Second shooters, necessary ? If so, why ?

[hassy501]

If you use a second shooter, do you need them to complete your coverage, or would you not be able to

cover your wedding adequately without one ? Does having a second shooter up your average price to your client ?

Does the

price you pay your second shooter adequately compensate for the images you acquire ?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Why: Two physically different points of view, more coverage, back up.

 

Does having a second shooter up your average price to your client ?

 

You'd be crazy if it doesn't.

 

Does the price you pay your second shooter adequately compensate for the images you acquire ?

 

If you hire the right second shooter it should.

[steve_c.5]

I use a second shooter if there are special shooting conditions, such as a very large venue. We have a very HUGE church in town here that probably holds 1000 people. It's got a high wraparound balcony, and I always recommend a second shooter there, so they can work the balcony, while I stay ground floor and in the back (they won't let anyone down front). The second can move all the way down the side balcony and shoot back toward the congregation.

 

I always have my clients pay the second shooter separately, rather than acting as a middleman. It's usually $200-300 for ceremony backup. I feel that's more fair to each party, I'm being paid enough for my own work.

 

Sometimes, it's helpful when there are time constraints during the day to have the second working with the guys while I work with the girls (or vice versa) ahead of the ceremony, to get preparation and formal shots.

 

They also come in handy when the bride has a specific request to have photos of the groom's face as she comes into view in her processional. It makes it easier for me to concentrate shooting her processional, and the second concentrates on the groom and other guest reactions.

[picturesque]

I don't use second shooters. About the only time I think I'd want a second shooter is right before the bride and dad come down the aisle for the processional. Since I'm busy shooting all the others in the processional, I can't be with the bride and dad. Any other situations, I've always been able to get the important shots by planning.

[hassy501]

Do any of you have seconds that shoot for free ? To learn ? I know of one studio that brings a whole entourage to their weddings........an assistant, a "stylist" (dress fluffer/lint roller person), second and third shooter and they all work for free.................to learn.........i guess.........

[picturesque]

Obviously, since I don't use them, I don't have them for free, but I could get a lot of them for free if I wanted. If you are considering using second shooters and/or assistants, just be aware that they can become your competition quickly, they require a bit more legal consideration and paperwork, they open you to the risk of legal and business complications/problems (copyright, etc., or even just social or customer relations issues), and their presence can be distracting to both you and your clients.

 

On the plus side, if talented, they add that alternative viewpoint and angle, are back up, and can save you time as well as make covering everything and logistical execution easier. Whether it is worth it to you is up to you.

 

The main reason I don't use seconds or assistants is not because of future competition, but because I prefer to concentrate on what I am doing and not on what others are doing, and I do think it is ironic that with the emphasis on photojournalistic coverage these days, many such photographers show up with an entourage of cell phone toting people all over the place, which is far from unobtrusive.

[aimpic]

I have never used them and see no reason to. If you do you job properly and create images rather than snap, fluke or steal, all you need is one expert.

 

Cheers Peter

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Over the years I've covered most of my weddings solo but have also had a 2nd shooter for many weddings that I covered for a studio in the Lincoln Park area of Chicago. I've also had a number of young shooters, many of them through P-net, that have 2nd shot for my studio. It can be nice to cover the same events from two different perspectives, such as the cake cutting, bouquet toss, etc....

 

However, paying two people is more costly than just one and in my experience it's rare that reprint sales are boosted much by adding an extra shooter. It doesn't really matter if the b/g pay the 2nd shooter directly or not, the end cost to the clients would be the same.

[wentzu_chang]

I think it depends on what you feel more comfortable...for me, I have a 2nd shooter, and always. My 2nd shooter becomes my friend

now, we sometimes hang out together. It is more fun to shoot together. And less, much less stress for me.

 

Today, I shot solo to cover a friend's wedding, it is so much running around places. Up stair in preparation room, down stair ceremony

setting, and reception deco. During the less than 30 mins ceremony, I only have less than 5 mins to run inside, ran up stair, grab couple

shots, ran downstair, and just enough time for exchange rings. While I cover all the formal, I saw lots guests having fun over at the other

side, and I don't have time to go and grab those candid...I feel I could play more risky idea when I have 2nd shooter teaming up...

 

If I shoot solo, I need to exercise more first ;)

[pclancy]

A second can be helpful when the B&G aren't seeing each other before the ceremony and you are left to work with guys and girls separately before hand. A second also means more editing.

[steve_c.5]

I don't work with seconds very often, but as I said above, there are instances where they do come in quite handy. I had one stationed in a church balcony as I worked the floor. He got shots from up there I could only have gotten by running up and down the stairs. When it came time to head off to the reception, he already had packed up all the gear we had in the balcony, and was waiting at the door for me while I finished shooting the formals. I was SO glad I didn't have to trudge up those stairs again and spend the time packing up gear as my wedding party sped off to the reception! I just kept on shooting all the way to the reception.

 

It's just a lot more legwork without them, but I can always use the exercise!

[hassy501]

I've tried seconds, and prefer working alone.....you can't replace experience with a second camera unless they are themselves as experienced to get completely different images than what I'm shooting........too often seconds that i've used got the same images as me but from a different angle.........and i didn't feel that the images justified the price increase to my client.

[cjogo]

Rarely --if the client request a separate B&W film coverage---otherwise :: it's much easier to shoot alone. A second shooter has to pass a rigid critiquing but, receives $125 per hour with us . 400 is too many images to review for a 6 hour coverage and extra 200 would be overkill.

[savagesax]

You pretty much need a second shooter when doing certain cultures such as Orthodox Jewish weddings. Why? Because the women and men are separated throughout the wedding and the reception. Even at the reception there in a high wall down the center of the dance floor. These weddings are a blast to photograph, but not alone. To do this right you are best to have a woman professional, with experience, to cover the ladies side. You can have a guy, but frankly a woman photographer would have more fun interacting. If you are a woman photographer shooting the dance floor covering the men dancing, it is an incredable experience. Table dancing is common, jugglers playing with fire, all sort of wonderful things happen. The bad part is getting stepped on and bounced around like a beach ball! In sort, be careful. You will be sore the next day.

 

Other than this type of wedding we pretty much shoot weddings alone. Some Indian weddings are long so it's sometimes nice to have a second shooter so each of you can take breaks. Other cultures can have 2 and 3 day wedding events. Needless to say backup shooters are a welcomed sight.

 

For your standard wedding I think only one photographer is really needed.

[everett_cavazos]

If you need 100% coverage of groom and bride dressing room candids, and if you want to capture all the emotions from everyone during the ceremony as well as different perspectives, then you might consider a second shooter. After that, send them home and you take care of the reception. That being said, I haven't had a complaint from any of my clients however I have had to make trade-offs: for instance I would get the bride and groom walking down the aisle from behind but had to sacrifice getting them from the front. It's a lot of running around and that can sometimes be distracting.

[hassy501]

Interesting viewpoints....good to hear.......do you have brides who request seconds ? If so, is it just because they read about in on the Knot, or do they really know what they are asking for ? I have found some brides merely want a second camera because " Two is better than one".............in their mind. I then go them one better and ask if they would want three or four shooters ? That seems to shed some light on the subject when i put it to them that way.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

"do you have brides who request seconds ? If so, is it just because they read about in on the Knot, or do they really know what they are asking for"

 

That's why it's a good idea to have sample weddings on hand (using a 2nd shooter and shooting solo) to show them and educate them on what the differences are. Many brides really don't know what they want.... but are likely to recognize it when they see it.

[dan_derby1]

Table shots & 'take my picture!" shots (late in the party from all the inebriated)...no one wants those shots and if they did they typically don't remember them being taken . . .

[hassy501]

"many brides don't know what they want but are likely to recognize it when they see it"..........now that's hilarious........

[david_schilling___chicago_]

George, there was nothing in my comment that made it "hilarious"....my point was and still is about educating your clients. And one of the best ways to clarify what the clients want (and can expect to receive in their wedding coverage) is to see several complete weddings from the photographers that they are considering.