Wedding Photography - Multiple Photographers?

It really depends how large your wedding is, including your wedding party and families. If you aren't having a large event, it might not make sense. If you have a decent list of shots you want, $300 is a steal for basically double the amount of labor/coverage.

View Quoted Comment

I was thinking about that, we are having less than 100 people so don't think its super necessary unless I wanted pics of people during cocktail hour or something while we are getting pictures taken but probably not

Absolutely. And $300 for a second shooter is a heck of a deal. There are some moments that you’re going to want more than one angle of, like you walking down the aisle, and one photographer can’t show both points of view at once.

Personally, I absolutely think a second photographer is worth it! They can capture shots of the same scenes (first kiss, ceremony, first dance, etc) from different angles than the main photographer, and you get photos from multiple views. It could also help cut down on the time needed for taking the photos: one photographer can take photos of the bridesmaids, while the other photographer can take photos of the groomsmen. If you're having a medium or large sized wedding, $300 for a second photographer seems like a great price!!

We had two photographers at our micro-wedding (15 guests) and local reception (50 guests). Well worth it!

Always get a second photographer if you can afford it for different angles, different perspectives.

I also think a second photographer is worth it! Our photographer includes one with no extra charge, but she explained their purpose to us!

They would be able to get more angles of a single scene at our wedding, like mine and my FH's face when I walk down the aisle. One can be taking pics of the bridesmaids while the other is with the groomsmen, and same thing with the families!

Only $300 for a second photographer is like the world greatest deal! I'd definitely take advantage of that...

We got 2 photographers for our wedding, and paid $850 extra for a second!!! Everyone told us that it was priceless to have 2 people doing it, because you get multiple angles of shots, and that way the photographer can get pictures of both the guys and the girls getting ready! I think it’s totally worth it and that price sounds AMAZING

The good thing about another photographer is that they can get other shots and angles! If it's about 100 people then I would recommend it. If it's 50 people or less then you can make due with just one. And $300 for a second photographer is a STEAL!! So, take advantage of that!

Totally worth it especially for only $300. With having a second photographer you are able to get more photos and from different angles. We used a wife and husband team. The wife was the main photographer and her husband was the second photographer. She went with us girls in the morning to get detail photos and getting ready photos. Meanwhile, her husband scoped out good areas to take photos at our venue then went with the guys for getting ready photos. We also did separate bridal party photos before the ceremony so the wife was able to do ours and the husband was able to do my husband's with his people. In addition, some of my favorite photos were actually taken by the husband and those wouldn't have been possible if we didn't have a second photographer.

We're just having one photographer. Don't really find a second one necessary. Maybe if we had extra funds we would consider it but that is definitely not the case lol.

Totally agreed with what everyone else has said! That is a wonderful deal and so worth it! Having a second shooter was actually one of our requirements when booking a photographer. I say go for it if your budget allows!

It really depends on you. I have been to many weddings without second shooters.

That said, second shooters usually not only take photos, but help the photographer - they'll carry equipment, move lighting, and generally expedite everything, making the job much easier on your photographer so they can focus on getting you great shots! You would be surprised how much time hauling equipment around takes! When I was a second shooter for my husband's videography business, I would often be the one being told "move the light a little to the left for me" - which meant he stayed behind the camera and got more footage. Just something to think about!

Yes! I would add a second shooter for that price.

I actually have 1 lead photographer, 1 assistant photographer, 1 lead videographer, and 1 assistant videographer. We will have about 200 people so I definitely think it's worth it to get all the coverage!

If it's in your budget, then it's worth it. But don't break the bank just to have it. Whomever you're considering, make sure to request to see whole day wedding albums, not just their highlight portfolios. Sometimes there is a real difference!

We're having 2 photographers untill the end of ceremony (getting ready, 1st look and for some photos my partner and I are doing separately) We''re NOT having a videographer though ( the bride's father will record the vows, the "I do" + exchange of the rings, the 1st kiss, our welcome speech and our 1st dance). But just one during the cocktail hour, reception.

We LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE the idea of having some photos of the 2 of us taken at the same time, especially when I'm staring at my bride during our 1st look, we're reading the vows the exchange of the rings and both "I do".

I also agree with Veronica,Molly: "Totally worth it especially for only $300", " you are able to get more photos and from different angles", "I definitely think it's worth it to get all the coverage!"

If you are having an intimate wedding, a second photographer may not be necessary, but having two shooters at a larger event can go a long way in providing more thorough coverage of all the details and activities going on. Additionally an extra shooter for $300 for the full day is a steal. Well worth it in my opinion!