Photographers

You may get help from a very professional wedding photographer called Amanda Barker. She has expertise in portraits of families, children, babies, pregnant mothers and loves to creatively document the way people live in lifestyle sessions, and also to capture life's big events such as weddings and birth. You may get more info via clicking here http://www.amandabarkerphoto.ca/wedding-photography.html

It depends. Assistants are a bit old hat tbh.

Then again I'd define an assistant as someone who sets up camera equipment ONLY and because of modern tech the need for tripods, film changes and such are behind us.

On the other hand a second photographer (if they are truly professional and experienced) can be a good thing.

If it's a massive venue(s) with lots of guests and both sides of prep need covering then yes, great idea. A wedding with up to 100 guests in one central location and the groom isn't fussed about his side, no, not needed.

Chris has summed it up great. It really depends on what you want covered. I shoot majority of my weddings on my own but now and then, some of my couples want the Groom prep covered or they have a lot of guests coming, you want the back of the ceremony covered along with the front etc. Everything else can e covered by one Photographer.

We will have about 60 day guests and 100 night guests so not too bigger wedding.

I have never worked with an assistant, sometimes by getting two "photographers " if the package price is very low it can be a case that each person on their own does not feel confident or experienced enough to shoot a wedding by themselves.

I feel that if the photographer is experienced enough in weddings they should not need an assistant. Sometimes this is sold to you as "two photographers" when one of them is not really a photographer. I get offers all the time form students wanting to learn and be a second shooter for free, now there is no way on earth that I will say to bride and grooms that you are getting two photographers but some do work like this and have different seconds each time.

Back before digital cameras photographers used to take their other halfs along with them and call them an assistant, this was mostly a tax thing as you could pay your other half and claim the expence. Now with didgital cameras and the delete button that same assistant can now marketed to you as a "photographer".

In my opinion, it's kind of a non-strait forward case of quality Vs quantity. Do you want potentially more coverage, or do you want a slightly better quality pictures?

What I mean is, 2 photographers will likely (not always) cost more than 1 photographer of the same quality. You could just allocate the money you were going to spend on 2 photographers to a better single photographer.

With 2 photographers you do get the advantage of backup. If one photographer is ill on the day, the other may be able to make it.

You can end up paying the same, or more for 2 rubbish photographers as you can for 1 good one.

If you are truly getting 2 real photographers then it should cost somthing like half as much again.

Great!!!! Thanks for all your advice!!! Very helpful.

I have a list of some I like the look of online. We've arranged to meet up with one tomorrow. We'll see how that goes. We've met one other that work as husband and wife, which seem nice. They do a lot and are in our local area. I have a few more we can meet and then form a short list.

Reasons for having a second shooter: extra coverage of guests, ability to cover groom and bridal prep, ability to cover important parts of the wedding that happen simultaneously, second shooter can double up as a lighting assistant.

Assistants that don't shoot tend to be there to make the primary photographer's job flow more smoothly, which can be invaluable when doing technically tricky shots or shots that require off camera lighting (usually they'll hold the light stand). So some photographers that do a lot of off camera work are likely to require an assistant or second shooter, those who use natural lighting might not need an assistant.

P.S I don't think needing an assistant is related to experience, I never used an assistant in my early days, now I find it invaluable because my shots have become more technically advanced and require a second pair of hands to hold lighting equipment.

Eh! thats what the light stand is for (so you dont need another pair of hands!)

Have you never shot an Indian wedding? Lots of things happen simultaneously, in Indian culture the groom coverage is equally as important as the bride, that's why Indian wedding photographers work in pairs or even threes sometimes!

Sometimes a shot needs lighting to be higher than the height of the lightstand, mine only go up to 2 metres I think. When I've seconded for other experience photographers I'd often been holding it out with fully extended arms. I guess with a lightstand you could say it's not a 'need', but something that makes your life infinitely simpler.

Then get some bigger ones -- dear liza ? dear liza ?

Of course things happen at the same time Bill. Perhaps not "box tickers" such as a cake cut/first dance, but lots of real moments that often mean more to couples than the other stuff. Such as if the groom turns around to look at his bride as she's walking down the aisle, or guest reactions to speeches etc

Personally, we only work as a pair now because it's the only way for us to provide the kind of coverage that we want to offer. Having worked in partnership for the last few years, and having had the "luxury" of being able to provide simultaneous coverage, shooting a wedding alone is not something i'd ever want to go back to. It's a very personal thing though and it wouldn't work for everyone.

That said, we have booked a single photographer for our own wedding. When we first started looking we were adamant that we wanted 2 photographers, but found it absolutely impossible to find any that we were totally happy with....because as has been said, many aren't actually 2 photographers, they are a lone photographer who's roped in their wife/cousin/brother etc and plonked a camera in their hand.

In the end we found someone who's photos we loved and all of a sudden it didn't matter if they were on their own or not, we were happy with the end result and that was all that really mattered.

One thing I can definitely say though, is that having 2 photographers doesn't mean that it needs to be a large wedding. We've shot teeny tiny ones with 30 guests, through to those with 300+

Good photographers will manage to blend in regardless and should have different roles so you don't have 2 fighting for the same shots.

If you do go down the 2 photographer route, all I can say is make sure that they are genuinely 2 photographers- otherwise as Rhys said you may be better off putting your pennies towards one better photographer as opposed to an OK one who's just dragged someone else along.

If you'd like to see some full weddings shot with 2 photographers for comparison we're happy to send over a few. From experience when we were looking, we know that getting full galleries out of some 2 tog teams can be like getting blood out of a stone!

Perhaps I didnt make myself clear enough because my remark was about the "box tickers" which is what I thought mariannes "important parts were refering to

mariannechuaphotography:

Bill Haddon; No important parts happen simultaneously, you know when they are about to happen and you are there

Ah see but I think those other moments are important too. They're the ones that really tell the story/capture the emotion etc.

I don't suppose it really matters, it's just a matter of personal preference (and of course i'm totally bias ?)

You will find the single photographer will put a case forward stating that two photographers are not needed and the same goes for the two photographers will put their state that one photographer cannot cover the wedding properly, swings and roundabouts, be careful when looking at two photographer teams as most of the time the second photographer is the wife or husband, a trainee, close friend or even just an assistant but you will be paying for two photographers.

I nearly always work with a second photographer not that I am scared to work alone, that comment keeps coming up but most of the weddings I shoot are big weddings and its becoming the norm to have two photographers shooting a wedding, every enquiry I get they ask if I have a second photographer available as well, saying that I have two small intimate weekday weddings this year where two photographers will be overkill. Depends on what you want, extra coverage for the groom as well as the bride but if you are both getting ready at the same venue then one photographer can cover it.

I have shot literally dozens on Indian weddings and two photographers from different companies are common. I would disagree on one point which was about the Indian culture having the groom and bride s family equally important.....in all weddings, whatever the genre, I treat both sides exactly the same. Ok, the bride does get a bit of extra treatment, although as far as the families themselves are concerned, they are equals.....

I have photographed 98% of weddings as a single shooter. Where the second shooter can come in helpful is photographing details (a single tog has to take time away from the main party to do this) and getting the second tog to capture altenative angles, something that can be very useful during any formals......

Lympne Castle Wedding photo by my second shooter.

Peter

The question whether or not an assistant or second photographer is beneficial, I think really depends on the dynamic and quality of the partnership.

The point to check is whether the second photographers know what is required and is able to fulfil those requirements, the same can be said for an assistant. Should the second photographer be up to the task then this allows for a tremendous amount of flexibility during the day. The main photographer is then in a position to offer the couple options that would otherwise not be available.

For example the second could capture photos of friends and family while the main photographer spends times with the couple creating the couple shots, or in the case of an assistant where the assistant helps create a lighting option that may not be something easily accomplished with a light stand.

A person who does not use a second/assistant simply has developed a style and method that enables them to capture all their clients requires without the need of another person.

Bruce has it nailed on above ..... those that shoot with two will tell you that is best, those who shoot solo will tell you it isn't necessary.

I shoot solo (I have tried shooting as a duo) and would unreservedly state that a good photographer can cover your wedding comprehensively and with quality on his or her own ..... but then I would say that !!!

I actually don't think that either is best, it depends entirely on the photographer(s). It's just a different level of coverage and a different range of possibilities. That appeals to some couples and it appeals to some photographers.

Ultimately, ignore the number of photographers on offer and look at the work. If you love it, you love it. That's what counts ?

For me I think it comes from when I shot my first wedding at 20 (a long time ago ) back then if you had an "assistant" it was your wife who came along, she would have no camera and her role was to arrange the dress or somthing and it was tax efficient to pay her. But I had no partner to call an "assistant" and so developed tricks and techniques and procedures to shoot without any help. Also at that time it was tripods light meters and film cameras that only got 12 photos on a roll, and for that camera no zoom lenses either and it was always at a church.

So if anything with today's modern cameras its even easier to shoot solo now than it ever was. one simple trick is that I have another camera set up with a different lens so I dont need an assistant handing me a lens - I just swap whole cameras in a second, which is faster than a assistant handing you one to swap on your 1 camera. One example out of many that I have developed to work solo with a small footprint shooting a wedding. As for shooting the details, remember - they dont move and will still be there when I want them, with planning. To be a wedding photographer sometimes you need to blend in - for the casual shots, stand out - to arrange the groups, join in the party - to get the real fun, and also have a sense of respect when that's needed too, some photographers can do it all, others can be more skilled at some things and not others and so working as a duo can be a perfect way for them to shoot a wedding.

And I do see that some big weddings would perhaps benefit from two photographers so long as they are both proper professional wedding photographers in their own right.

I would be good if wou were always told "ok- its one pro photographer and a part time second shooter" so you know what you are paying for, but all too often you are lead to believe that you are getting two "full blown" wedding photographers when that may not always be the case.

At the risk of making this a topic that us photographers just beat to death whilst the brides are busy on other threads, this is my tuppence worth.

I started shooting weddings on my own without an assistant/second photographer and have never had any issues. Now i've started to use assistant and second photographers more and I have to say i prefer it this way.

Assistants are a godsend when keeping up with the flow of the day. I can concentrate on shooting when they can be setting the lightstand up or grabbing me the next lens i need. Rounding up guests since let's face it, the ushers never really 'usher' anyone. Basically having an assistant speeds my work up so there's less waiting around for me to set the shot up.

A second photographer brings a lot more flexibility. For example if the bride is running late I don't have to worry about getting the arrival of the guests/groom party. They get different angles and of course can act as a backup in case something heaven forbid goes wrong.

To be honest I don't want to go back to a single photographer way of working unless the wedding is very small.

Thank you all for your thoughts on this issue. Muchly appreciated and very helpful. I didn't realise it would spark such a discussion. lol.

I'd like to point out that not all of us husband/wife teams have one photographer and one tag along. Both my partner and I are professional full time photographers and bring both of our talents to every wedding. The plus point for us is that because we are a couple it doesn't cost as much for us to run as it would for an independent second shooter so that saving is passed onto the couple.

I don't always think 2 photographers is essential, but I'm glad we did for our own wedding as there are moments that would have been missed otherwise. We both bring different things to a wedding so it works for us. I'm the sniper shooter mostly but do take the couple for their photos as I'm more suited to one on two or stealth shooting and details. My husband is the people wrangler, the one who everyone knows his name and has had a joke with him by the end of the day, the one who is in the middle of the dance floor capturing the antics. It works for us and our couples!

I think you'd have to ask what the second person did. It might be nice to have someone taking pictures of you getting ready and the other one taking pictures of people arriving at the venue, or taking pictures of you at the ceremony/outside and the other one taking pictures of the guests. I feel they should be taking different photos to the main photographer.

My friend had a mother and son photographer package - we would stand and smile for the mother to take some pictures, then she would step to the side and the son would take pictures of exactly the same set up. It just seemed a pointless waste of time and money to have two there for that.

That definitely is NOT what a second shooter should be about. There is no value added in it for the client.

Peter

We're getting two togs with our package. I expect the main tog will be with me while I'm getting ready and the other with the boys while they do their stuff and also with the guests as they arrive. Then after the ceremony we're off on a little jaunt on a vintage bus. During this I expect the main tog to take hubby and I aside for our pics while the other will capture candid shots of the guests enjoying their canapés and mini picnic. I'm looking forward to seeing these as we'll miss them. But it's not essential more a nice to have IMHO.

Sounds odd, could this be PERHAPS that the Mum is an established photographer and the son is wanting to start on his own, Mum is giving him a helping hand by setting things up and letting him take the shot too, so he can show them on his own wesite and say that he took them, sort of like a lioness wounding an antilope and letting the cub finnish it off. I hope they didnt do this all the way through the wedding because just for their own use the whole thing will take twice as long

My friend could only afford to have them there after the ceremony for the formal shots. It did take quite a while to get through them though!

What? ? Bill you really do have a way with words!

??