The Value Of A Second Shooter?

<p>In this age of multiple frame slide shows and coffee table type albums with 90 to 100 images, I have found great value in using a second shooter. One value is that I can concentrate on more experimental candids and artistic shots that add emotional value to a client's presentation materials.</p>

<p>I understand the profit ramifications in this depleted economy, yet whenever possible I try to use a second because it improves the product offering exponentially.</p>

<p>There are many capable shooters who just don't want to handle all the details, aspects, and people handling necessary to do this as a business, and you can strike deals with them to second shoot at a more reasonable price point. One big price factor is <em>not </em>having them process their work ... I do that.</p>

<p>A <em>second</em> shooting from the church balcony while I do close up work from the main floor, simultaneous front and back shots with Jewish ceremonies under the Chuppah, dual shots of the bouquet toss from different angles, etc. All of these find their way into slide shows using classic two camera angles and editing techniques, or into albums as main and secondary shots.</p>

<p>I thought of this subject as I was editing last Sunday's wedding images where there were two of us shooting a Jewish ceremony. Here's an example while the parents offered a blessing and support ... I left myself in my second shooter's "expected" image (red arrow) to show how I was shooting from the opposite side, and then moved to get the second shot which is more emotionally powerful than the one that the client sees as a "must have".</p>

<p>Your thoughts on the subject?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I'm a huge believer in having a second photographer. More scope for story-telling, easier logistics, more choice of angles, being able to adopt complementary angles, less intrusion, high-level of redundancy and risk control.</p>

<p>I think it's known here that I'm one half of a duo. On this forum I speak for myself but almost all my weddings are shot with my partner, and we've designed an approach that specifically plays to the strength of not operating as a sole photographer.</p>

<p>However, it's my belief that to work successfully, both photographers need to have a consistent style. That doesn't just mean processing images the same way - it means approaching the subject in the same way, responding to things in a similar manner, having the same thinking when faced with technical choices and sharing a common creative vision that underpins the photography process. Technical quality, story-telling and interpretation of a moment should be consistent. If it is, then the combined body of work looks like it was shot by one person, is easy to edit, has equal quality and presents a wealth of choices.</p>

<p>If that's not the case, then one photographer is better than the other, work from one person may be consistently weaker, the combined work may appear disjointed and any sense of coherent style can become diluted. It becomes a case where the primary looks through the secondary's work and attempts to pick out those shots they feel are usable. That's not really having a second photgrapher in my book. Even more so if the photographers are working different locations (e.g shooting both parties getting ready) because it can mean one party is being given lesser treatment.</p>

<p>What I've learned is it takes time, trust and practice to develop a shared sense of understanding. I'm not convinced of the value of using an arbitrary second photographer on an ad-hoc basis - potentially it benefits no one except that photographer.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with that Neil, but only to some degree ... even though it isn't always possible in my case. I had a consistent second shooter for many years that was an equal partner ... although his speciality was the more structured shots that a vast majority of clients in the US want and expect. In fact I teamed up with him just for that reason ... he took that stuff off my back. However, he was excellent at candid work also. He was a political photographer prior to us teaming up.</p>

<p>However, I do not agree that two shooters have to have a "Vulcan Mind Meld" to be successful ... in fact I totally disagree with that notion. If you team up with another shooter that does think differently than you do ... then the content deepens. I am now teamed primarily with a young woman who has been shooting with me for a couple of years now. Her insights and intuitions have brought a more complete scope to our coverage. Despite that, not one single client or other photographer has commented on that coverage being disjointed at all ... in fact many have commented on how cohesive it is.</p>

<p>Of course, picking the right second shooter has a great deal to do with that ... or picking an assistant, and training them to work and compliment you. Plus, as I do all the editing and post, I control the look and feel for consistency. </p>

<p>In addition, you have to be even minded when editing and processing. I pick the best shots without concern who's it was. The last wedding we shot, the key display shot of the whole wedding was hers even though I had shot the same scene. That may be my Creative Director career showing itself ... where I had to pick the best no matter where it came from. </p>

<p>Are you not concerned that the presence of two photographers working in close range to the same subject causes an unnecessary distraction and blocks people's view of the events? I can imagine the benefits when one photographer works on formals and the other on the documentary/candid shots (since this means one doesn't have to switch between modes of operation, also a coherent style between the two is not as necessary) but two photographers photographing the same people at one time from different angles suggests the photography has taken over the main event in priority.</p>

<p>Marc -<br /> I agree with the notion of rich content and diverse perspectives. But I think any creative photographer can shoot the same subject in several ways, so I'm not sure there's a necessary dependency on using another person's eyes. I'm sure most of us like to interpret the same subject matter with different lenses, perspectives, compositions and exposures. Keeps it all interesting :-)</p>

<p>The 'shared understanding' comes in useful when things happen quickly and you have to assess and react quickly. If you know how each other works it doesn't take much to know what the other person's going to shoot, the lens they'll use and where you'll need to be to keep out of frame, or to see the complementary view they can't get which you can.</p>

<p>Ilkka -<br /> Two photographers working in close range to the same subject would be rather pointless. They'd end up with the same shots, same angles. Not sure about anyone else but we don't work that way. A typical moment for us might be one at the altar as the bride comes up the aisle; the other across the far side of the church photographing the guest's reactions as the bride passes. It would be unusual for both of us to be in the same field of view.</p>

<p>I'd also argue (from experience, having tried it both ways) that two photographers means less intrusion, not more. For the simple reason there's less need to move from a given spot. A single photographer might look for several angles of the toasts, for example. And the only way to get that is to move around the room, getting in people's way. But two photographers can choose fixed locations and cover everything just by changing lenses.</p>

<p>A second shooter needs to be able to give photos as good as yours, or else their value is much more limited...</p>

As one who has not done a wedding in seven years and did only film I can still vouch for the value of a second shooter never having had one. Stopping to load MF backs cost me some pictures I know. Carrying two or three bodies and lenses caused nasty neck pain. I missed shots because I could not be in two places at once. Just being able to discuss a wedding with another photographer would have been helpful. What I found was that doing weddings solo was damned hard work. I think having a competent second shooter mitigates the risk that a solo photographer takes on with every wedding. I just was too frugal to hire someone else. I think a second shooter would have been helpful particularly on larger weddings. The only second shooters I had were the Uncle Bobs and Auntie Robertas that always seemed to be around. I don't think I ever used any of their pictures. After running my business for several years I was doing my last ever large wedding rushing from the sanctuary to catch up with the bride who wanted shots of her leaving in a big white limousine. While on the way I dropped my 70-200 2.8 on the cement side walk. Earlier in the sanctuary again being in a hurry inside the sanctuary I forgot to change the f stop while changing a MF lens (never did it before) and lost a roll of film and then stepped the brides train on the way out. All because I think I was rushing to get too many pictures and knowing it was my last wedding. She was very, very understanding. A second shooter could have covered the limo. The 70-200 survived.

<p>Neil, it isn't just more content and different perspectives ... it's being in two places at one time like Dick mentions above. I shoot plenty of weddings solo, but much prefer it when there are two of us ... if the price will hack it.</p>

<p>In fact, we rarely shoot the same exact subject unless I want a back-up shot. Typical scenario: Noel (my other shooter), shoots the wedding party fussing outside the sanctuary entrance, while I shoot VIP arrivals, details, and guest reactions inside ... she then goes up to the balcony where we have a 70-200 on a tripod waiting ... and she shoots the processionals and entire wedding with that and her wide zoom ... while I do closer shots from different angles that she could never get. This makes for good story telling in a Quick Time movie and album.</p>

<p>Example: her perfectly timed processional of the bride and entire grand church environment ... complimented by my more intimate 90º angle shot of the Groom just as he first sees his Bride. We have dozens and dozens of these at every wedding ... which strung together is powerful story telling not dissimilar to how movies are filmed and edited ... which is actually my background and reference point. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Marc - yes, fully agree.</p>

<p>As you may see from my reply to Ilkka - that's the same way we work. And interestingly for similar reasons, as we also cut our teeth in advertising and design before we shot weddings. The storyboard is one of the reasons we view the edit as an end goal rather than a means to an end.</p>

<p>You mention 'if the price will hack it' and that's an important dimension worth discussing. Fixed costs and labour costs are much higher so it's a costly way to work - and can be a challenge on a pricing front. That's probably the biggest disadvantage in terms of being competitive and makes it more important to get the product and the marketing right.</p>

<p>Like most everything else about shooting weddings, using multiple shooters can be well done and of great value or badly done and a waste of time and money.</p>

<p>I certainly see the benefit of a well honed team effort, where each knows the other well and what each produces is not a duplication of effort or merely an attempt to make sure one technically good image is taken of the activity. I think good team shooting is rare, though.</p>

<p>I recently helped a bride put together her wedding album, photographed by a team of 3 photographers. Most of the images were slightly to badly OOF, many very underexposed, and I could tell which ones were obviously shot by a beginner. I would say that if the wedding was covered by the primary alone, it would have been fine.</p>

<p>Which brings me to my final point. I, like Ilkka, wonder about the circus aspect of multiple shooters, combined with multiple videoegraphers, and more importantly--the real need to cover an activity in multiple ways. I am sure that there are multiple shooters who are as unobtrusive or more unobtrusive than some single shooters. However, as I said above, I think that is rare. If the video team has 3 shooters and the stills team has 2 shooters, there are 5 people buzzing around in a church, even if they are at the back. Even without a video team, 2 people can be distracting, particularly with the 3 added guest shooters toting serious gear nowadays.</p>

<p>I notice it is popular to have multiple shooters these days, sometimes with a team of black dressed shooters showing up with headphones, like FBI agents. I guess if one wanted to have a wedding like a movie star would, it would add to that aspect.</p>

<p>I typically assess the ceremony situation as to how distracting I might be, given the space, type of crowd, the ceremony itself, and the rules dictated by the officiant, and sometimes, I still don't get right up there to shoot, or move around a lot--it depends. I think about all those untaken shots (sometimes lying in bed at night :^), but I don't have too many regrets. If all of the key activities are covered (and I do think I get around enough to shoot a variety), would it really be a huge problem if some peripheral shots or other angles don't get taken?</p>

<p>I hate to sound like yet another crusty old timer, but in film days, we didn't take a ton of shots during the ceremony and no one suffered. I know we also didn't have slideshows and all that--but I seriously doubt that there would be a lack of material if a talented shooter like Marc shot the wedding solo.</p>

<p>Now, I can see the value of one person shooting more traditionally, and the other more candidly, but then there'd be fights about who gets to do what all the time. :^)</p>

<p>I love having a second shooter. In my case its my wife, so things are great, we know each others style, and generally work together great. Usually I'm primary for critical shots, at other times we flip back and forth. Having her allows me to shoot much more artistically and take chances. For example, there are times that you must get (bouquet toss, garder toss, cake feeding, etc. If my wife wasn't backing me up, I wouldn't feel comfortable taking some of the chances I do with my shots, such as using off camera flash, super shallow aperture, wide angle, weird viewpoints, etc.<br>

Another great value I haven't heard brought up, is the value of what you can learn from a second shooter. Sometimes my wife takes some great shots, on accident or on purpose that I would never have thought of. In those cases I can confer with her on what she did, what her settings were so I can duplicate it the next time I want a similair shot.<br>

Not only is it great to show different angles of the same moment from different view points as you all pointed out, but its also great to be able to show action and reaction shots that happen at the very same moment. Having a second shooter allows you to be able to tell a more complete story. Like Neil says, I agree that it is more unobstrusive in our case, I don't have to worry about trying to cover all the angles, so I don't have to move as fast or cover as much ground. I also don't have to change lenses quite as much or carry as much around since we can split the type of looks we are looking for between the two of us.</p>

 

<p>I only wish our economic market place > could afford second-shooters ~ My wife use to accompany me in the 90's . She is so skilled with a hand-meter & manual shooting : but , best having that second creative eye.</p>

<p>We have one together in Seattle, next week > first for her in years. She will be carrying around a 20d- single zoom w/ a flash and meter :-) Concentrating on B&W portraits ..not too candid with her approach. </p>

<p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/estrump/weddings/small/32.jpg" alt="" width="243" height="320" />My wife's very first wedding shot & her second time with a camera in her hands ...</p>

<p>I used to shoot with another person, but for the last year or so it has just been me. I was scared at first--so much to get- just me. But I've found that actually I'm better shooting by myself- less distractions maybe. I don't know- everything seems better- more cohesive- a better story and not watered down now that I'm shooting alone. I'm sure there is great value in having a great 2nd shooter, but it can be done very well alone too...that's what I'm finding anyway :)</p>

<p>Marc, this question is aimed directly at you for a couple of reasons. One is that we are in the same market, and two you are, from what I have been able find one of the most seasoned professionals in the area that would have first hand knowledge. I have been, for the past few years, primarily shooting automotive, music and portrait photography. The portrait stuff I have done is mainly bands and such for promos etc. About six months ago I decided I wanted to try to make photography a full time ordeal for me and started to build my client base so that as of next year I may leave my 9-5. I have always enjoyed doing portraits of people and believe my work is on par if not better than most in the area. I am very drawn to weddings but I have one major problem and the problem is that I have photographed only one, which was a backyard bbq 'second reception' of sorts that would hardly classify as a wedding.<br>

So over the past couple of months I have put feelers out to many of the photographers in the area offering to assist/second/third shoot primarily as a feeler to see even if it is something I should pursue. I'm truly interested in learning the process and if it is even for me, so I have offered to do all of this on my own dime, and if they feel at the end I was worth it they can pay me, if not I will walk away with something I feel more valuable and that is experience. I have to date received either no response or a response stating that they do not use or already have assistants/second shooters. I have no interest in putting ads on craiglist to do a cheap or free wedding, but fear this is a route that may have to be taken just to find my answer.<br>

My question to you is, what approach should be taken by a potential assistant/second to garner the interest of an established pro, especially in the Metro Detroit area. I bring to the table much more than your average person who got a DSLR for christmas and now thinks they are a pro, but when explaining this I'm thinking something is getting lost in the mix. So how do you prefer to be approached regarding this issue?</p>

<p>Tim, I am sure Marc will answer you but in the meantime, you can read the following previous thread, started by Marc a while ago. It is followed by another one, so look for a Part 2 thread a bit after it.</p>

<p><a href="00VF78">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VF78</a></p>

<p>IF we can only convince the budget, of our markets brides, to bring back the second shooter ~~</p>

<p>Here's a similar thread on assistants/2nd shooters............seems like just a short while ago: <a href="00Fjqt?start=0">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Fjqt?start=0</a></p>

<p>I asked this very young person to help me shoot a wedding. She had shown some interest in photography and I thought it would not hurt to have some extra angles. She was shooting with my old Xti and my Tamron 28-75. When I processed the pictures, I noticed weird colors and lots of noise. Eventhough they were pretty well exposed, I could not figure out why they looked so bad. Not until I picked up that old camera days later, I realized I had left the circular polarizing filter on it. Totally my bad. Then I had to turn them into B&W and use lots of noise reduction in LR. It actually turned out pretty good. This image shows almost exactly the same moment taken from 2 camera's. The green arrow is me. You can also see the ugly color since I did not make that shot into B&W.</p>

<p>Dang, how did that happen? A tif? Sorry :(</p><div></div>

<p>Tim, sorry ... I was shooting a destination wedding since Thursday and just returned. It was up in the thumb and I didn't have internet access until now.</p>

<p>Feel free to access my website and call me. How local are you?</p>

<p>"Here's a similar thread on assistants/2nd shooters............seems like just a short while ago: <a rel="nofollow" href="00Fjqt?start=0">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Fjqt?start=0</a>"</p>

<p>2006 isn't exactly "recent" David ... in fact it was prior to the economic melt down that's effected everyone's business. </p>

<p>Marc, I didn't say the thread was "recent", I don't understand your point or your apparent beef. I did say that it seemed like just a short while ago, which may be a function of my age....</p>

<p>IMO, the discussion in that thread is still of value and my comments at the time were directly relevant to the apparent shrinking dollars clients were willing to spend on coverage.</p>

<p>Hi Marc, I'm located in Canton. I will give you a call as soon as I can get a few minutes free, was on vacation last week so today is a little hectic so far.</p>

<p>I'm in Franklin Village Tim ... not far from you really. Call when you can and we'll chat about possibilities.</p>

<p> </p>