Post # 1
I’m just wondering how much I need to have 2 photographers for the big day. It’s an added expense, one I’m willing to pay if it will make a huge difference. But do I really need it? Did/are you having 2?
Guest list is 120, we expect about 75. Lots of shutterbugs on my side of the family with really good equipment.
Post # 3
I am having 2 because I always see 2 at weddings I have gone to. However, I think that with a smaller guest list you should be fine.
Post # 4
I said maybe because it depends on your schedule and what types of photos you want. I’m only having one photographer and am only picking poses or photo styles that can be done with one photographer (budget reasons). If your schedule is tight and you are doing separate bride and groom photos, you could save time and have them done by each photographer during the same time.
Post # 5
@MsGinkgo: I voted maybe because it depends on what you want. Your guest list isn’t too large (like mine – 200!) so I think one photographer can capture your guests but you have to decide if you want posed shots and candids, or if you would like maybe multiple angles of the same event – ie. I want pics of FI’s face when I’m walking down the aisle and of my dad and I walking down the aisle – so I NEED 2 photogs to capture the different shots of the same event (obviously 1 can’t do both at the same time).
For us, we got a deal and a 2nd photog was $250, which was well worth the expense in my opinion (but also we are going to have almost 200 people, so we felt a 2nd photog was necessary).
Post # 6
I have been wondering the same thing. From my (limited) understanding, this often allows one of them to focus on the up-close and/or more obvious shots while the other can be fluttering around taking more candid shots. I would consider how important the photography is to you. For me, I will be happy with a handful of good, well-taken formals plus some coverage from other guests to help me remeber the day. I’m not wanting a whole album of amazing, editted, photos but I think for some people this would be more of a priority.
Post # 7
I voted yes…do you want pics of you and your FI getting ready? If so, you need 2 so that you’re not paying for your photog to travel back and forth. I also think there are many different kinds of perspectives I enjoy when seeing wedding photos, and having 2 photogs would ensure that one guy isn’t wishing he could be in 2 places at once. I’m having 2 photogs and 1 videographer.
Post # 8
@MsGinkgo: we’re having two. we have a limited amount of time at the venue beforehand and between the ceremony and reception (and we aren’t having a first look) so i wanted to make sure someone could be with the guys and the girls at all times and could capture them getting ready, do bridal portraits, bridal party portraits and family portraits with bride and groom separate beforehand, etc. without being rushed. i also think it will be good to get the ceremony from multiple angles in case one person ends up stuck in a spot that sucks.
Post # 9
@MsGinkgo: I voted yes as well. Two photographers can capture both angles – pictures of you getting ready, and pictures of him getting ready; photos of his face has you walk down the aisle, photos of your face as you walk down the aisle; 2 angles of the first kiss; etc.
Plus, having two photographers ensures there will always be one around during the day. I have a friend who is a photographer, and the DJ never announced ANYTHING at this one wedding, and she needed to go to the bathroom. It looked like nothing was going to happen, so she went. Well, during her 2 minute absence, the decided to do a father/daughter dance. Her 2nd shooter was able to capture it.
Post # 10
I had two photographers but I also ahd 200 guests and wanted to make sure that one photographer was with me at all times.
If you have a small guest count, then there may be no reason to have 2 photographers.
Post # 11
I say no if you’re just getting the ceremony but if you want getting ready, reception, etc. pictures, then get 2. We only had one and he got some amazing pictures and there was no way 2 would have made it any better since it was just pics of the ceremony and our “photoshoot”.
Post # 12
I had two – it was my main photographer and their assistant. I turned down the offer for a 2nd shooter, but the photog decided to bring one along and I was SO grateful.
Like you, I had some professional photogs in the group – but, am the type to never have enough pictures. Even with the two photographers (and a shoot list) I missed some shots I wish I had (like of the placecards all setup, some misc floral shots, etc.) And, I have very few cocktail hour shoots (save the ones my friends took) because both photogs were with us doing our couples shots.
ETA: the other thing (with friends and family taking shots) they are taking them for themselves (unless you talk to them ahead of time). I STILL have yet to receive the shots most people took (after begging and pleading)! I doubt I’ll ever get copies anymore!
Post # 13
My BFF got married in March of last year and only having 1 photographer was one of her bigger regrets. it’s nice to have 2 for the getting ready portion of the day, one with you and one with the groom. It’s also nice to have the different perspectives. Like one for your reaction and one for his for first looks or walking down the aisle.
My FBIL and FSIL had 2 at their wedding and they loved it!
I would say to spend the extra money, I was lucky enough to find a husband/wife team that does it otherwise I would have spent the extra on another one!
We’re also doing a photo booth so it’ll be nice to have 1 photographer who’s doing that while one can get other pictures of things.
Post # 14
yes absolutely, use 2 photographers
Post # 15
We didn’t care about “getting ready” photos or really about photos of our guests during the times we were being photographed.
We have one pic of my mom closing up my zipper (goofball forgot it was a keyhole opening and nearly ripped it trying to pull the zipper up too far!), one of my sister fake-adjusting my hairband, one of me actually putting on a second coat of lip gloss, and two of my husband adjusting his tie and collar. And a few candids from setup and the salon. Frankly, that’s plenty! I am totally certain I won’t miss having more of those photos 20 years from now.
Similarly, the photographer shot maybe 2-3 photos of the guests in the ceremony, the rest of the actual ceremony. That seems great to me! And there are plenty of shots of guests eating/mingling/goofing off while we took posed photos off to one side, too.
Post # 16
I voted maybe because I think, while it is not necessary, it could also work depending on the situation.
I think a lot of it has to do with the photographer’s capability, style, and maybe limitation of services i guess. Like some of the PPs have mentioned some are only limited to the ceremony or basics and will not include the getting ready shots. So if you want that, maybe another photographer can do that. Also if your photographer’s style is more limited. Like he only does formal shots but you would also like more candid shots of the guests, etc. Then maybe finding another one with that style as a sort of backup could work. Or since your family are shutterbugs and you think they could take care of the candid shots, then maybe it wouldn’t be necessary.
We’re having 2 different photographers for our wedding. We were originally booking just one. They have been recommeded to us by friends and some of our relatives have also used them for their weddings. And they have been in business for a long time so we are assured that they are reliable (we’re planning for an overseas wedding so reliable vendors are very important to us). But after we booked them we discovered another photographer that works a lot with my cousin’s girlfriend who is a stylist. We really fell in love with their style. It’s very casual, natural, and candid. But they are relatively new and have only worked on a few weddings. So we decided to book both. If this newer one ends up unreliable, at least we still have the more trusted one. If the other one’s style ends up too stiff or dated, at least we have the one with a fresher take.