Post # 1
We are deciding on our photographer! We will be having a small wedding of about 70 people. I am afraid going with one photographer instead of two would be a bit risky just in case the one misses something.
I would love to hear from brides who have only had one photographer capture their wedding. Did you wish you had a second one?
The price difference is significant but isn’t a deal breaker.
Post # 3
We had one photographer and 69 guests and got every single shot we wanted and tons more. I think the need for 2 photogs is overblown and a way to upsell brides on more cost!
Post # 4
We are only having one and we have 200 guests!! If they are experienced enough i would think that they would capture everything.
Personally i would rather have 500 really good pics from the wedding than 1000 random pics throughout the day.
Post # 5
With 150 people, we decided on 2 photographers, but I had only 1 photographer booked until a week before the wedding, when I could better assess if we would have the extra money. The main photographer was all over the dancefloor, getting every candid shot. The 2nd photographer set up in the corner with a plain backdrop so people could take portraits.
I think you will be fine with 1 for 70 guests. It depends on what you want and the personality of your guests overall. Our dancefloor was packed, and we have a lot of very energetic friends, so 2 worked perfectly. I feel I’d have missed a lot with just 1.
However, no matter how good your photographer is, he can’t be in two places at once. If you really want those candid shots of everyone on the dancefloor, you won’t get really nice portraits of your guests, and vice versa.
Post # 6
@crayfish: Thank you! That is exactly what I needed to know. If the two photographer thing was really necessary or just excessive.
@Swizzle: Good point! Quality vs quantity all the way.
Post # 7
@crayfish: You’re entitled to your own opinion, but single photographers who offer an option to upgrade or add an additional photographer aren’t doing it just to upsell you or make more money. A good second photographer can cost $500 or more to your primary photographer depending on the length of service and their skill level. It’s an option to give you different angles, provide you with more coverage options, and offer you additional peace of mind that there will be another photographer automatically present at your wedding to back up the first.
There are many other threads out there that go over the merits of having a second photographer, but there really isn’t a negative to it except for the cost.
Post # 8
I got some great advice on this from a friend who recently got married – take into consideration your venue size as much as your guest size. If it’s a big sprawling space and people will be spread out doing different things all day, then it might be worth two photographers to capture everything. But if it’s a smaller, more intimate space where everyone will basically be in one room doing the same things at the same time, one photgrapher may be all you need.
Hope that helps and good luck!!
Post # 9
Especially with the under 100 guests you are just fine having one photographer. It’s more important that you have confidence in their abilities in general. A good solo photographer can cover plenty of good sized weddings. Like Continum said – adding a second photographer isn’t a money maker for us at all…it’s about either covering the day fully and properly or just supplying the client’s request whether it’s really needed or not.
I would agree with Crayfish to the point that a second photographer is a little overblown these days – just not because of an upsell but instead because we’ve become so used to thinking that we need over 1000 images.
As a photographer, I do love working with a second on hand. These days it’s normally my partner, but I’ve had a small team of really talented seconds. However, I photographed my first 300 weddings or so solo – even without an assistant! It can be done and done well. 🙂
Like I said – if you love your photographer and have that confidence in them you will be just fine… 🙂
Post # 10
Wow what a great thread. I was thinking of having two photographers as well but a lot of bees on here bring up good points for just having one. Plus this will open up more room in the budget for other things 🙂 Thanks!
Post # 11
I had 120 people and only one photographer. I got 1,000 pictures and not a single moment was missed. You’ll be more than okay with one photographer!
Post # 12
Thank you ladies, you bring up great points!
@TempierPhoto: Thank you so much for the great advice and a photographers perspective.
@nkatsa: It is a small intricate space so I am thinking I will be okay with one. I guess I automatically assumed I needed two.. just because lol.
Post # 13
@continuumphotography: No, I totally understand that it costs you guys money, too. All those extra photos make for a lot more editing for you guys, in addition to the labor costs! I just feel like brides are quick to go the “OMG I can’t have a wedding without 2 photographers” route. Been on the Bee a long time and seen a lot of those threads. It’s one more thing to tack onto the package. Unless you are having 1. an exceptionally large wedding, 2. getting ready in two different locations, 3. getting married in a venue that doesn’t allow the photog ro move positions during the ceremony or 4. want one photog manning a photobooth, etc I just don’t really see the point.
I promise i’m not one of those brides that things photogs overcharge – I do quite a bit of photography on the side, so I totally get the pricepoints and what goes into it.