1 Photographer vs. 2 - Help!!

Our second photographer was kinda a last minute add on to our package. I would have liked to have two but it wasn't an absolute necessity (although I was extremely choosey when it came to deciding on my primary photog). We are also having a "smaller wedding" and a small bridal party (MOH and BM and that's it) so I figured that 1 photog would be fine.

The reason I decided on adding a second is because of our ceremony location. The way our ceremony will be set up and my entrance will be a little unconventional. I'll be walking across in front of the guests rather than up through an aisle. Because of the weird entrance, one photographer just wouldn't be able to get everything. So for that reason, I added a second shooter to get another vantage point during the ceremony.

IMO I think having 2 photographers are so much better...what about when you're walking down the aisle?? Everyone is looking at you and probably the photographer too...but nobody sees the groom and his reaction when he sees you...having 2 photographers will capture both of your expressions. That's only one example.

I don't think I've ever worked with a photographer that doesn't have an assistant of some kind. To me it just makes sense to have 2 as it captures more moments than only 1 photographer can. Having 2 means having an extra set of eyes that may capture something the main photographer didn't see b/c he/she was paying attention else were...if that makes sense.

I say stick with what you can afford and just give him a bunch of examples of what it is you would like to end up with. No matter how many cameras are on you the only thing that matters is that you capture the day. You already know you love his work so already your one step ahead of some brides.

We are getting married south so we cant meet our photographer ahead of time and that kind of makes me worry too.. thats where making a pre-portfolio album came in handy for us.

Ive seen a few posts on here before about brides making a fun game for their guests out of photo shots they wanted to make sure were captured. A photo scavenger hunt I think is what they called it. You make up a list and place them on the tables. Great idea for you, then you would have loads of cameras capturing every angle of your favorite shots.

We had 75 people at the wedding and were very happy we had two photographers. One took shots of my husband getting ready and his family portraits at the church while the other was with me. When we got to the reception, one took photos of us interacting with our guests while the other captured all the details. I'd recommend two IF you can afford it.

I asked my photog this question yest and this was his response:

We can offer you a second shooter for $98/hr (3 hour min). I don't think it is necessary unless you are having over a hundred of people attending. I will probably get over 1500 shots shooting solo and will cover virtually every aspect. Of course, I am not saying there aren't any advantages, so if you feel like splurging a little my associate photographers are experienced pros (...not just a spouse or friend) and you will get a mega ton of shots. Ironically, I actually think you sometimes get less coverage with husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend teams as they spend more time talking and socializing amongst themselves (just my 2 cents).

I agree with Cydney about the walking down the aisle moment, but I don't think it's worth $300 on top of everything (to me). I will express this to him and hope he gets 2 real quick

We're also doing an "I Spy" for the reception like Tia and Don said -- this is my inspiration

We're having about 100 people at our wedding too. I had a long call with our photographer to decide if we should have one or two. We ended up going with two photogragers. The main photographer will stay for 6 hours (4:30pm-10:30pm) and the second photographer will stay for 4 hours (4:30-8:30). Since our ceremony is at 6pm this will allow them to get pictures of us getting ready and separate family formal shots before the ceremony. It also allows the seconds photographer to get some shots of the recepetion room set up while everyone is at the ceremony. With the second photographer leaving early that allows for us to still get some candid shots and shots of people dancing.

Maybe your photographer would allow you to have 2 at different timeframes so they are not over your budget.

If photography is really important to you, do you think you can cut down on other costs from your wedding so you can afford a 2nd photographer? Photography is definitely important for us so we're spending a lot on it. However, our wedding is pretty big (400 guests) and our photographer thought 2 of them were enough.

@Juliette- that idea is super cute!

Honestly, if I could have afforded it, I would have had two photographers, just for the variety of shots.

However, it's not necessary and I am completely happy with my wedding photos. In relation to what Cydney said, my photographer actually was able to capture us both as I was walking down the aisle. She got a couple of me, and one of him as I was walking down, then one of him while my dad was giving my hand

Our photography package came w/ 2 shooters (husband/wife, both pros), and I think it's totally worth it to have 2. We have pictures of both DH and I as I was waiting to go in to the ceremony, and as I was walking in when we first saw each other. They also have different styles, so the husband was more of a "technical" shooter - looking for good or cool angles, which side of the stairs would look better, etc., while his wife was more of an "emotional" shooter - she took the close-up pics of our shoes/rings, and finds the things that might be sentimental in pictures.

If it's in your budget, I'd say go for 2 photographers. If not, I like Juliette's idea of "I Spy". It's a great way to get some pics that even 2 photographers could miss!

Juliette!! I love the ISpy game...how creative is that?! Are you purchasing disposable cameras or hoping they have their own camera to do this? Also, are you giving a prize away if they capture all the moments?

Our photography package also came with 2 shooters, also husband/wife team. We had a small wedding, and I don't think it was really necessary. However, we got a lot of usable pictures. For some parts, like the ceremony and prep, it was nice. Beyond that, I really wouldn't think about 2 - you don't get much more.

I also really like that I Spy idea. That's super cute. My photographer hasn't been doing this for a long time, but I booked her a long time ago. I just saw on her website that she's now offering a second photographer. I'm curious to see how much extra it would be, but I probably won't be able to afford it. I would get a second if I could afford it.

We were on a tight budget, so 2 photographers was way out of the question. We ended up booking with a member I know from the credit union I work at. He did such an amazing job. I have had several people comment that there were SOOO many pictures that they felt like they were reliving the wedding. Maybe you could work something out with him where his wife helps with just the ceremony, obviously the most important part.

My main photographer was my best friend from high school (a legitimate and professional wedding photographer). When she mentioned having her good friend (also a professional) second shoot I was a little hesitant to spend more money. However, we are so happy we decided to hire a second shooter. They get SO many more shots that one person just couldn't physically get. As others have said: one got me coming down the aisle while the other got DH when he first saw me. One would shoot people dancing while the other shot the venue. One got the guys getting ready while one got the ladies (which saved lots of time), etc. But we had about 150 people. I think it ultimately boils down to what you can afford and what your priorities are. I wouldn't sacrifice the quality of food in order to have a second shooter, but if you could get rid of favors or tablecloths then I would consider it.

I emailed my photographer and asked about it. I'm also wanting a second shooter because the wedding is going to start at 2pm and the reception is going to end at 5pm so our time at the venue is going to be short so I'm thinking 2 photographers will be more efficient since our day will be so short (as far as weddings go). We'll see what he says!! My hubby said if it's an extra $250 for him to get an assistant then go for it...

As far as "assistants," double check as to what your photographer's assistant's responsibilities actually are. Most photogs who I know who have assistants at weddings don't actually have their assistants shoot. They are there to help lug around camera equipment, change out lenses, hold up any lighting equipment etc. While some photogs might have the assistant capture other shots, assistants and 2nd shooters are not the same thing.

Coming from a photographer's point of view, I would say get 2. You would get more images, different points of view, and you will be sure that you get every special moment and detail. Not to say that 1 photographer can't do that, but you will be more certain that the moments will be taken care of. If it is about the $, you can ask your main photographer if they have an assistant. Usually assistants know a lot about photography and you can try to make a deal where you can give them lets say $100-$200 to make sure that the ceremony or the groom getting dressed is covered. You don't have to pay them for the whole day if you don't need them.

1 good photographer is preferable to 2 mediocre ones. If you like his work and are having a relatively small wedding, I would go with someone whose work you like.

I am currently looking for a photographer. We are getting married in St. Clair Shores and are having a smaller wedding with approximately 5-75 people. I am also working with a not so big budget. Any recommendations would be most appreciated.