(Closed) One photographer or two?

posted 7 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
4336 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: October 2011

I think some people have two because they are paranoid about one photographer being able to get EVERY SINGLE shot. 

If you are fine with not being pretty much guaranteed a PERFECT picture of EVERY SINGLE moment of the ceremony, then you should be fine with having one. Obviously, having two increases your chances of getting more, better pictures, but if you found a photographer that you like, and can maybe look through past weddings that she has shot to be sure she can get enough shots that you like, then go for her! I also know a lot of photographers add the option of having a second photographer (like a friend of theirs) for an extra fee.

Post # 4
Member
878 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: July 2012

It depends on how many pictures you want. It’s a one shot deal- I would consider it. In a general sense, photographers believe 2 photographers are best for parties over 100. So if you are having a small wedding, a second photog will be more of a luxury than a necessity.

Post # 5
Member
822 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

i only booked one photographer for a wedding of 200.  i started rethinking it when i saw my sis in law had 4 photographers at her 500+ person wedding.

Post # 6
Member
1489 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2012

@lucyh2bee: My package with my photographer came with 2 shooters because I booked early and I think that will be fine. I was in a wedding that had 2 photographers and it was great. One was able to capture the guys, the other was able to capture the ladies and then they came together and got different angles and elements of the day.

Post # 7
Member
90 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: May 2000

Here’s an insider tip. Two photographer packages came about as a selling point to differentiate against the plethora of photographers in this digital age. So no you don’t need two.

My opinion is that it’s a preference of the photographer. I generally prefer to shoot with a second photographer but I am fully capable of photographing a wedding on my own. The largest I’ve shot solo was 11 hours long with 300 people. For me, there’s very little difference in the number of photos I deliver shooting solo or with someone else. I like having a second because it takes a bit of the pressure off. I feel like I don’t have to run around quite as much or I don’t have to time my bathroom breaks. I like having multiple points of view during the ceremony and some of the reception events (example below*). I like being able to take some risks with my composition or exposure to achieve a certain effect, because I know there’s someone else to get the standard “safe” shot.  I like having someone to talk to. 

But I know several people who find a second person to be a distraction. For them, a second photographer will be in their way. Two photographers feels too intrusive for them, too much like papparazi. Their creative process is hampered by another person. These photographers are fully capable of covering a wedding by themselves.

Now logistically speaking there are a few cases where you would need two or more photographers. If you have two events at the same time and want them both photographed. If you have a large number of guests and you want guaranteed shots of them, you may need a photographer dedicated to table or group shots.

For anyone considering two photographer coverage, be wary of those who use a friend, spouse, etc instead of a professional. That person may be there holding a camera but none of their photos will actually be used. Ask questions about the qualifications of the second photographer. They may not be able to say who that person will be during your initial meeting but they should be able to guarantee that they only work with professionals. The reason is many solo operators like myself will hire other wedding photographers with their own businesses who may not have a wedding booked on that day. This is usually done within a month or 2 of the date when it’s very unlikely they’ll book their own wedding.

Sorry, that was a book. In a nutshell, as long as you’re satisfied with the complete weddings of the person you’re considering, it doesn’t matter if there are one or two.

 

*there’s no way I could have got both shots by myself but you don’t need both.

Post # 8
Member
90 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: May 2000

@profiterole, if you’re having any doubts talk to your photographer. They may reassure you that they’re fully capable of handling 200 guests or they may be able to offer a second photographer for an additional fee.

The topic ‘One photographer or two?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors