(Closed) 2 or 3 photographers?

posted 6 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
2411 posts
Buzzing bee

I would go with option B. I think two photographers is enough.

Post # 4
Member
9549 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013

Two photogs will be fine. Three seems like too many.

Post # 5
Member
10366 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2010

I’ve never even heard of three photogs at a wedding. That sounds like chaos. We had one and got every single shot we wanted and then some….two will more than suffice.

Post # 6
Member
394 posts
Helper bee

Two should be more than enough unless you have like a 500+ guest list. If you are having a “normal” sized wedding, two should be able to cover things just fine.

Post # 7
Member
1314 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2006

We’ve shot with a third assistant photographer on a few larger weddings (generally above 300), and with the right person it’s fine.  Generally not necessary though, and I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s going to give you a big advantage if you are having a smaller wedding.

Post # 8
Member
4193 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: July 2012 - Baltimore Museum of Industry

Two should be sufficient. 

Post # 9
Member
216 posts
Helper bee

Two is plenty unless you’ve got a really large wedding ( 250 or more guests ). Even with that many … you’d probably be ok with two unless you wanted the extra coverage. 

The topic ‘2 or 3 photographers?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors