I always hire a second shooter and in the case of a very large wedding, a third shooter isn't a bad idea at all. There is always so much activity and the way I view wedding events in terms of "chapters" of the story being told, I know I can't possibly catch everything. I hire photogs that complement my style and who work with me without sacrificing the essence of what I try to portray. It's worked well for me. Good luck!
Community News!
*GUESTS PLEASE LOGIN TO POST!* Not a member? Sign up for FREE
PhotoBiz.com Clients! Don't forget to Login with your PhotoBiz Login Info!
1
Do you always have a 2nd shooter when shooting a wedding ?
Started by Maïa Taïeb, Aug 28 2010 03:07 PM
25 replies to this topic
#22
-
- Members
- 1 posts
Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:49 PM
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!
(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!
I love your attitude about knocking it out of the park if you shoot solo! While I am not opposed to having a 2nd, I have never felt that I had to have one. My brides know what they are getting up front. They hire me based off my past (solo) work and reputation. I'm not all that seasoned and don't do high-end... but I do mid-range weddings (150-200 guests) and I'm working my way up. I love what I do and that shows in my work.
I can see me using a 2nd at some point just to help be in two places at once... but so far the stress is totally manageable. That could be due to the fact that I'm extremely organized and a bit of a control freak. But I think in this case it just helps me to accomplish all that needs to be done on such a big, hectic day!
And to answer your other question... the only time I've shot with a 2nd was when I was the 2nd: ) It was a great learning tool to see how others do their job. I have to say that the primary on one wedding wasn't all that great, but it was still a great tool because I used that knowledge to teach myself what not to do!
#23
-
- Members
- 1 posts
Posted 16 March 2011 - 10:27 AM
I have been specializing and shooting weddings since 1999. Up until this last year, I've shot as many as 50 weddings a year with as many as 400 people by myself. Granted the one with 400 people I would have been really happy to have a second shooter but I was still able to get all the necessary shots (even running up to the balcony) and all the candids the couple wanted. My adrenaline starts the minute my foot steps out the car at the church until the couple is driving off. Just this past year I revised my price list to include a second shooter for all my packages, excluding the budget one. It just makes it easier on the body with a second shooter.
#24
-
- Members
- 24 posts
- LocationNY, NJ, CT, PA, RI, MA
Posted 25 May 2011 - 02:24 PM
Hi All,
As one of those "old-timers" referred to in an earlier post, shooting professionally full time since 1980, I thought I would chime in. I have shot several hundred weddings, over two decades using film. They ranged in size from a handful of witnesses to a ballroom filled with 300 guests. I never had a second shooter. On a bigger job, I had an assistant and on the biggest, two assistants. These assistants moved my equipment, loaded cameras, kept a shot list, organized table shots, posed group shots, assisted the subjects with their attire, did my gopher work, etc.
By going into a wedding organized with a shot list of must have shots; who will be in them, when we will do them, and where we will do them I was able to maximize my efficiency and get the shots I know the bride, groom and their families and friends wanted. The shot list was constructed in consultations with the bride and groom. Another must have is the timetable for the sequence of events. The entrance, the dance, the toast, the dinner, etc. Work with the DJ or MC and caterer to synchronize what you each need to do. This will bring the stress level down greatly. After you shoot enough weddings or other events, there will be very little stress. When you are confident that you know what you are doing, there is not much anxiety or stress. Being organized like that also gave me more time for the candid and photojournalistic shots that make up a good portion of the coverage.
If the B&G were looking for a videographer, I would recommend someone I knew was good and easy for me to work with. Same for the MC/DJ. A wedding can seem so much smoother when you work with others that you have worked with before and you know how to work with each other.
It is impossible to get shots of every single "Kodak moment" at any event, whether you have 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 shooters. There will always be something happening somewhere in the room that won't be recorded. The most important thing the photographer has to do is to record the special moments we all know are coming... first kiss, first dance, putting on the rings, etc. How you record these is what will set you apart from the other photographers working in your market area.
The biggest difference I see in photographers brought up in the digital age as opposed to the film age, is that, in general, it seems that when we shpt film, we were much more discerning in pushing the shutter release because each time we did, it cost $$$.
Shooting film meant we weren't going to shoot a thousand shots in the hopes of finding two hundred great shots. It meant we were going to carefully consider what we saw in the viewfinder to determine if it would be worth it to press the shutter release. Even in the digital age, although I have mostly moved away from weddings, for the few that I have done I still only guarantee two hundred to four hundred images, not seven hundred or a thousand. In my consultations with the B&G, they always prefer a few hundred great images to a thousand images that have varying levels of interest and quality. As far as making albums or press print books, these rarely contain more than 100 - 150 images.
OK, so why did I morph the topic into digital vs. film? To bring it back to topic, (2nd shooter remember lol), I will say I believe that unless a wedding has so many guests, that it is impossible to get each one in at least one image, then a second shooter is not necessary. If the mindset is not, how many shots I promised, how many shots can I get, but is instead, how can I create the next great shot, then one photographer can do a superb job. Of course, one needs experience, needs to be organized, needs to be well rested, needs to be motivated, and needs an assistant.
Please don't take offense, but I believe that professional wedding photographers who are taking/offering 1000 - 1500 images to the B&G are, in a sense, devaluing our profession. I have spoken to a few brides and I have been told that their photographer's "sales pitch" centered on how many images they can provide, more so than how great the images would come out. The reality is, as professionals, we complain about how "everyone and their Mama" calls themselves a pro photographer now just because they got a cool digital camera for Christmas! We complain about Uncle Tony with his new digital camera taking pictures at the wedding and having to compete with him. Of course even Uncle Tony can get some great shots if he takes a thousand shots. What is supposed to set us apart from everyone else with a camera is that we take great shots on purpose, not by accident. We anticipate; we set it up; we catch it because we want to, not because we got lucky.
THAT skill level is what we need to offer to our potential clients. Quality, not quantity should be the goal. If one's priority is quantity, then yes, you probably will need a 2nd (or 3rd) shooter. This is not to say that everyone with a second shooter is not a skilled professional. I am not saying that if you have a 2nd shooter that your skills are lacking. I am only suggesting that perhaps you don’t really need one. But more importantly, even if you feel you need one or want one, it doesn’t mean that a 2nd shooter is a necessity for all wedding photographers.
Another thing to consider is I get clients based on who I am and what I have done and what I can offer, in other words, my reputation and my body of work. People like the way I think, the way I envision images, the way I create images, my style. A second shooter brings none of that. They bring their own vision, experience and style. My clients are coming to me because they know what they can expect from me.
I just wanted to bring another perspective to this discussion. If you are a single shooter, don't think for a second that you can't do a great job. Don't think for a second that shooting fewer images means you are doing less of a job. The goal should be to give the B&G what they want and you can do it by having a strategy, working with the MC/DJ, being well rested and alert, organized, and creative. Hundreds of weddings later, I have never had anyone complain that I missed a picture nor did anything less than a stellar job of documenting their wedding. How happy were my clients?? In contracting over 300 weddings over 20 years, I have never advertised. All bookings were from word of mouth. For me, this is the ultimate compliment and the ultimate validation that a single shooter can do it right.
Richie
As one of those "old-timers" referred to in an earlier post, shooting professionally full time since 1980, I thought I would chime in. I have shot several hundred weddings, over two decades using film. They ranged in size from a handful of witnesses to a ballroom filled with 300 guests. I never had a second shooter. On a bigger job, I had an assistant and on the biggest, two assistants. These assistants moved my equipment, loaded cameras, kept a shot list, organized table shots, posed group shots, assisted the subjects with their attire, did my gopher work, etc.
By going into a wedding organized with a shot list of must have shots; who will be in them, when we will do them, and where we will do them I was able to maximize my efficiency and get the shots I know the bride, groom and their families and friends wanted. The shot list was constructed in consultations with the bride and groom. Another must have is the timetable for the sequence of events. The entrance, the dance, the toast, the dinner, etc. Work with the DJ or MC and caterer to synchronize what you each need to do. This will bring the stress level down greatly. After you shoot enough weddings or other events, there will be very little stress. When you are confident that you know what you are doing, there is not much anxiety or stress. Being organized like that also gave me more time for the candid and photojournalistic shots that make up a good portion of the coverage.
If the B&G were looking for a videographer, I would recommend someone I knew was good and easy for me to work with. Same for the MC/DJ. A wedding can seem so much smoother when you work with others that you have worked with before and you know how to work with each other.
It is impossible to get shots of every single "Kodak moment" at any event, whether you have 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 shooters. There will always be something happening somewhere in the room that won't be recorded. The most important thing the photographer has to do is to record the special moments we all know are coming... first kiss, first dance, putting on the rings, etc. How you record these is what will set you apart from the other photographers working in your market area.
The biggest difference I see in photographers brought up in the digital age as opposed to the film age, is that, in general, it seems that when we shpt film, we were much more discerning in pushing the shutter release because each time we did, it cost $$$.
Shooting film meant we weren't going to shoot a thousand shots in the hopes of finding two hundred great shots. It meant we were going to carefully consider what we saw in the viewfinder to determine if it would be worth it to press the shutter release. Even in the digital age, although I have mostly moved away from weddings, for the few that I have done I still only guarantee two hundred to four hundred images, not seven hundred or a thousand. In my consultations with the B&G, they always prefer a few hundred great images to a thousand images that have varying levels of interest and quality. As far as making albums or press print books, these rarely contain more than 100 - 150 images.
OK, so why did I morph the topic into digital vs. film? To bring it back to topic, (2nd shooter remember lol), I will say I believe that unless a wedding has so many guests, that it is impossible to get each one in at least one image, then a second shooter is not necessary. If the mindset is not, how many shots I promised, how many shots can I get, but is instead, how can I create the next great shot, then one photographer can do a superb job. Of course, one needs experience, needs to be organized, needs to be well rested, needs to be motivated, and needs an assistant.
Please don't take offense, but I believe that professional wedding photographers who are taking/offering 1000 - 1500 images to the B&G are, in a sense, devaluing our profession. I have spoken to a few brides and I have been told that their photographer's "sales pitch" centered on how many images they can provide, more so than how great the images would come out. The reality is, as professionals, we complain about how "everyone and their Mama" calls themselves a pro photographer now just because they got a cool digital camera for Christmas! We complain about Uncle Tony with his new digital camera taking pictures at the wedding and having to compete with him. Of course even Uncle Tony can get some great shots if he takes a thousand shots. What is supposed to set us apart from everyone else with a camera is that we take great shots on purpose, not by accident. We anticipate; we set it up; we catch it because we want to, not because we got lucky.
THAT skill level is what we need to offer to our potential clients. Quality, not quantity should be the goal. If one's priority is quantity, then yes, you probably will need a 2nd (or 3rd) shooter. This is not to say that everyone with a second shooter is not a skilled professional. I am not saying that if you have a 2nd shooter that your skills are lacking. I am only suggesting that perhaps you don’t really need one. But more importantly, even if you feel you need one or want one, it doesn’t mean that a 2nd shooter is a necessity for all wedding photographers.
Another thing to consider is I get clients based on who I am and what I have done and what I can offer, in other words, my reputation and my body of work. People like the way I think, the way I envision images, the way I create images, my style. A second shooter brings none of that. They bring their own vision, experience and style. My clients are coming to me because they know what they can expect from me.
I just wanted to bring another perspective to this discussion. If you are a single shooter, don't think for a second that you can't do a great job. Don't think for a second that shooting fewer images means you are doing less of a job. The goal should be to give the B&G what they want and you can do it by having a strategy, working with the MC/DJ, being well rested and alert, organized, and creative. Hundreds of weddings later, I have never had anyone complain that I missed a picture nor did anything less than a stellar job of documenting their wedding. How happy were my clients?? In contracting over 300 weddings over 20 years, I have never advertised. All bookings were from word of mouth. For me, this is the ultimate compliment and the ultimate validation that a single shooter can do it right.
Richie
#25
-
- Members
- 63 posts
- LocationHouston, TX
Posted 25 May 2011 - 05:14 PM
Weather you have a second shooter or not is really a personal decision of the photographer. Often times more value would come from having a second shooter if the wedding you are shooting is a decent size of wedding....like 300 or more. During weddings like these it is nice to have an additional photographer to add a different perspective. It also means thats someone else is capturing moments just in case you miss one. I mean its obvious that one photographer can shoot a wedding with 300 - 400 or even 500 people if they had to but ideally it would be better to have someone else shooting so that ya'll can split the workload. Not every single image which is captured during a wedding has to be so absolutely breath-taking from a photographers standpoint. What I mean is the B&G as well as they guests will often want a quick snapshot here or there and its nice to have someone take pictures of the guests while the primary photographer shoots the cake, the venue, the decorations, the details...etc etc.
Some else have to consider is that when you have a primary and second shooter that know how to work really well together...they have much greater potential to handle the different scenarios which often come up during a wedding then a solo shooter. For some of the weddings I shoot I use my second shooter/assistant and for the smaller ones I don't use my second shooter. I can tell you this though...if I am not using him its because I know the wedding I am shooting will be of the size that I can handle it by myself the way I want to handle it.
Long story short...when it comes to weddings two perspectives are always better than one...since any location where a photographer might stand in any wedding will have pro's and con's...its good to have someone shooting in a completely different location to give a different view of things...
Some else have to consider is that when you have a primary and second shooter that know how to work really well together...they have much greater potential to handle the different scenarios which often come up during a wedding then a solo shooter. For some of the weddings I shoot I use my second shooter/assistant and for the smaller ones I don't use my second shooter. I can tell you this though...if I am not using him its because I know the wedding I am shooting will be of the size that I can handle it by myself the way I want to handle it.
Long story short...when it comes to weddings two perspectives are always better than one...since any location where a photographer might stand in any wedding will have pro's and con's...its good to have someone shooting in a completely different location to give a different view of things...
#26
-
- Members
- 8 posts
- LocationPhoenix, AZ
Posted 16 June 2011 - 09:54 AM
For me it depends on the size of the wedding. If the client wants to pay the extra pricing for the second shooter. I would just say it really depends on each person skill level and confidence of getting everything that is needed. I personally do most of my weddings that are under 125 people alone. My clients know my shooting style and it matches with what their looking for.
I love having a second person there but if its not needed I don't hire one.
I love having a second person there but if its not needed I don't hire one.
Jamie Hines
Owner/Photographer
www.jamiehinesphoto.com
Owner/Photographer
www.jamiehinesphoto.com
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
