(Closed) Do I need a second photographer for a 40 person wedding?

posted 4 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 2
215 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: January 2015

My wedding will have 60 people and we are only using one photographer.  I have seen full wedding galleries that she has shot and she is able to get all the shots I am looking for.  So I would say no you do not need a 2nd photographer.  But it would depend on your photographers work.  So try and see a couple galleries that your photographer has shot solo.

Post # 3
883 posts
Busy bee

The nice thing about a second photographer is that they can get different angles and shots during the ceremony itself. I would have a hard time justifying the extra expense though.

Post # 4
799 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: June 2014

We had a 42 person wedding and our photographer had a second shooter (a lot of photographers in my area recommend having a 2nd shooter). Like a PP said, our 2nd shooter was able to get photos at different angles, more candids, and other photos while we were taking formals with the main photographer. I can’t tell you how excited I was for photos of our flower girl that our main photographer didn’t get to capture while we were outside (b/c our photographer was taking family photos). Also, the second shooter was able to get different angles during the ceremony which was imporant for us. 

Our videographer also had an assistant. The main videographer was able to be with with me as I got ready, while the second shooter was at the venue (before anyone arrived) and was able to get shots of Darling Husband and his family getting ready. They were also able to get different angles and shots. Completely worth it in my opinion.

Post # 5
1406 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

I’m having a 42 person wedding in a couple of weeks and my photographer said we did not need a second shooter (we did not limit on budget, just asked her what made sense for logistics).  So based on that, I would not complicate your day by adding another moving part.

Post # 6
2103 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

Eh… If you can afford it, so be it. If it is not in the budget or the money could go to something else, like the honeymoon then scrap it… There are not going to be as many people to capture. I had maybe 45-48 people (numbers changed the last minute). I think inevitably everyone will be in some pictures a few times. I get having a second photographer if you have 100 or more people, or you are taking pics in multiple locations. Otherwise, I don’t see the point… 

Post # 7
719 posts
Busy bee

I don’t think it’s necessary.  All of these extra strangers will really stand out amongst your 45 guests.

Post # 8
230 posts
Helper bee

No, you REALLY don’t. You really don’t need a second photographer regardless of wedding size, but it makes a bit more sense if it’s really big. Ours will be about 80 people and I’m perfectly happy with one photographer.

Post # 9
402 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: Royal Park Hotel

NO!  I had a 45 person wedding and I asked the same question, here on the bee.  I had mixed responses and I’m so happy I did NOT take the advice of getting a second one because it was totally not necessary!

I even had snarky bees tell me that my photographer SHOULD come with an assistant, basically telling me my photog must be bogus because I wasn’t getting 2 photogs on the day.  Rude.

1 was more than enough for us.

Post # 10
271 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: August 2013

Not at all!  I had two photographers, but I had around 120 people–I definitely wouldn’t have paid for more.  One should be plenty for an intimate wedding.

Post # 11
7311 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2011 - Bed & Breakfast

We had 1 photographer for 30 guests at a small b&b venue. I think 1 was plenty.

Post # 12
8870 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2013

i had 120 people and 1 photographer and he got everything.

Post # 13
2510 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: July 2014

We had 100 people with 1 photographer and he got everything.  He went back and forth between the girls and guys rooms (we were also getting ready on different floors in the same place), and it worked just fine.  I think more photographers might just become a distraction/ nuissance for the guests.  I loved that during the ceremony and reception, you didn’t notice our photographer at all.  We just enjoyed them and somehow he captured every moment.  

Post # 14
1301 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2015

Our wedding will be about 75 people, and our photographer actually recommended we don’t do a second shooter.  She said that for that size wedding, having two shooters might make people too aware of the camera, so you won’t get as many natural, candid shots.<br />

Post # 15
1246 posts
Bumble bee

I will be having a smaller wedding and want a second shooter. I’ll be using the same woman who did my first wedding, who’s become a dear friend. She’s so  talented, but her second shooter captured candids of family members who have since passed. All the photos of my ex and I were done by my friend and the second shooter assited. But during the ceremony, group photos and reception the second shooter worked magic.

Similarly, while getting ready the second shooter took photos of the details and got a lot of candids I didn’t even know were being done. If you can afford the expense I think it’s worth it!

The topic ‘Do I need a second photographer for a 40 person wedding?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors