Post # 1
Since getting engaged last month, we found our reception venue and our date is officially booked. That was the most important detail for us to complete. Now Fiance and I moved on to our next big vendor; the Photographer. I love photography myself, so I’m very picky. We are also trying to do a wedding for 10K (not including the honeymoon though).
Last night I came across a photographer. He only does one package, and it comes with all day shooting til midnight, engagement session, a hard cover photo album, custom thank you cards, full copyright permission (so we can print them elsewhere if we chose), all photos on a DVD, etc. The cost is $899, and if we booked within the next few months, it’d be $799 for early booking. He replied to both of my emails very quickly (within a few hours both times) and he’s very professional. We are probably going to book with him.
My question is, it’s only him shooting the wedding, but he does have second shooters if you request them. Fiance says it’s up to me. Since we’re saving a TON on photography (most here for what he offers are $2000+), I’m trying to decide if we should spend that extra on a second shooter or something else? Did you/are you having one? If yes, do you have the second shooter the whole day or just for certain parts of the day? I’ve only been to two weddings, one did not have a photographer and the other was when I was young so I don’t remember much. Thanks bees!
Post # 3
- Wedding: June 2013 - Upstate NY
Wow what a deal!!!!! That’s so cheap for a photographer.
My photographer said “he would never shoot a wedding without at least an assistant”. Not the same thing as a second shooter. She helped with the lighting and lenses and all that.
I bet it’d be fine, but I will say it’s tough to get “optimal” shots with just one shooter.
Post # 4
following this one. We have our photographer booked, and are waiting till closer to the day to decide on a second shooter, depending how we’re doing with our budget.
Post # 5
Is it necessary? No. But I will say this, I did have one and he came in handy. Why? Well, we had a male shooter that followed the men before the wedding. They took a ot of shots I had no clue about until we got the pics. Our photographer photographed me before the wedding.
But the ceremony shots… they got pictures from 2 different perspectives and I could tell when seeing the raw footage where the main photog was and where her second was and sometimes, HIS pictures were better. They were sometimes from a better angle, he went up on the balcony, they were great. Same with the post ceremony and reception pictures. 2 heads were better than one. If you can afford it, do it.
Post # 6
I hope not, cuz I’m pretty sure my photographer is the one and only….which I am happy about sort of since I chose her for her talent.
Post # 7
@Scorpio88: I am really, really, really concerned about the package you’re getting for the price you’re getting. Major red flags. PLEASE be sure you have a contract and the photographer is insured, is running a legit business, has proper back up gear/back up system in place, etc. In any world, at that pricing, the photographer will be LOSING money shooting your wedding so that is usually a sign that something is amiss.
As for a second shooter, no, it’s not necessary. I only suggest it for huge weddings (200+ people) or with complicated logistics like multiple venues, people getting ready an hour away from each other, etc. Photographers have been shooting weddings (with film, no less!) on their own for decades. The second shooter thing is a recent phenomenon. As long as you’ve hired a real professional they can cover the day just as well as two shooters, especially given the fact that he’s offering to shoot ALL day.
Post # 8
Nope. I’ve shot over 200 weddings by myself with one non shooting assistant. That being said, I’m a very good and experienced photographer and I start at 3500. That price is too low for even one photog. It’s not easy to shoot as one photog. I highly prefer it myself but I have my system down like clockwork. I have hustle and an assistant who knows what lens I want by the way I nod my head and his understanding of the surroundings. Shooting a wedding by yourself is not something you should do unless you are highly qualified to do so. Also, make sure he shoots a dual slot camera so his possible card corruption does not lose you a massive chunk of your wedding. Being one photog I’d never take the chance of shooting to just one card!
Post # 9
I would be more worried about the price then a second shooter. “If it’s too good to be ture, it probably is.” Have you seen a whole album of his weddings. Not just the pretty pictures he posts on his blogs, but a complete set from start to finish? He sounds desparate. There is a reason that good photographers cost so much. Someone super talented would not be selling themselves short.
Post # 10
@lovelyMsValentine: THIS. yes yes yes. I always say to folks “you haven’t saved a dime on photography if you hate your photos”. This pricing tells me this photographer is either not paying taxes or only shoots on the side because it’s impossible not to lose a couple hundred dollars shooting and editing all of that time plus all the extras. You’d be making significantly more working at McDonalds.