One or two photographers?

Sunshi500 · January 2011

I've read in some places that it is often better to go with a photographer that has two photographers come to your wedding. Do you find that this is true? We are still currently searching for a photographer for our Sept. wedding in Waukesha, and it's coming up fast, so we are just looking for some input.

jberg134 · January 2011

More shooters=more angels and a better chance that nothing will be missed. I believe my photog comes with an assistant.

daffodil171 · January 2011

I'm also using 2 photographers. I think we'll have a lot more pics to choose from and that elimantes a lot of the chance for missed shots. We're using R&R Photographic Imaging :-)

ehathewa · January 2011

I only used 1. Having 2 can really increase the price. You will get more angles and shots, but 350 photos was plenty for us.

Jules08 · January 2011

In Response to <a href="http://chinese.weddings.com/Sites/Weddings/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:8541b49b-ce2d-467c-8bb8-3d90a3a82299">One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]I've read in some places that it is often better to go with a photographer that has two photographers come to your wedding. Do you find that this is true? We are still currently searching for a photographer for our Sept. wedding in Waukesha, and it's coming up fast, so we are just looking for some input.
Posted by Sunshi500[/QUOTE]

Photography was very important to me. We picked a photographer that worked with second shooters and I wouldn't have it any other way. Think about it, if you only have 1 photographer if s/he is with you while you get ready then s/he is not with the guys and is missing out on a ton of shots.

Walking down the aisle, with one photographer you could only get pictures from the front and not the back or vice versa.

Jelenny · January 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local Wedding BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:da3297ee-213c-482b-bf6d-3ff6e4c8c3a1">Re: One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]I only used 1. Having 2 can really increase the price. You will get more angles and shots, but 350 photos was plenty for us.
Posted by ehathewa[/QUOTE]

This is not entirely true....

I got quotes and one that only had one photographer was actually more than the one I am going with. Sure one was less but I wanted a photographer and assistant to have more options, angles, etc.

portialoveschris · January 2011

All you need is one GOOD photographer.

HannasMOH · January 2011

If you can afford two get them!! Then you have someone for you and the groom while getting ready and more angles. Most photographers have an assistant that shoots with them.

Jules08 · January 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.weddings.com/Sites/Weddings/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:da3297ee-213c-482b-bf6d-3ff6e4c8c3a1">Re: One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]I only used 1. Having 2 can really increase the price. You will get more angles and shots, but 350 photos was plenty for us.
Posted by ehathewa[/QUOTE]

This is not always true. My photographer with a second shooter was less expensive than many solo photographers.

Jules08 · January 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.weddings.com/Sites/Weddings/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:94ba343e-d07c-499a-a39e-dbd9a00d4023">Re: One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]All you need is one GOOD photographer. :)
Posted by portialoveschris[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter how good your 1 photographer is, it doesn't change the fact that that 1 person can't be in 2 places at once. There is only so much time in the day so to also say do one thing at a time so the photographer can capture all is also not always feasible.

Photographers who work with second shooters have a range of talent available to them, especially if they get sick or there is a family emergency. They will likely have more fill in photographers with the same shooting style available to them than solo photographers do, plus you can see their work ahead of time to judge for yourself.

If a photographer works with a second shooter, they are also likely to have much more equipment available for use. A solo photographer may shoot with a primary camera body and have a back up available if needed plus a variety of lenses. Having a second shooter likely doubles this and shoult something fail they are more likely going to have what they need and want to get the job done.

In this case, more is, well ... more

[Deleted User] · January 2011

No, one person cannot be in two places but if the assitant or second shooter isn't even close to the skill level of the main photographer it doesn't help much. Sure, you'll have a higher quantity of pictures but if half of them are terrible, it's really not helping.

You get what you pay for with photography, no doubt about it. If it's important to you and you want a certain style, ask to see full pictures from a full wedding rather than just sample galleires. If you do ask for a second shooter, ask if that person is just an assistant who they will allow to shoot pictures or if it's an actual hired second photographer, that is a HUGE difference.

All professional photographers should have back-up's for everything they bring along to the wedding, separate from anything their assistants or second shooters would have.

It's entirely possibly a single photographer would charge more and be worth more than some who offer two for the same price or less, simply because they're more experienced and shooter higher quality shots. It's really not about the number of pictures you get after the wedding, it's about the few pictures that really take your breath away.

brit_bell90 · January 2011

I have two photographers, and for a fantastic price! I'm going through Two Guys Photography.

twoguysphotography.com

browneyedbride7 · January 2011

The package we got comes with 2 photographers. The package was much cheaper than some of the solo photographers we looked at.

tinyboy · January 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:909cc480-98bf-4452-aca8-979f22cfdc95">Re: One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: One or two photographers? : It doesn't matter how good your 1 photographer is, it doesn't change the fact that that 1 person can't be in 2 places at once. There is only so much time in the day so to also say do one thing at a time so the photographer can capture all is also not always feasible. Photographers who work with second shooters have a range of talent available to them, especially if they get sick or there is a family emergency. They will likely have more fill in photographers with the same shooting style available to them than solo photographers do, plus you can see their work ahead of time to judge for yourself. If a photographer works with a second shooter, they are also likely to have much more equipment available for use. A solo photographer may shoot with a primary camera body and have a back up available if needed plus a variety of lenses. Having a second shooter likely doubles this and shoult something fail they are more likely going to have what they need and want to get the job done. In this case, more is, well ... more
Posted by Jules08[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Actually, it DOES matter how good your one photographer is. </div><div>1) I'll take quality vs. quantity any day. Especially if that quantity is poorly captured because you felt the need to have two photographers, when one good one who can visually tell a good story would have been a better option. </div><div>
</div><div>2) One good photographer will certainly give you the impression there is more than one photographer, since they're constantly moving, looking for the best angle. </div><div>
</div><div>3) And that means, having multiple angles of a moment isn't necessarily a good thing when, one angle is vastly better than any of the others. </div><div>
</div><div>4) If photographer one has the ideal angle, and the second photographer wanders into the composition, they just killed the moment within that composition. So it's imperative the two photographers have worked together a LOT so they're mindful what the other photographer is doing. Not all seconds have worked exclusively with their primary. And that leads to...</div><div>
</div><div>5) The vast majority of second photographers aren't as good as their primary, and the second may contribute as little as 10-15% of the images taken from the day. So what are you really paying for? Photos a good single photographer would have covered anyway, though captured in a much more compelling manner without interference?</div><div>
</div><div>No, I'm not saying every 2nd photographer is bad. But, like everything else, you'll pay much more for the good ones. </div><div>
</div><div>6) I have no idea how you can rationalize having two photographers means you're covered incase of an illness or emergency vs. a single photographer. A good single photographer will be a member of several photography organizations, both local and regional/national, and they'll be able to call upon an infinite number of highly skilled professionals to cover your wedding. Would you want to leave your wedding photography up to a "range of talent"? Personally, I'd rather put my wedding in the hands of a highly skilled single photographer than a second photographer/assistant.</div><div>
</div><div>7) Equipment. Not sure how you came up with this. If you hire a good single photographer, they'll have plenty of back-up gear - and the better ones will have disaster back-up - incase everything goes wrong. That's why they're good. They plan ahead, and they're ready for any situation. Secondly, having more gear doesn't make capturing your day better, if that gear is inadequate because the inexpensive photographers don't have the proper gear. Having the RIGHT gear makes it easier to capture wedding photography.</div><div>
</div><div>8) If you actually communicate with your photographer, and you spend 10-15 minutes planning your wedding day with your photographer (whether it's one or two), you'll get everything you want covered. </div><div>
</div><div>9) More is NOT necessarily better. </div><div>
</div><div>10) lastly, if I'm paying money for a photographer to shoot my wedding, I want 100% of that photographer's work. Not 50, 60, 70, or 80% of their work. </div><div>
</div><div>And if you don't believe a single photographer can be better than two, I'll leave you with this.</div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://blog.jeffascough.com/jeff_ascough_blog/wedding-pictures/" rel='nofollow'>http://blog.jeffascough.com/jeff_ascough_blog/wedding-pictures/</a></div><div>
</div><div>T

</div>

Jules08 · January 2011

<p class="MsoNormal">In Response to <a href="http://chinese.weddings.com/Sites/Weddings/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:b1f21324-bf80-4ae1-8d76-1791126ca489">Re: One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]

Actually, it DOES matter how good your one photographer is.

<strong>You've missed my point entirely.</strong>

1) I'll take quality vs. quantity any day. Especially if that quantity is poorly captured because you felt the need to have two photographers, when one good one who can visually tell a good story would have been a better option.

<strong>Absolutely you want quality over quantity, I never said otherwise.<span> </span>It is up to the bride and groom to choose their photographer based on their style and what they are looking for out of their pictures.<span> </span>They need to look at entire shoots rather than base their decisions solely on samples or what they see on the websites.<span> </span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>To say that if you have 2 photographers, you risk having your event poorly captured is completely out of line.<span> </span>If you are choosing a professional photographer then they will be aware of the lighting, how to use their equipment, know what is in their shot, and how to best capture the moment.<span> </span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>A true professional photographer who works with a second shooter will have worked with them for years and they will have similar styles.<span> </span>They will know each other’s movements and where to be while shooting.<span> </span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Second shooters are often professionals themselves and have the skills and experience that the primary shooter does.<span> </span>They have a great working relationship with the primary and thus work together under one business for one event and vice versa for another event.</strong>

2) One good photographer will certainly give you the impression there is more than one photographer, since they're constantly moving, looking for the best angle.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Well no kidding, they wouldn’t stay in one spot and shoot the entire wedding from there; HOWEVER they cannot be at one end of the aisle and shoot and run to the opposite end of the aisle and shoot the bride walking down without causing a huge scene and even if they could would you risk them having enough time to properly compose their shot?<span> </span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>If the bride and groom are getting ready at the same time, the 1 photographer cannot be in both rooms running back and forth as they are likely going to miss important moments and won’t be able to properly set up their shots.<span> </span>Heck a bigger problem would be when one gets ready at the ceremony site and one gets ready at a remote location.<span> </span>This is where I mean “more is more”</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">3) And that means, having multiple angles of a moment isn't necessarily a good thing when, one angle is vastly better than any of the others.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>That’s also true; HOWEVER, you cannot make that call until you look at your pictures after.<span> </span>If something tells you to take a shot from a certain angle, there is a reason for it.<span> </span>Many times you cannot determine which was the better angle or had a little better lighting until you are post processing on a computer after as the 2.5” LCD display on the back of your camera is useless for that.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">4) If photographer one has the ideal angle, and the second photographer wanders into the composition, they just killed the moment within that composition. So it's imperative the two photographers have worked together a LOT so they're mindful what the other photographer is doing. Not all seconds have worked exclusively with their primary. And that leads to... </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Again, professionals that work together will know where to be as they are so used to the movements of the other shooter.<span> </span>Again, the Bride and Groom are responsible for researching their photographer(s) and the work that they produce.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>This shouldn’t even be an issue with photographers as they constantly have to deal with guests moving around as well as taking pictures of their own.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">5) The vast majority of second photographers aren't as good as their primary, and the second may contribute as little as 10-15% of the images taken from the day. So what are you really paying for? Photos a good single photographer would have covered anyway, though captured in a much more compelling manner without interference? No, I'm not saying every 2nd photographer is bad. But, like everything else, you'll pay much more for the good ones. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Where in the world are you getting this from?<span> </span>This is completely unfounded and is a crap argument.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Again, you are implying that a second shooter doesn’t have the skill or experience which is quite untrue as they are often professionals themselves.<span> </span>It is up to the bride and groom to ask the questions and do the research.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>I know many photographers who use a second shooter and most certainly more than 10-15% of the second shooter’s images are used.<span> </span>Especially in the moments where the wedding party was split and one was shooting with the guys and one was shooting with the girls or bride with her family and groom portraits or groom with his family and the bride’s portraits, etc.<span> </span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Many times you are not paying extra to have a second shooter.<span> </span>As we see in this post, there are plenty who shoot solo and charge more.<span> </span>For the record, just because someone charges more does NOT mean they are a better photographer AT ALL.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">6) I have no idea how you can rationalize having two photographers means you're covered incase of an illness or emergency vs. a single photographer. A good single photographer will be a member of several photography organizations, both local and regional/national, and they'll be able to call upon an infinite number of highly skilled professionals to cover your wedding. Would you want to leave your wedding photography up to a "range of talent"? Personally, I'd rather put my wedding in the hands of a highly skilled single photographer than a second photographer/assistant.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Again, of the wedding photographers that I know, their second shooters are just as talented and creative as they are.<span> </span>Meaning that when you mix their photos, you cannot tell who shot them; they are a seamless set.<span> </span>Now if my photographer had gotten sick and couldn’t make it, I would have had no concerns about her second shooter moving to primary.<span> </span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>I would rather have the second shooter rather than an unknown whose work I have never seen and whose shooting style may not be what I am looking for.<span> </span>The photographers that use a second shooter will have examples of the second shooter’s work to see and judge.<span> </span>With your “infinite number” of professionals that you are suggesting, a primary photographer is not going to have examples of each of their works to review and they don’t all have the same shooting style – no guarantee that someone of the same shooting style will be available last minute that day.<span> </span>If I paid $ for a certain style, I would be highly disappointed if I did not receive that.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Again, there have been many times now you that you have implied a second shooter doesn’t have the skill or experience which is quite untrue.<span> </span>Second shooters are often professionals themselves and the have a great working relationship with the primary and thus work together under one business for one event and vice versa for another event.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">7) Equipment. Not sure how you came up with this. If you hire a good single photographer, they'll have plenty of back-up gear - and the better ones will have disaster back-up - incase everything goes wrong. That's why they're good. They plan ahead, and they're ready for any situation. Secondly, having more gear doesn't make capturing your day better, if that gear is inadequate because the inexpensive photographers don't have the proper gear. Having the RIGHT gear makes it easier to capture wedding photography.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Argh, again you’ve missed my point.<span> </span>Yes, clearly a professional photographer will have back up equipment.<span> </span>They might bring 2 bodies and the second shooting might bring 2 bodies.<span> </span>On the off chance that both bodies brought by the primary photographer go to crap, there are still 2 bodies available to shoot with (I have never seen a solo shooter bring 4 bodies to any shoot).<span> </span>Perhaps the AF of a lens stops working, they may be able to compensate and use another lens but the shot isn’t quite the same, perhaps with a second shooter, they may have that same lens that stopped working.<span> </span>So instead of trying to adjust, they can capture the same shot as intended.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Just because a photographer is inexpensive, does NOT mean that they are inadequate in terms of skill or gear.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">8) If you actually communicate with your photographer, and you spend 10-15 minutes planning your wedding day with your photographer (whether it's one or two), you'll get everything you want covered. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Hopefully this is the case, but I have illustrated scenarios where this may be a question if you only have one photographer.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">9) More is NOT necessarily better. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Sometimes true, sometimes not, that’s up to you to risk.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">10) lastly, if I'm paying money for a photographer to shoot my wedding, I want 100% of that photographer's work. Not 50, 60, 70, or 80% of their work. And if you don't believe a single photographer can be better than two, I'll leave you with this. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>I’ll take the creativity of 2 minds over 1 (assuming I believe that their talent is equal).<span> </span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>What, are you pimping your own work?</strong></p>

Jules08 · January 2011

In Response to <a href="http://chinese.weddings.com/Sites/Weddings/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:b1f21324-bf80-4ae1-8d76-1791126ca489">Re: One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]I And if you don't believe a single photographer can be better than two, I'll leave you with this. <a href="http://blog.jeffascough.com/jeff_ascough_blog/wedding-pictures/" rel='nofollow'>http://blog.jeffascough.com/jeff_ascough_blog/wedding-pictures/</a> T
Posted by tinyboy[/QUOTE]

Oh I just looked at the blog - clearly not you. I do not like to judge other's works without them presents and able to defend themselves as that is not fair to them. I will be keeping my opinions to myself on his work.

tinyboy · January 2011

Jules, I appreciate your response to my post, but you explicitly stated: "it doesn't matter how good your single photographer is, they can't be in two places at once". How was that missing your point? Maybe you need to re-read your post again. My point was, with a good single photographer, and with a little planning, it doesn't matter how many people shoot your wedding. And no, it really doesn't. A GOOD single photographer is going to give a wedding couple a variety of angles and complete coverage: of both bride and groom getting ready, walking down the aisle, ceremony, the dance, family and friends, details, everything. And with your post, you also gave the impression that every two photographer group will be better than any single photographer; even if that single photographer is better than the "duo". I don't care what you meant, it's what you stated and how it translated that matters. Plus you're suggesting nearly every second photographer is as skilled and experienced as the primary shooter. Seriously, none of that is the case. Even with some husband and wife teams, there is still a primary/more skilled photographer than the other; and the lead photographer's work will dominate a portfolio. Is this every case? No. I never said it was. And many photographers that offer a two photographer option don't always (exclusively) work together. And I'm positive I didn't miss your point on equipment. You stated having two photographers means the photographers will have twice as much equipment to use. Have you ever been to a wedding where one photographer was shooting Canon and the other Nikon? I have. Multiple times. So having twice as much gear isn't entirely false, but it's not like photographer A can use photographer B's equipment if photographer A's equipment fails. It also tells me, they don't always work together, since they're using different equipment. Again, is this always the case? No. Lastly (on equipment), if a wedding photographer (working as a single or with someone else) isn't bringing at least three camera bodies and a bevy of back-up lenses and flash guns to a wedding, they're ill prepared for disaster, and you shouldn't hire them. A GOOD experienced pro will have everything they need to get the job done regardless what happens. Regarding emergency, I'm entirely positive I didn't miss your point. You said if a photographer works with "SECOND SHOOTERS" - as in more than one? - they'll have a "RANGE OF TALENT" available to them, especially if they get sick or there is a family emergency. To me, that tells me you should be confident the second shooter may not be as talented as the primary. It also tells me you're positive the primary and second photographers don't always work together, so how can they always know where they should be in relation to the other photographer? Have I seen two photographers work well together? Yes. I've also seen it happen where two photographers are standing side by side shooting the same thing. Then you said: they will likely have more "fill in" photographers with the same shooting style available to them than the solo photographers do, plus you can see their work ahead of time to judge for yourself. So will that range of talent be as good as or not as good as the primary shooter? Or by range, did you mean....MORE photographers? If it's the latter, I already said why that claim can be entirely wrong when it comes to working with a GOOD single photographer. You can spin it how you want, but it's wrong. I will agree with you, it's up to the bride and groom to do their research, then decide what's most important to them. WorldTrvlr Nailed it - especially their last comment.

Jules08 · January 2011

Tinyboy -

Jules, I appreciate your response to my post, but you explicitly stated: "it doesn't matter how good your single photographer is, they can't be in two places at once". How was that missing your point? Maybe you need to re-read your post again.

My point was, with a good single photographer, and with a little planning, it doesn't matter how many people shoot your wedding. And no, it really doesn't. A GOOD single photographer is going to give a wedding couple a variety of angles and complete coverage: of both bride and groom getting ready, walking down the aisle, ceremony, the dance, family and friends, details, everything.

Maybe I needed to be clearer on this point, because that’s not always the case. Yes, I 100% agree that a good wedding photographer can give you a variety of shots, but you have to admit that they can also miss a variety of shots as well. There were quite a few from my wedding set that I was so glad to have... the guys getting ready is my prime example. The girls and the guys got ready in two locations and there was no way that 1 photographer could have captured both groups getting ready. I wouldn’t have gotten to see those moments without the second shooter on hand.

And with your post, you also gave the impression that every two photographer group will be better than any single photographer; even if that single photographer is better than the "duo". I don't care what you meant, it's what you stated and how it translated that matters. Plus you're suggesting nearly every second photographer is as skilled and experienced as the primary shooter.

Agh, that’s a forum for you. My apologies as I did not mean to give that impression. I just felt like what you were saying was that no two photographers are as good as a solo photographer, because if one works by themselves, they must be better. I was trying to state that again, that’s not always the case. One reason being is that 2 people can add to the creativity. One person sees one shot and another sees it from another angle and guess what, it might work better.

I guess from the circle of photographer friends that I have, the second shooters are as skilled and experienced as the primary shooter. The few that I know that aren’t actually act as third shooters (to the two other shooters) and are more of an apprenticeship.

I am thinking of one friend in particular who shoots with 3 different second shooters. Each of the 3 own their own photography business, but would only get into weddings with another photographer because that event is much different than most out there. Comparing skills and experience, they really are just about equal.

And I'm positive I didn't miss your point on equipment. You stated having two photographers means the photographers will have twice as much equipment to use.

Have you ever been to a wedding where one photographer was shooting Canon and the other Nikon? I have. Multiple times. So having twice as much gear isn't entirely false, but it's not like photographer A can use photographer B's equipment if photographer A's equipment fails. It also tells me, they don't always work together, since they're using different equipment. Again, is this always the case? No.

If two photographers work together, it doesn’t matter if they both shoot Canon or they both shoot Nikon or one of each. I have seen A with Nikon and B with Canon as well. I an a Nikon girl, and if you hand me a Canon I’d be lost without a crash course on how to change the settings; however, if I work with the person who shoots with Canon often enough you can bet that I will know how to use their equipment.

I can think of another photographer friend of mine who works with a second shooter...they shoot with opposite equipment but have been shooting together for over 10 years. So I guess that’s an example of your second statement.

Regarding emergency, I'm entirely positive I didn't miss your point. You said if a photographer works with "SECOND SHOOTERS" - as in more than one? - they'll have a "RANGE OF TALENT" available to them, especially if they get sick or there is a family emergency.

To me, that tells me you should be confident the second shooter may not be as talented as the primary. It also tells me you're positive the primary and second photographers don't always work together, so how can they always know where they should be in relation to the other photographer? Have I seen two photographers work well together? Yes. I've also seen it happen where two photographers are standing side by side shooting the same thing.

Okay, range may be the wrong word ... maybe that should have stated a variety of shooters with talent. Again, going back to the photographers in my world, the second shooters are just as talented, but I have explained that already. The photographers that I know that do use a second shooter rotate between 2 or 3 people, so yes, in these cases they have plenty of experience working together.

You can shoot side by side and still capture a different image... just saying.

I will agree with you, it's up to the bride and groom to do their research, then decide what's most important to them.

Now that we've thunderjacked the OP's post I will end with this statement: There are certainly solo photographers who can capture the moments of a wedding wonderfully, they wouldn’t be able to stay in business if not; however, a wedding is a different type of event to capture and if you do your research and find the right photographer(s) a duo can be an added benefit.

tgude270 · January 2011

O.M.G.......you two have waaaaaaayyyyy too much time on your hands and need to relax!!!!

Jules08 · January 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.weddings.com/Sites/Weddings/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_wisconsin_one-two-photographers?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:118Discussion:d51a62e8-ba3d-4212-991e-74cb7a14fbe2Post:c04d6248-4e04-4657-8cf3-1bdc7000449c">Re: One or two photographers?</a>:
[QUOTE]O.M.G.......you two have waaaaaaayyyyy too much time on your hands and need to relax!!!!
Posted by tgude270[/QUOTE]

Not at all <img src="http://cdn.cl9.vanillaforums.com/downloaded/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> It's a little friendly bantar on a forum, that's what they're here for! I completely respect the opinions that tinyboy presented. I don't think either of us got heated about anything, these are just the interwebz and can't be taken too seriously.

tinyboy · January 2011

I agree with Jules (good discussion), but I don't think it was a highjack. We were definitely on topic, and posed plenty of pluses and minuses on both sides. In the end, it always comes down to; everyone has their own wants and needs, and they need to do what works best for them.

I've always been of the mindset to pick the photographer with the imagery and style that tugs at your heart. Whether it's one or two photographers, you can't go wrong.

T

One or two photographers?

Re: One or two photographers?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards