Second Shooter Etiquette

<p>I've only shot weddings myself from start to finish. When I advertise and meet my clients, I told them they are only getting me and no second shooter.</p>

<p>Recently I met up with a young shooter and think we can work together.</p>

<p>What I would like to do is to bring a second shooter to the weddings even though I only promise myself to the clients. This part I don't think any clients will object.</p>

<p>What I'm not sure is if I leave the 2nd shooter to cover most or all of the reception, do you think the clients will object?</p>

<p>If I go that route, I will email and make sure the clients are OK getting a 2nd shooter for free and having him covering the reception alone. If it goes well, that's how I"m going to market myself for next year. </p>

<p>But I just wanted to ask to see if this kind of arrangement is common in the marketplace. Thanks.</p>

 

<p><em>if I leave the 2nd shooter to cover most or all of the reception, do you think the clients will object?</em></p>

<p>If the second shooter does most of the shooting in the end, wouldn't it be appropriate to call <em>them</em> the primary shooter and you a middleman who adds to the client's cost? I can't think why a client would go for that kind of an arrangement, knowingly.</p>

<p>Communicating your intent w/clients is the right way to go about it. I don't do weddings (only did 2), but I'd do reception with the second shooter....just to see how he/she operates....obtaining the results that you are hoping for.</p>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em>If I go that route, I will <a id="itxthook3" href="/wedding-photography-forum/00cZiy?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">email<img id="itxthook3icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> and make sure the clients are OK getting a 2nd shooter <strong>for free</strong> and having him covering the reception alone. If it goes well, that's how I"m going to market myself for next year. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Unless you are not charging the couple at all, you're deceiving yourself and them....that they are getting anything for free.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>A second shooter is only a second shooter when there is a primary shooter present. You leaving him alone is not the right thing to do to your client when they have hired you to shoot. I assumed you were asking about training a photographer on the job which is fine but to leave the party and have someone else finish it needs to be communicated to your client. That is not a free photographer to the client by the way. They have already paid for a photographer to shoot the job which is supposed to be you!! If you stayed for the whole job then yes the client would have had a second photographer for free. Who are you trying to fool?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I'm not sure is if I leave the 2nd shooter to cover most or all of the reception, do you think the clients will object?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I think they will object. They hired <em>you</em>, not him/her. While the 'free' 'extra' coverage may not be frowned upon, and in most cases would be welcomed, he/she does not<em> replace</em> you. I'm obviously missing something because you aren't this clueless. Did you mean that the second would stay past your time obligation? Or do you get tired, and want to cut out early figuring that nothing important happens at the reception anyway?</p>

<p>In my mind this is like if some magazine hired a fashion photog to do a spread, and 2/3 of the way through the scheduled and paid for shoot he said, "alright peace out!, my assistant can handle it from here, the rest of the shots are easy!"</p>

<p>Because I didn't communicate this to the clients for this season beforehand, it's not a good idea to do this year. <br>

The most successful shooter in my town who charges $5K-$10K per wedding with album and has several studios, doesI exactly that. He'll only show up for just the couple's session and hire "associates" to do the rest including ceremony. <br /> I attended several of this top tog's workshop and he never advertised this fact. But I know people who hired him and people who worked for him to know this is how he operates.</p>

<p>I agreed that it will be wise to wait until next season and tell the clients that I might not be the one doing, say, reception before implementing this. </p>

 

<p>You need to be 100% sure that person can handle the job. It is your name on the business. Your reputation is damaged if they screw up.</p>

<p>I think you need to second shoot someone for awhile and see what they do. I say this because you are somehow under the mistaken impression that shooting the reception is 'easier' than shooting the ceremony. You also seem to think that shooting the reception is less important than shooting the ceremony. Neither is not true in the eyes of the client. They want the whole banana covered with the highest level of professionalism possible.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I attended several of this top tog's workshop and he never advertised this fact. But I know people who hired him and people who worked for him to know this is how he operates.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll bet you he did put it into his contract. If he didn't then I would not attend anymore of his seminars...</p>

<p>Look. A wedding is a couple's most important day. IF you are a professional <strong>you</strong> make sure that you give them <strong>YOUR</strong> best possible work. If your second (and if he is working alone he is not the second shooter as others have pointed out) is as good or better than you are, and if he is and you prefer to sell services rather than take pictures yourself then by all means keep him busy. I think you are trying way to soon to emulate what this other guy does. If you just now considering working with a second shooter you are probably not in that guy's league yet. This top "tog" (I have never heard that term before and resent it) has undoubtedly very carefully vetted his other photographers. He knows without a doubt that they are good enough to support his brand. No doubt he also pays them very well. If he is getting $5-10K for a wedding these shooters are not apprentices. That much is certain.</p>

<p>Really though you can't even begin to answer your question until you know what this other shooter brings to the table. You need to know that he has the talent and training to shoot at a skill level that will make you proud. You need to know that he is reliable, and has all of the required equipment.... has the work ethic to accomplish post quickly and up to your standard. You need to know how he interacts with clients even in difficult situations. In other words you have a lot more work to do with this second shooter before you even think of putting him with clients.</p>

<p>Consider this. The very first consideration, upon which ALL business decisions rest is that you are capable of producing the results you are trying to sell. You don't know that yet. So you can bring a "free" second shooter. You pay him from your take unless the client has specifically contracted to pay for an additional shooter. When he has performed a dozen or so weddings with you and performed in an exemplary manner then maybe you can put him to work solo. And pay him accordingly. If he is as good as you are and doing the job that you would do that means he probably gets a bigger cut of the proceeds than you do. </p>

<p>I think you need to think about respecting not only what you do and its importance to clients but also respecting the work of others. I don't mean to be insulting. Just direct. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Some photographers only stays until the first dance. You could shoot that and then let the second shooter stay longer and get more shots that you would not normally get. That would be added value for the client I think.</p>

<p>I think second shooters should turn over their cards and let the primary take care of selection and post production.</p>

 

<p>Not only does he charge 5-10K per wedding, but he also gets people to pay him to talk to them!<br>

These aren't 2nds! These 'associates' are likely professional photogs who probably are as experienced as many of us, they are probably also studio photogs during the week. They probably prefer working for him since they have reliable steady income without having to worry about acquiring contracts, and being by their lonesomes. </p>

<p>Frankly though, I doubt your current contract would allow you to do this. Even if you have somebody who can reliably fill that roles, you'll need to reword your contract (subtly, so your client doesn't notice) to allow you to operate this way.</p>

<p>Isn't time you come out of the greenhouse and use your name?<br>

What is it you are hiding from?</p>

 

Hiding? I respect having the ability to honestly ask and discuss photography without putting it out there for your clients to

later stumble on. Go green.

<p>Green - </p>

<p>There's a big difference between a 2nd and a primary. The primary is the one who's name and reputation is on the line if things go south. Not the 2nd. </p>

<p>Imagine if you were at the wedding reception and you left the 2nd alone and they injured (unintentionally) a guest... It would be you on the line - not the 2nd. </p>

<p>Now with that being said - I only bring 2nds to the party who are capable of being primary in case of an emergency or accident. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I think that emailing the client regarding using a second shooter for the reception is a pretty cold way of doing business.<br>

Call them, the couple, or meet with them and let them meet your extra shooter if needed. Just a thought to consider.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. Like I said before, not goona do this this year for sure.</p>

<p>Quite frankly, if I were to hire a photographer, I'd want him to photograph my entire wedding. Not just the parts that tickle his fancy. Honestly, it sounds lazy and disinterested - curious to see how anybody were to sell their couples on that "deal". </p>

<p>One usually hires a second photographer when one photographer can't cover everything by himself. They don't hire a second photographer to finish a job so the first photographer can go home early. Now there are times when it makes sense to stagger the photographers start time to save the client in paying overtime at the end. This no client will object. Get everything in writing and let the client know what will happen so you won't get sued.</p>