(Closed) Do I really need 2 photogs for a 50 person wedding?

posted 4 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
4442 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: January 2013 - Harbourfront Grand Hall

@skippydarling:  I would think not.  Our 2nd shooter was the worst photographer ever, so really we didn’t even need her for a 100 person wedding…

Post # 4
2905 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

I think it’s handy if you want to catch your grooms reaction (as well as your own) as you walk down the aisle. Other than that it’s probably unnecessary. 

Post # 5
2440 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2013

@skippydarling:  I don’t think it’s necessary. If you want to have a camera set up on a tripod somewhere (to catch your grooms reaction, or pointaed at you guys at your reception table) with a timer for repeat shots, then that shounds like a better idea. But your one photographer should be able to catch most of the action, and all of the important shots, alone. 🙂

Post # 6
110 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: July 2013

@skippydarling:  For us the second photographer was able to take more candid pictures while the other took formals. One photographer was with the groom before the ceremony and the other was with me. It worked well for us. We got a lot of pictures, and if it was just one of them running around, we wouldn’t have had so many candid shots or of both the groom and bride seperately.

Post # 7
3403 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: July 2013

It really depends on how many “reaction” pictures you want, because obviously 1 photographer can’t capture both your reactions, & his reaction. Also, it comes in handy for the ceremony so you can get different angles & reaction pictures.

But I certainly don’t think it’s necessary.

Post # 8
1937 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: February 2014

@skippydarling:  2nd shooters are there to capture another angle, or be in another place at another time. For example, our second shooter will be capturing my FI and his guys getting ready, and our main photog will be with me the morning of. 

As mentioned above, they’ll get HIS reaction and yours, the first kiss from 2 angles, etc., etc. 

We’re having a 70 person wedding, and didnt even think twice about the second shooter. It’s definitely worth it. Just make sure its someone who has a similar style to your main one, and that is a trusted and proven professional. Don’t hesitate to ask to see some of their work. I’ve seen 2nd shooters got terribly wrong.

Post # 9
499 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: July 2013

I think it would be worth it, the second photographer could capture angles that the #1 shooter couldnt, they could also catch more candid photos while the other one deals with the posing.

We went with 2 photographers and I do not regret it at all.

Post # 11
9146 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: November 2013 - St. Augustine Beach, FL

@skippydarling:  If it’s included in your package but I don’t think that it is worth the upcharge. 

Post # 12
4499 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: October 2013

We’re only having 35 guests and I only considered having 2 photographers to capture my FI’s face when I’m walking down the aisle and to get photos of us both getting ready (getting dressed, makeup, etc. Time with his guys and me with my girls) I think for us to have a 2nd photographer it was going to be like $500 more though and our photographer is already a splurge for us so we decided against it.

Post # 13
2691 posts
Sugar bee

My guest list is 80 people max and every photographer I contacted told me that one shooter would be fine.  One photographer told me that 2 can be helpful if your ceremony and reception are far away from each other.  That way, one could head to the reception to do detail and early reception shots while the other could stay at the ceremony site to capture everything.

Post # 14
4741 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: June 2014

I would be in favor of a second photographer because you will get different angles, and views which cannot be covered by one person.  And I don’t see how the getting ready shots can be covered unless the schedule is set up to allow for that.   Family portraits can easily be covered by one photographer.  For the ceremony I think there is a great deal to be gained by a second – well worth the small additional cost.

Post # 15
1286 posts
Bumble bee

2nd shooters are good for different angles than the other photographer. I love shooting with a 2nd shooter on weddings. Each of us has a different view and eye through the camera. I focus more on the B&G, she focus’ on the family and guests.  


But a 50 person wedding, if your photographer is experienced, i’m sure he/she could handle that on her own without any problems

Post # 16
1723 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

I don’t think you NEED two photographers, but it kind of cool to get two different perspecitives.  I’m having a bigger wedding than your 50, but that was one of my requirements was that we found someone with two photographers (vs. photographer /photographer assistant)  On one hand, I am a makeup artist that has worked with a lot of different photographers and that is part of the reason I’m so picky. 😉 We actually found a husband/wife team that we love.  But its definitely one of those things that isn’t necessary but could bo cool to have 🙂

The topic ‘Do I really need 2 photogs for a 50 person wedding?’ is closed to new replies.

Get our weekly roundup of the best of Weddingbee.
I agree to receive emails from the site. I can withdraw my consent at any time by unsubscribing.

Find Amazing Vendors