Post # 1
Fi and I have been meeting with photographers and have two we really like (A & B). Both are personable, have shot at our venue numerous times and we feel really at ease with them. So it’s basically down to the package options and costs.
A we would have to add to her basic package (hours the day of and engagement shot)but has 3 photographers the day of as a standard feature. B has everything we want but has 2 photographers the day of.
What do you bees think? Would two photographers be enough for the wedding or should we look at having three?
Post # 3
I would go with option B. I think two photographers is enough.
Post # 4
Two photogs will be fine. Three seems like too many.
Post # 5
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
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
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
- Wedding: July 2012 - Baltimore Museum of Industry
Two should be sufficient.
Post # 9
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.