A LOT more that you are going to want to spend. However, make sure the 2nd is not just the spouse or a friend of the photographer, it needs to be someone who has experience with working weddings.
Post # 10
Our package came with a second shooter, the wife of our main photographer. I really appreciate that we have more than one perspective on almost all of our photos and a bunch of detail shots we probably wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. Plus, we were able to get a lot of the formal pictures out of the way before the ceremony without seeing each other: my husband and his family took pictures on one side of the church while I took pictures on the other side of the church with my family; then we switched families. That saved us a bunch of time after the ceremony!
Post # 11
- Wedding: March 2009 - Byodo-In Temple, Luau Reception
I’ve actually shoot a few weddings and it is wonderous having a second shooter because as you know, 1 photographer can’t be everywhere.
If you only have the second photographer for a few hours it’s best to utilize them during the ceremony (that way you have lots of different angles) and during your portraits (one photographer shooting the portraits, one at the reception site getting all the details and guests, if there is a cocktail hour). Maybe even when you and the groom are getting ready, that way one photographer is with you and one with the guys.
Only 1 photographer is needed for the actual reception.
Post # 12
I think at LEAST for the ceremony you need one. I had a horrible experience (well felt horrible for the bride!) at a wedding recently. Their one photographer was literally RUNNING up and down the aisle as people processed and would just sort of LIFT his camera up and take a picture from a tall angle as he ran. I don’t know how they could have ever turned out nice. Also, it was a major distraction. And- there were a ton of moments he missed! I was mortified for them, really. Just for the ceremony alone it is worth the $$ so they don’t miss an important moment.
My photog automatcially comes with at least one other photog.
Post # 13
We’re having a second shooter at our wedding and I agree — if you can afford, I think that’s always the better way to go. As mentioned before, they can be in two places at once and I’ve seen several pictures where the shooters had two different angles and one picture definitely came out looking better.
Post # 14
We’re also having a second shooter and I think it will be worth it. I went to a wedding recently where the photographer stayed on one side of the church… that’s it! i was like, you’re missing some angles–it was a baptist church and everyone was sitting down the other side by the second aisle, while she was near the first. It was kind of sad for them!
Post # 15
My sister had two for her wedding last summer and it worked out amazingly well. The duo was a husband and wife team and they ran around the forest/park area with little walkies to make sure my sister and her FI didn’t see one another. Cut down on photo time too. It was cool to see the getting ready shots the husband got while the wife part of the team was with us. My FI and I are actually using the same photographers and can’t wait 🙂
If you can afford it definitely get it IMHO.
Post # 16
we also have 2 shooters at every wedding, no exception. it just gives you much more versatility and flexibility, as well as variety and coverage. Also, we use off-camera flash, so having a human lightstand is very good!