25 replies to this topic

[Maïa Taïeb]

or does it depends on the wedding's size ?
Asking this because I'm watching www.creativelive.com/live and yesterday Jasmine Star even had a 3rd shooter !
Do you think it's possible to cover a wedding just by yourself ?

[Chris Rioux]

I don't know how fast you can move, but there are a LOT of beautiful and special moments going on all at the same time. The only way I'd photograph a wedding without hiring a second shooter, is if there were only a handful of people, and even then I'd still want a second shooter to be getting a different angle. Shooting wide when I'm shooting tight, backup in case I miss something, etc. etc. I just build it into my price and don't even think about not having one. I shot a wedding with around 275 guests and did fine with just two shooters. But I have seen some amazing photographers that are a one man/women show, and do a great job. It all depends on your style, and what you're looking to capture of their day.

[Maïa Taïeb]

Chris Rioux, on 30 August 2010 - 12:04 PM, said:

I don't know how fast you can move, but there are a LOT of beautiful and special moments going on all at the same time. The only way I'd photograph a wedding without hiring a second shooter, is if there were only a handful of people, and even then I'd still want a second shooter to be getting a different angle. Shooting wide when I'm shooting tight, backup in case I miss something, etc. etc. I just build it into my price and don't even think about not having one. I shot a wedding with around 275 guests and did fine with just two shooters. But I have seen some amazing photographers that are a one man/women show, and do a great job. It all depends on your style, and what you're looking to capture of their day.

And around how much would you pay the 2nd shooter for a wedding ?

[Chris Rioux]

That depends: How good a photographer do you want to hire?

Student that's just starting out - $150-175
Someone that's shot a few weddings before 200
depending on where you live, the standard going rate for an okay-decent second is between 250-300
Someone who's really good: $400
Someone who's VERY good: $500

[Maïa Taïeb]

Chris Rioux, on 30 August 2010 - 05:57 PM, said:

That depends: How good a photographer do you want to hire?

Student that's just starting out - $150-175
Someone that's shot a few weddings before 200
depending on where you live, the standard going rate for an okay-decent second is between 250-300
Someone who's really good: $400
Someone who's VERY good: $500

Well I'm not sure, I didn't do a lot of weddings before and I live in France. All the photogs I know are from USA Canada or England, looks like theres' not a good online community for french photographers.
In your package do you simply count the price of the 2nd shooter or count a bit more for that ?

[Chris Rioux]

Maïa Taïeb, on 30 August 2010 - 07:13 PM, said:

Well I'm not sure, I didn't do a lot of weddings before and I live in France. All the photogs I know are from USA Canada or England, looks like theres' not a good online community for french photographers.
In your package do you simply count the price of the 2nd shooter or count a bit more for that ?

When you say count, I'm assuming you mean include? If so, yes. I just include the cost of the second photographer in my price. I tell the bride I charge $xxxx which includes me, a second shooter, etc. etc.

Well, this probably isn't a great resource for anyone who doesn't understand English. It's too bad we don't all speak the same language, because I bet there is a lot of wonderful information out there that I don't have access to because I only speak English. Good for you that you know at least two languages!

[damaris mia]

I wouldn't want to shoot a wedding by myself. There is way too many things going on and I would definitely want someone to help capture every moment possible!

@Chris, I like your second-shooter pricing structure!

[Maïa Taïeb]

I did my sister's wedding all by myself.
I agree that a 2nd shooter could have helped but she couldn't afford one anyway.
I think I'd leave the choice to the clients: price for one shooter, or 2 shooters.

[Jen Shannon]

Maybe some of the more seasoned pros can chime in here, but I'm not sure that second shooters were that popular prior to the digital age. It's definitely possible, however the bride's expectations would need to be managed prior to the wedding about what she will be getting.

[Chris Rioux]

Jen Shannon, on 07 September 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

Maybe some of the more seasoned pros can chime in here, but I'm not sure that second shooters were that popular prior to the digital age. It's definitely possible, however the bride's expectations would need to be managed prior to the wedding about what she will be getting.

I didn't shoot weddings back when I was shooting film, so I don't know, but I'd say some did and some didn't (I know a few who did with film). Although it was probably a lot less than now, mostly because of the extra expense of processing the film.

[Chris Rioux]

Maïa Taïeb, on 06 September 2010 - 08:30 PM, said:

I did my sister's wedding all by myself.
I agree that a 2nd shooter could have helped but she couldn't afford one anyway.
I think I'd leave the choice to the clients: price for one shooter, or 2 shooters.

I know some photographers that always shoot with a second and some who give the bride the choice of adding one on. It really depends on what kind of service and experience you want to provide your clients and what your shooting style is. I personally always shoot with a second and include it in the pricing. There are times during a wedding that I have a better angle for a shot and sometimes my second has the better angle. I want to provide my clients with the best images I possibly can, and I cannot be in more than one place at a time. That's why I always hire a second. Please don't take this offensively, but typically it's the higher-end photographers who'll always hire a second, and the mid-range to low-end photographers that will only hire them if the bride pays extra for it. Now this isn't always true, but I've found this to be true more of the time than not. You have to decide very clearly what type of photographer you are and what you want to be. Design everything you do around this definition and you will be successful.

[Maïa Taïeb]

Chris Rioux, on 07 September 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

I know some photographers that always shoot with a second and some who give the bride the choice of adding one on. It really depends on what kind of service and experience you want to provide your clients and what your shooting style is. I personally always shoot with a second and include it in the pricing. There are times during a wedding that I have a better angle for a shot and sometimes my second has the better angle. I want to provide my clients with the best images I possibly can, and I cannot be in more than one place at a time. That's why I always hire a second. Please don't take this offensively, but typically it's the higher-end photographers who'll always hire a second, and the mid-range to low-end photographers that will only hire them if the bride pays extra for it. Now this isn't always true, but I've found this to be true more of the time than not. You have to decide very clearly what type of photographer you are and what you want to be. Design everything you do around this definition and you will be successful.

interesting point... I guess for the moment I am so afraid the bride would walk out my way if I have too high prices

[Chris Rioux]

Maïa Taïeb, on 11 September 2010 - 08:08 PM, said:

interesting point... I guess for the moment I am so afraid the bride would walk out my way if I have too high prices

If you run your business based off of price, you will never win, and you'll never build yourself as a hi-end photographer. That is completely fine, if that is what you want. But my guess is that's not what you want. I don't know about France, but in the US, every single Bride I've met with was very happy to have two photographers, not just one. Think of it this way: you could be loosing business for not including a second shooter. Also, if you ALWAYS shoot with a second shooter, and the same one, you'll get into a groove of working very well together, and your photography will be that much better.

Don't position yourself as a 'Good Deal' photographer. Position yourself as a high-quality, high-customer service business.

[Honey Kahoohanohano]

I ALWAYS have a second shooter unless it is a destination wedding with just the couple & the officiant (which I try to still have a secondary). My husband is usually my second on location - unless he is working his full time job... then my assistant will step in. I always ensure to try & taper my packages so that they are affordable but include the secondaries cost break down so my hubby gets paid for his time as well. Here are my benefits of having a second shooter:

1.) My husband's camera and shooting style is completely different than mine. He shoots Canon, I shoot Nikon... our glass choices are different as well. Also - my husband is an EXCELLENT candid photographer and has a knack for capturing the small intimate moments that guests and bridal party seem to have. My clients love the range in photographs that they get because they have a full scale of different images to select from. And, when it comes to children at a wedding... they LOVE him and he always gets great shots of cute little candids that children do.

2.) Here in Hawaii, some of our weddings scale from small intimate (one on one) events to huge events with guests well over 400 in attendance. I like knowing that if I need to focus on something at the moment... my secondary is always my "second eye" so to speak - keeping on top of other details while I may be engaged in something else.

3.) Also - though I may be well liked by my clients - I have been told that their guests can sometimes feel intimidated to approach me. For some reason, I give off this "on a mission" kind of vibe. Some may find me approachable - while others may not. My husband or secondary is usually the easier one to approach... and they always have business cards or brochures on hand for when they are asked for more information.

4.) Also - I like have 2 or more perspectives when it comes to shooting. Not only do my husband and I have different shooting styles, our eyes behind the camera are also different. He takes great "low" shots - where I like to photograph straight on. Again - I am providing more for my clients if they have more style to choose from.

If my husband and assistant (who I have been training) is not available - I will then hire outside with another photog friend. They tend to be a bit pricey - so I make sure to let the clients know in advance that we will be doing so. Most the time, however... I can still pay my photog stand in (friend) from the package my client selected without issue or increase in their package price.

[Honey Kahoohanohano]

Chris Rioux, on 07 September 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

I didn't shoot weddings back when I was shooting film, so I don't know, but I'd say some did and some didn't (I know a few who did with film). Although it was probably a lot less than now, mostly because of the extra expense of processing the film.

My dad shot weddings back in the day - and still shoots his film camera for friends' weddings from time to time. I don't ever recall that he had a secondary... I don't think he thought it to be an option.

An old family friend of ours who was a wedding/portrait photographer would have secondary at really large weddings only... and even then, he would try to shoot on his own. I think as Chris said (about the cost of film) that they were trying to stay within the range of the clients budget and not have to go over too much in cost.

[amphotography]

Chris Rioux, on 30 August 2010 - 05:57 PM, said:

That depends: How good a photographer do you want to hire?

Student that's just starting out - $150-175
Someone that's shot a few weddings before 200
depending on where you live, the standard going rate for an okay-decent second is between 250-300
Someone who's really good: $400
Someone who's VERY good: $500

I was told that a 2nd shooter of your caliber or higher should be getting 10% of the wedding photography service. Note, this does not include the cost of the album or prints or any other extras. So, if you are priced at $5000 for you to deliver photos on a DVD, you should pay the 2nd shooter (again, of your skill or higher) $500. And if you charge $1200, then $120 for your 2nd shooter. Assistants who carry around equipment or lightsticks would be less than that, but at least minimum wage for the hours worked.

[Chris Rioux]

amphotography, on 25 February 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

I was told that a 2nd shooter of your caliber or higher should be getting 10% of the wedding photography service. Note, this does not include the cost of the album or prints or any other extras. So, if you are priced at $5000 for you to deliver photos on a DVD, you should pay the 2nd shooter (again, of your skill or higher) $500. And if you charge $1200, then $120 for your 2nd shooter. Assistants who carry around equipment or lightsticks would be less than that, but at least minimum wage for the hours worked.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never heard of anyone paying a second shooter anything but a flat fee.

[AshSmash]

My question to all of the above who commented that they would only shoot with a 2nd shooter: Have you ever shot a wedding (not counting a very small wedding) by yourself?
(There is no snarky-ness in that question. I am curious to know.)

I am by no means a seasoned professional, but I have photographed about 15 medium-sized (the largest was around 150 guests)weddings by myself. I don't think any of my weddings would be classified as high-end however. I think I did a bang-up job of capturing the moments all by myself though. Sure, it would've been nice to have had help and get different angles and such. But it can definitely be done, and I would argue that it can be done well. I make sure that all of my brides know up front, in the initial correspondence that I shoot alone. To my knowledge know one has ever turned me down because I shoot solo. It all depends on the results you can produce and what the bride and groom want. If they're fine with you shooting solo then go at it with your head held high and knock it out of the park. I'm sure you'll do just fine to start out.

In regards to capturing all the moments: You get a feel for who is important to the bride and groom and their families and who got an obligatory invite. Keep your eyes on the VIPs if you do decide to shoot solo and capture everyone else in the less memorable moments.

With all that said, I am tired of shooting solo. It's just nice to have someone on your team. Eating by yourself in a sea of strangers who all know each other to some degree is just down right awkward!

[Chris Rioux]

AshSmash, on 28 February 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

My question to all of the above who commented that they would only shoot with a 2nd shooter: Have you ever shot a wedding (not counting a very small wedding) by yourself?
(There is no snarky-ness in that question. I am curious to know.)

I am by no means a seasoned professional, but I have photographed about 15 medium-sized (the largest was around 150 guests)weddings by myself. I don't think any of my weddings would be classified as high-end however. I think I did a bang-up job of capturing the moments all by myself though. Sure, it would've been nice to have had help and get different angles and such. But it can definitely be done, and I would argue that it can be done well. I make sure that all of my brides know up front, in the initial correspondence that I shoot alone. To my knowledge know one has ever turned me down because I shoot solo. It all depends on the results you can produce and what the bride and groom want. If they're fine with you shooting solo then go at it with your head held high and knock it out of the park. I'm sure you'll do just fine to start out.

In regards to capturing all the moments: You get a feel for who is important to the bride and groom and their families and who got an obligatory invite. Keep your eyes on the VIPs if you do decide to shoot solo and capture everyone else in the less memorable moments.

With all that said, I am tired of shooting solo. It's just nice to have someone on your team. Eating by yourself in a sea of strangers who all know each other to some degree is just down right awkward!

Hey Ash,

No, I never have, nor am I interested in, shooting a wedding alone. Doesn't sound like much fun to me, and definitely not interested in the added stress! haha