(Closed) Photography Question: Usually 1 or 2 photographers needed?

posted 5 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
1607 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2013

I am looking for a Phtog to work with a second shooter. this is because while your main photog is working directly with you and catching all of the moments between you and the groom – the other shooter can be out and about with the guests catching special moments that you didn’t even know were happening.

Post # 4
Bee
1835 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: November 2012 - Oak Tree Manor

Our contract included 6 hours of one photographer (who brought along an assistant). We could’ve paid extra for 2 photographers, but we didn’t have enough room in the budget for that. Honestly, we were really happy with all of the 600 photos that our photographer snapped, so I personally think if you can’t afford 2 photographers, 1 is totally fine!

Post # 5
Member
2622 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: November 1999

You can make either work. 2 would be nice, but by no means is it required to get pictures of everything. You just get more of everything from different angles.

A good photographer will be able to accomodate all your needs alone without a second shooter. 

Post # 6
Member
6538 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

This whole 2 photographer phenomenon started only about 5+ years ago. Prior to that, most all photographers shot alone and maybe brought an assistant but not necessarily a full second shooter. 

The 2 photographer thing became popular with all the husband/wife teams that started popping up. Now couples are convinced that there’s no possible way they can get everything covered with one photographer, which simply isn’t true. These days 2 photographers are pretty standard because it’s hard for us to compete if you don’t have 2 included in the package. 

All that being said, there are certainly benefits to having to photographers but it isn’t necessary. If you’ve got to choose between one really fantastic photographer, or someone you don’t love as much but they have a second shooter included, go for the photographer you love. 

Post # 7
Member
484 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: April 2013

Agree with what everyone has already mentioned… particularly that if you have a choice between two average photographers or one amazing photographer for the same price, you should definitely go for the amazing photographer!  From a photographer’s perspective, shooting a wedding by yourself isn’t a big deal.  I start behind the ceremony to catch the bride walking down the aisle and then move around to the back to catch the rest of the ceremony.  Nothing wrong with that at all.

Post # 8
Member
899 posts
Busy bee

In my area almost all the wedding photographers came as a team, at all different prices. I wasn’t necessarily looking for 2 but that just seems to be the norm around here. So do some research, you might be surprised.

Post # 9
Member
4439 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: January 2013 - Harbourfront Grand Hall

What you’re looking at depends on the package, but I’d recommend a 2nd shooter.  It was very helpful getting pics of me getting ready while 2nd shooter was with the groom. Then during the first look, one shot him, one shot me, then both got shots of us togehter.  Before the ceremony one was with us as we “hid” from our guests, the other was shooting guests arriving.

Post # 10
Member
622 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: August 2014

It all depends on the photographer. I’ve seen solo photographers who shoot more comprehensively than teams because they’re used to the pressure of getting the shots on their own. You’ll also find that most of the photographers in the top 10 of wedding photography are solo shooters. It’s more a matter of figuring out if YOUR wedding requires two shooters. I usually suggest a second shooter if there are 150+ guests or if the logistics are complicated, like multiple venues or people getting ready in different places far away, that sort of thing. I’d take one excellent photographer over two mediocre photographers any day. Just don’t be fooled into thinking two shooters = double the value because that is not necessarily the case. If you’re paying for two shooters and it seems like the price for one, it’s priced that way because the second shooter may not be as competent or experienced as the primary.

Post # 11
Member
344 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2012

I’ve shot hundreds of weddings as a solo photographer. I’ve shot weddings with up to 500 guests. No complaints yet. 

Post # 12
Member
1164 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: July 2014

@ifheaven:  a second photographer isn’t required, but it is definitely nice.  If you have 2 photographers, one can be with the bride, and one can be with the groom at the same time, rather than going from one location to the other.  This prevents waiting around and waking up early to take pictures. Also it is nice to have one photographer take a picture of the bride walking in, and the other one taking a picture of the groom’s reaction. 🙂

That being said, having a 2nd photographer is going to cost more, and it will be also be another mouth to feed at the reception, another chair cover for his/her chair, etc. so keep this in mind!!

Post # 14
Member
669 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: June 2013

It’s nice to have two- especially if you want getting ready pictures.  You can have the bride with the female photographer and the groom with the male photographer (esp when husband wife team).  Also nice to have two to get multiple shots.  I guess it isn’t essential- but I definitely think it is a huge plus.

Post # 15
Member
344 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2012

I shoot both the guys and the girls. I much prefer it. I’d hate to go in to the formal photos without relationships established with both. And really, guys do not want a photographer tagging with them the whole day. 30 minutes of getting ready shots are about as much as guys want to deal with. And I’m a girl that guys are comfortable with. I’ve seen naked butts, I’ve been hit on, it’s all good. If you are booking two photogs, do it if you are really getting two photogs. That should never be for the same price as one. Expect to pay $1000 more. I could easily hand my husband a camera and call it two photographers Just to follow the trend. No thanks. 

Post # 16
Member
344 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2012

@ifheaven:  that being said I’m very experienced and very organized and I crossfit and run marathons. I have my stuff down. You need one talented, focused shooter! 

The topic ‘Photography Question: Usually 1 or 2 photographers needed?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors