• Images
  • Text
  • Find a Couple + Registry

My photographer works alone... :/

A question for everyone... I booked my photographer for my June 2012 wedding, Tanya Stafford http://www.tanyastafford.com/.  When I met with her we clicked instantly and I loved her portfolio, but there is one thing I am a bit worried about... she typically works alone.  No assitant and no second shooter.  She assured me she travels with lots of extra supplies, so i'm not worrying about a camera malfuntion or anything, just that maybe I won't get the variety of photos I would like.  For instance, close ups of the ceremony AND some far back shots.  

Did any of you ladies have a photographer who did not have a second shooter or assistant?   She does offer to have a second photographer added for $50 an hour, so I was considering having her get someone for just part of the day... maybe 4 hours or so to help with the main photo session and ceremony.  My FI doesn't want to spend any more money, but I feel like it might be worth it.  Any thoughts?

Re: My photographer works alone... :/

  • edited December 2011
    If I were you I would add the second shooter for at least the ceremony and beginning of reception.  Not only for the extra variety of shots, but during my wedding last month our second shooter helped with the equipment in order to make sure that we had perfect lighting all the time. 
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • londonbellelondonbelle member
    edited December 2011
    We had a single shooter at our wedding and he did a great job didn't regret it!
  • edited December 2011
    I think it would be worth it to add the second shooter during the ceremony and bridal party/family pictures (whether that's before or after your ceremony). Maybe that;'s a total of 2/3 hrs. From personal experience, our photographer and assistant were able to be in 2 places at once, thus getting more pictures and saving time. They are also able to get a better variety of angles. The assistant we had was super helpful throughout the day. He  helped me pose (they can help move you in the right spot), held my bouquet and took care of my train. 
  • amariemazamariemaz member
    edited December 2011
    I agree that it's probably a good idea to pay for the second shooter for at least the ceremony and photos just after.  We had two shooters and you really can tell by looking at all the different angles they were able to get.  It probably won't be worth it to keep them thought the reception though. 
  • ille2010ille2010 member
    edited December 2011
    How many guests are you having? If it's 300 +, you should probably hire a second photographer. 

    However, if you are having less than 300 guests and your photographer works alone there's nothing to worry about, so long as she has been in business and has experience shooting weddings. Our photographer talked with us about this very subject and said we didn't need to hire a second shooter because we're only having 200 guests.

    I wouldn't be worried unless you don't trust her professionally/trust her opinion and experience. 
  • edited December 2011
    We had only 1 shooter and there was a hige variety of pictures up close and far away. Our photographer was amazing and I don't think you could tell by looking at our photos that there was only 1 shooter. If you loved her photos and you saw a good variety of her work, I wouldn't worry about it.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards