How many additional shooters do you use........

[anna_bravington]

I find it strange how some people have decided, from the tiny amount given away in the posts above, that it's the newer people that need second shooters where as more experience ones dont . When I first started out in wedding photography all the people I seconded with were long seasoned pro's, who were fantastic mentors with a wealth of experience. I am not inexperienced myself either.

 

I think that there are lots of pluses to having a second, not just the security (I think some people above just like to have a dig and put other people down). For the person that said they were re-considering tagging along because of some of the comments, please do find someone, you learn so much. Just try a few pro's out and see who you think you'll learn the most from. I think it's the absolutely best way to start off.

 

Oh and theres no problem with being a little insecure - all the best artists are. It's once you become so confident that you think there is nothing left to learn that the problems begin :)

[david_schilling___chicago_]

There are several costs/benefits to both using a 2nd shooter and shooting solo. Personally for my studio, it's offerred

ale cart and most clients will choose not to spend the additional money for extra images and an extra depth of

coverage (although I could easily make a case for the value of both). I've also brought new shooters along on some

jobs to give them some mentoring in return for some extra images/depth to the coverage.

 

A good friend of mine runs/owns a successful studio in the Lincoln Park area of Chicago and he made the decision

to offer two photographers as a studio coverage-style choice. I was a lead shooter and was always teamed with a

2nd shooter, I frequently had the same photographer as my 2nd and we developed a terrific chemistry that added a

significant dimension to our wedding coverage. Having her with me made the job easier and alot more enjoyable. Joe

Buissink routinely uses two shooters but in his case, it's his 2nd shooter that covers the more traditional formals,

groups, standard shots, etc....which in turn frees him to be creative and play.

 

I've seen a few vendors (photographers, vidographers, & DJs) that typically partner with a spouse, often it comes off

as amatuerish and I think it can appear less than professional. OTOH, there are also the exceptions (Jeff & Julia

Woods, Jeff & Kathleen Hawkins, the Mannings, etc....) where spouses add a tremendous synergy to the job.

 

I doubt that feelings of security/insecurity ever play a part in the cost/benefit analysis in offerring a 2nd shooter for

any established

photographer or studios.

[think27]

George - You could get a student or a person in your family or community that is passionately interested in photography to work for cheap or free.

 

A wedding can easily be covered by one person in my opinion. I never used second shooters although when an assistant started catching on - I'd let them shoot with my other camera if I didn't need them for a few min. here and there. Normally during the reception or if they saw something on the sides when I was shooting groups.

 

I would never shoot without someone to carry my bags, hold my other cameras, in my case load film, batteries etc. Basically a gopher. One great use is when you drive up to the church or reception and they just drop me off and go park the car. I don't have to miss a minute by having to park in a parking garage or find parking if it's in a metropolitan area.

 

I've done weddings like this for weddings from 30 people to 300 people and I can honestly say I was able to be everywhere and with the use of a zoom lens - I didn't miss much.

[neilambrose]

<p>I always shoot as a pair.</p>

 

<p>But there's no concept of a 'second' photographer - we're equal partners, both primary shooters, comfortable, experienced and competent. We can both cover all aspects of the wedding, being equally skilled without preference or specialism. The result is we get much richer coverage - the same significant moments shot from different angles, different focal lengths, different light, etc. And we've done it enough that we never get in each other's way.</p>

 

<p>We share the post-production and album design too. Overall effect is that we manage a lot with minimum expended effort, and can provide a higher level of coverage (and value) to the client. For instance, covering b+g getting ready at the same time in different locations, or concurrent coverage of the bride arriving and the groom at the altar. Plus we can take on more work because we can turn it around faster.</p>

[dmitriy_babichenko]

I charge separately for a second photographer so it doesn't affect my bottom line. The only time when I absolutely require a second photographer is when there are more than 200 guests and the couple wants a lot of guest photographs. Otherwise, a second photographer is optional and will cost extra.

[rich_evans]

I rarely shoot solo anymore. My wife is an accomplished photographer in her own right and we've worked weddings

together for at least the last 15 years. I find that she brings a different perspective than I, and has a more focused sense

of detail than I generally tended to do when I worked alone. She sees things from the brides' perspective that I may not be

immediately sensitive to. Having a recently married daughter has also brought to home some of the anxieties that parents

and brides fret over and she empathizes well with them and makes them feel more comfortable.

 

At each venue (home/church/park/reception, we split up and have been doing it long enough to know where each of us

will be - it works well for us and our style.

 

And she works for free... ;-)

 

--Rich

[joseph_federer]

As many above me... I pay my assistants (they are artists and their time is worth something), and always try to use them if possible. My wife is become a great photographer in her own right too... so that'll be nice.

I like having them and think it gives a better product. I find it lets me focus more without having to worry about missing a particular item... for instance, I can work on group dynamics if my assistant is setting up lights for formals.

Another thing nice about it is that it allows for experimentation. For example: you need a shot of the bride walking down the isle... so experimenting on this shot is likely not a good idea. But if you have a second, you can hit the 'required shot' and some climb-in-the-rafters experimental shot too...

[cjogo]

My wife worked for years, as a photographer, along side me, The weddings were larger and a longer day. The last few years has been 4 hour / 50+ people coverage. We were mainly using film and made every shot count. She would have a session with the Bride in B&W and then I would have one in color..........way too much time & pressure for the B&G.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>where would I start, if all the experienced wedding photographers don't want inexperienced second shooters

or don't want second shooters at all? Does nobody take on the task of passing on the trade anymore?</em></p>

 

<p>I think it stopped being a trade the moment the only condition to entry was owning a digital camera and buying

a template website, or when cruising craigslist became a viable alternative to having photographic skills, or

when the number of photos delivered became more important than what was in them.</p>

 

<p>If you're talented, with a strong portfolio in some other form of photography and the skills to back it up,

then you should find people willing to work with you quite easily. But if you're not, don't be surprised if the

only people interested in working with you are other new entrants.</p>

[cjogo]

Would love to pass on the trade ..... just not sure if the "new shooters " want to learn the ~ manual method ~ and a far less candid approach > that some us may still perform.

[William Michael]

> I have been considering offering my services to a wedding photographer for some time.<

 

Benjamin, I suggest you do not ``consider``: either do it or do not do it.

 

***

 

> Does nobody take on the task of passing on the trade anymore? <

 

FYI, (intrinsically related, touches on those points which Neil makes, and much more):

 

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00RAvN

 

WW

[William Michael]

Hmm - C Jo Gough and I were having similar thoughts, and at the same time, it appears

 

:)

 

WW

[benjaminoliverhicks]

I will do it. It is just a matter of when, as I am very busy with school now.

 

I am learning the "manual method," and there are other young people who are as well. We're just hard to find. I am going

to approach this as a trade, and not how many people approach it now, as Neil has pointed out. That is how I want to

learn. So some of you may get a call from me sometime in the future.

 

As to the OP, there are people out there who will work for free/cheap, but I would say it will be hard to find one that fits your

style and does what you need and want them to do. Nothing comes for free, right?

[hassy501]

I personally prefer working alone.....it's just my personality.......i can get into my "zone" without worrying about what my second is doing, getting...........I just don't have much use for the "same" images from multiple angles........it's just overkill....................and adds to my bottom line of images, post production and images delivered..............all of that "time" involved costs so much not only in monetary costs but in "life" time away from my family and relaxation..............

 

The age of shoot it, bag it, send it, put in an album are long gone.................and post production time is so costly If you calculate the time involved................i think alot of photographers don't even factor that time into their bottom line and figure it just comes with the territory.........i know I didn't factor it initially, but NOW I can see just how costly it has become...................it's turned into a love/hate affair..................

[William Michael]

> I will do it. It is just a matter of when . . . etc <

 

Benjamin, good, that last post gives clarity and purpose to your plan.

 

Good luck.

 

WW

[cjogo]

GEORGE ::: "and post production time is so costly If you calculate the time involved................I think alot of photographers don't even factor that time into their bottom line and figure it just comes with the territory.........i know I didn't factor it initially, but NOW I can see just how costly it has become.." <p>

 

There are different "ways" of shooting ~~ to eliminate much of the post production. We charge for the post work & to keep our cost down ~~ you just have to move to a old criteria ...manual. <p>

We can confidentially deliver exposed film or a card >> at the end of a days session....and safely know the client will be happy. Just work harder on the PRE == less on the POST.

[hassy501]

I shoot 90 percent of my wedding in manual........i'm an old Hasselblad shooter back from the days when men were men.........:) 3 500CM bodies, 6 220 backs, two potato masher flashes, tripod, background, softbox reflector on location...........those days when posed was posed and everything else was silly..........:)

 

I preform a complete edit of all of my images prior to delivery.........not just basic edits.......it takes me longer to complete the post, but my clients get a finished set of images........BW, Sepias, Actions......facial retouching on some, etc............

[cjogo]

GEORGE :: Started with a Rollei in 1978. I too carried the Hassy system --even worse - the RZ 67 system with a Nikon flash on the prism > you almost had to wear an arm sling. We offer retouching, Sepia, etc ....but, no one seems to want to pay for added features ........so just a batch action on the files~~ before printing and a DVD delivery.

[rich_evans]

Can't actually say that I'd bring someone along to 'learn the trade', but I've given a ton of advice to aspiring shooters - mostly on how to deal with clients which has resulted in some very positive feedback. Just this week I had two associates come back to me, one thanking me for advice and remarking on how positive the wedding experience was for him, and the second on how certain techniques had helped him on a shoot for a local jazz club to get his stuff published in a regional jazz newsletter. Sometimes mentoring doesn't mean babysitting.

 

On another subject, since cards have become so cheap, I've been toying with the idea of just giving the original (albeit somewhat edited) cards with all images to the clients - in addition to their contracted product - instead of messing around with burning DVDs. At the end of the day, we generally give the client the full set of images anyway so why waste time and extra effort. Any thoughts? Note - we rarely get requests for extra prints or anything else after the fact. --Rich

[cjogo]

RICH :: Many times we sell the exposed film or the card , at the end of the day's shoot --frees up time for me = saves $ for the clients ::::::::

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

Can you lock a CF/XD card so as it can't be formatted, erased or used again? I hesitate giving CF cards with files on

them to clients even though prices are quite reasonable unless they can be "locked." I can hear some client say, "I

made a mistake and formatted and used a card w/o realizing they had my wedding pics!" Also most computers today

can read/write to DVD's/CD's but how many have a card reader?

 

Just a thought.

[tolik_p.]

I work with my brother all the time on all our packages, every is great so far. We split everything 50/50 the work and the

profit.