Suggestions for someone looking to become a second shooter?

[james_rizzo]

<p>Hi, I am a young photographer looking to become an assistant or second shooter to a local wedding photographer. I have been into photography for about a year, and am looking to gain experience and maybe earn a little money. I am young (going to be 16 this summer), but am eager to learn. I own a Nikon D70s, a Sigma 18-50 F2.8, a 50mm F1.8 AF, a Nikkor 80-200 F2.8, and an SB-600. I was thinking of emailing photographers in the area and asking if they needed a second shooter. Do you have any suggestions for this? Should I email them or call them? Is there anything specific I should say (beyond the usual job application stuff)? I believe my equipment is enough for covering wedding events, however I could use some opinions on my gear if I'm missing anything substantial. Also, what are my chances of getting a job? Should I advertise myself as a volunteer (free) or should I work hourly (minimum wage?). Any suggestions you may have would be appreciated.</p>

[jefftebbetts]

<p><br />This has been talked about a lot. There a lot of people such as yourself that want to break into the wedding field. It is hard enough to find someone willing to take you on so offering to work for no monetary compensation is probably a good idea. I would beat the bushes and don’t get discouraged. Eventually you will find someone willing to take you on. If you want it bad enough you will eventually succeed! By the way I found my assistant here last year and she is great. I interviewed a bunch before I took her on. She had no wedding experience but she had the drive and passion that I was looking for.<br /><br />Jeff<br>

</p>

 

[heatherrene]

<p>It might help if you would let people know where you are located.</p>

[james_rizzo]

<p>Well, I'm located in Burbank, CA but I don't have a car, so I would want to keep it fairly close. I will be getting my liscence within this year, but until then I prefer to keep it within Burbank, and maybe a neighboring city.</p>

<p>I don't plant on becoming a serious wedding photographer, but I think it'd be a fun way to gain experience and maybe make some money.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"I don't plant on becoming a serious wedding photographer, but I think it'd be a fun way to gain experience and maybe make some money."</strong></em><br>

<br>

I believe I understand what you mean, but I do not think you should say that to a prospective employer / trainer, who likely will take their profession, quite seriously.<br>

<br>

I think that you will need a passionate desire and also the willingness to learn a few things and do a few other tasks, than using your camera, initially.<br>

<br>

I suggest you read this thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SNUq">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SNUq</a><br>

<br>

Pay specific attention the post by David Schilling. (Feb 08, 2009; 08:26 a.m.) <br>

<br>

Do exactly what David suggests. I have highlighted his suggestion in my post below his.<br>

<br>

I suggest you also note how the Original Poster of that thread, seems to have not followed the specific advice which was given.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

[james_rizzo]

<p>"<em>I believe I understand what you mean, but I do not think you should say that to a prospective employer / trainer, who likely will take their profession, quite seriously.</em> "<br /> I never said I didn't take it seriously. I was merely stating that I did not intend to become a full time professional wedding photographer. The last thing I need is for a professional wedding photog. to see me as a threat.<br /> <br /> "<em>I think that you will need a passionate desire and also the willingness to learn a few things and do a few other tasks, than using your camera, initially</em> ."<br /> That is exactly what I plan on.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link. I don't have time to check it out now, but I will later.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I never said I didn't take it seriously. </em></strong><strong><em>etc . . ."</em></strong><br>

<br>

Yep, I know that . . . hence I stated, "I believe I understand what you mean" . . . I was just highlighting how comments can / could be misinterpreted.<br>

Do have a look at the link, and note that I was emphasizing . . . "going in person"<br>

Good Luck. It seems to me you have a good attitude.<br>

WW<br>

 

 

</p>

[jon rennie]

<p>Your downfall is not your equipment as it will do just fine for what you want to do. The biggest thing against you right now is your age and lack of driving ability in my opinion. I would expect my assistant/2nd shooter to be able to move my car if needed or drive my vehicle to the 2nd location while I jump in the limo, or if the 2nd shooter is to cover the grooms house, they need transportation to the venue without anyone's help. I wouldn't let a beginner driver do this. Also, and no offense to you, your age will be a big problem. I personally wouldn't want a 16 year old as a second shooter, it looks cheap to the client IMO and 99.9% wouldn't have the maturity level and interaction skills that I would be looking for. I know the last statement makes me sound like an old man, but I am in my 20's.<br>

Some may work differently then me though, so who knows. I would suggest you start off with a few free gigs then work up from that. Don't have your heart set on pay right away.</p>

[james_rizzo]

<p>After reading many online guides and threads on being a second shooter, I agree with Jon. I've been reading threads in forums that said things like "Jeez, I dunno. I'm 25 years old, and I only have a degree in photography. I'm way too young and way to inexperienced to be an assistant, even for free." Which kind of left me with the "uh oh" feeling.</p>

<p>I am not in the 99.9% (which is more like 95%) precentile of irresponsible teenagers. I dislike any stereotypes, however this one is at least partly true. I believe I am responsible enough to handle the duties that come with being an assistant. Anyone, including my former employers, will tell you that I'm more punctual and responsible than most teenagers my age. As for driving, I will be getting my liscence at 16 (I turn 16 in 3 months). Hopefully that is good enough. Even though I have seen multiple online guides advising against it, I am going to email local photographer with the offer to work for free, and maybe I could become paid when I'm older and more experienced. I'm already going to get a full time summer job somewhere else.</p>

<p>Every other online guide tells me that if you work for free, you will be taken advantage of, while every other one says its a great way to gain experience. What are your opinions on this? I am willing to work for free, at least temporarily.</p>

[jefftebbetts]

<p > Taken advantage of? In my opinion what you learn or rather the opportunity that you will have to learn is worth being taken advantage of. In other words what you learn will be invaluable and nobody can take that knowledge away from you once you have it. Yes you will have to haul equipment, get coffee, whatever, but you will also pick up know-how and experience. Keep your ears and eyes open and take in everything you can. </p>

 

[jon rennie]

<p>Assist and gain experience from other photographers for free, don't shoot a wedding for a client for free there is a big difference. When working for another photographer you are gaining invaluable experience. Stuff you can't learn in schools. When shooting a wedding for someone else you ultimately don't have to worry if something goes wrong during the day. You show up and shoot, hand over the cards or a disk later and leave. What everyone says not to do for free is shoot a wedding for free under your name. I once tried to give a wedding out for free and they stood me up, twice. That was the end of that.</p>

[brooke_eaton1]

<p>Just a little FYI, I live in Mt.Vernon, IN which is close to evansville. I've emailed dozens of professionals trying to get a second shooter job, for free, and can BARELY get a response back. So good luck. I've done a couple of weddings on my own but really feel like working with a professional would benefit me a lot! I think, around here, that most of the professionals see everyone as competition and don't want to take anyone on to their team that could possibly be working against them in the future.</p>

[lightsmith1]

<p>You do not have anywhere near the required equipment to be a second shooter at a wedding. A second shooter enables the primary photographer to be in two places at the same time and except for the formals the second photographer needs every piece of gear the primary uses and full backups as in 2 cameras, 2 strobes, several zooms and 2-3 prime lenses.<br>

I would recommend with the little bit of equipment and experience you have at this time to consider volunteering your services with local non-profit organizations at their fund raising events. If you get good pictures they will be welcomed and if you mess up it is not likely to be a great loss. Shoot school and church functions and it need not be your school or church. This will help with your learning of both photography and working with people and shooting at venues and you can build up a network of contacts over time.<br>

Understand that a primary photographer cannot take time away from their clients to supervise or assist you during a wedding. You need to learn as much as possible to be an asset for the photographer and provide them with some offset with images you contribute for any time of theirs you take.<br>

Unfortunately the school photography classes are not really a help and neither are most of the workshops, even the ones with models in wedding dresses. They do not really prepare you for managing a full day of photography that is as varied and demanding as wedding photography.<br>

You can shoot weddings for free and do the trial and error approach like most wedding photographers but that is a very slow way to learn.</p>

[james_rizzo]

<p>Well, I understand my body is not the best wedding body around, however I believe my lenses are adequate. I have roughly the 18-200 (300mm equivalent) range covered with fast and high quality glass, with one prime. As for flashes, why would I need two? One for backup? I agree that backups will be a problem, however a primary photographer should not rely on an inexperienced second shooter for a wedding. If worst comes to worst and all of my equipment spontaneously combusts, the main photographer will still be able to do his job well. You probably have more experience than me, I am just thinking out loud. Remember that I am volunteering, so the likelyhood of a main photographer relying on someone as young as me is unlikely. What other lenses do I need to shoot a wedding? I doubt I'm going to need something like a 300mm or 400mm prime, as I'm shooting a social event, not a lion on the plains of Africa. I guess an ultrawide angle might help, but I wouldn't think it'd be required.</p>

<p>I do not intend for a photographer assisting me or giving me any kind of instruction. My goal would be to observe the main photographer, and gain experience shooting weddings on my own. Even if it doesn't prepare me at all for future photo jobs, it looks good on any kind of resume, photo or other, and it looks good on a college app. Aside from all of that, it seems enjoyable. I want to at least give it a try and/or observe before I make any judgements.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"Every other online guide tells me that if you work for free, you will be taken advantage of, while every other one says its a great way to gain experience. What are your opinions on this? I am willing to work for free, at least temporarily."</em></strong></p>

<p>My opinion is, whatever experience you gain will be of benefit to you. It seems to me you are a mature 16 year old, and it is unlikely you will be "taken advantage of" - and even if you are a little before you realize, that too is experience, and IMO worthwhile.</p>

<p>On other matters mentioned:</p>

<p>. There is a gulf of difference between a "Photographer's Assistant" and an "Assistant Photographer".</p>

<p>In the USA an "Assistant Photographer" seems to be referred to as "Second Shooter". So, we are discussing two different functions, and I think you should be clear as to what your desire is and what you are seeking and be sure that you articulate this clearly.</p>

<p>A Photographer's Assistant - assists: that means doing many tasks, but you do not take Photographs. It used to be the first step on the ground floor, and can still be, IMO.</p>

<p>An Assistant Photographer is a Photographer, who shoots under a narrow or wide instruction / direction from the Primary or Lead Photographer. I often have an Assistant Photographer at the Weddings I cover, he has about 14 years experience. And yes, he like I did start somewhere: we both started doing small jobs (not Weddings) whilst at Photography School. Personally, I had just over one year’s experience shooting Sport and Social Functions (and was in my second year of School), before I worked at a Wedding Studio.</p>

<p>From time to time, I have had a couple of Photographer's Assistants. They have mostly been Students I have been teaching - whilst they would be able to take Photographs, and IMO some would be saleable, even at my Weddings, they do not. They are there to assist me, under direction, mostly on site with the Portraiture and also organize my equipment. Such is likely more necessary, for Film capture, than Digital but Location Lighting often requires extra hands on.</p>

<p>I am not familiar with your local Photographic Fraternity, but, from where I sit, IMO and IME, I think you would have a better chance of offering your services to Assist, rather than to be a second Photographer. Make no mistake, there will be much you will learn working as an Assistant should someone with reasonable skill and experience take you on.</p>

<p>It was always my expectation that you would have more chance Assisting, than as a Second Photographer; and that is how you should interpret my previous comments.</p>

<p>Also, it is my advice that you be aware enough so that you are not seduced by some "Shoot and Burn" Agency / Franchise which tell you have the necessary skills and all the requisite equipment, promises you the earth, and sends you out to deal with the situation solo. (I am speaking from knowledge of a Particular Company, here: I make no implication that similar operations exist, in your neck of the woods.)</p>

<p>. On the matter of your gear: I too believe it is not adequate as a Second Photographer. But that, from my point of view is academic, from the perspective of Wedding Photography, at least. So I suggest you do not go out and begin buying a truck load of Camera Gear.</p>

<p>. I think, to actually gain skills in taking Photographs, the volunteering of your services to Church, School, and Social events is a good idea.</p>

<p>. In regard to emailing several Photographers, I reiterate “in person”. It seems to me that this point is constantly glossed over.</p>

<p>IMO, one is simply marketing oneself. It might seen by some to be old fashioned that good marketing is performed when one is toe to toe and face to face with the decision maker – so call me old fashioned: this is how I, in the main market: me; my services; my skills; and my products.</p>

<p>In any event, if every other 16 year old wishing to offer their services is sending emails: you will be different, won’t you? Isn’t that a marketing edge?</p>

<p>One key to it is, do not take “No thank you”, personally.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[james_rizzo]

<p>Thanks for the advice. Even though I would prefer to work as a second shooter, it seems I have neither the necessary equipment nor the expertise to do second shooting. I would happily work as a photographers assistant.</p>

<p>As for school or church events, I guess I could shoot church events if I know what they are. As for school events, there are two huge events that many people (sometimes thousands) attend. The first is Homecoming game, which I would not prefer to be busting out expensive camera gear when surrounded by rowdy fans. The second is something called Pop Show. My high school has one of the, if not the best performing show choirs in the nation, and this is a huge show that brings in thousands of audience memebers and tens of thousands of dollars per year. I would love to shoot this event, however there is only one slight drawback: I'm in it. The photo students cover most school events for the school newspaper, however you must do 2 years (if you're lucky) of shooting film before you can move into digital, and you'd be even luckier to get a job shooting events. Even if I wanted to do photo, I couldn't. My schedule is way too overloaded with choir (we rehearse 13 hours on a normal week). Are there any other events that I could possibly cover?</p>

<p>One final questoin about my gear. What do I need besides backups in order to have the proper equipment? Its going to be a long time before I get anything else photographic, because it took me months to save up for that 80-200mm F2.8 AF. Even though I will be getting a summer job, that money is going to go to college, and I can probably only take a few hundred out for my photographic needs. However, if there is a piece of equipment that I am fatally missing then I would like to know? Is it megapixels and ISO performance? I've been eyeing both the D90 and the D200.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"Are there any other events that I could possibly cover"</strong></em><br /><br />Everything is an event, which can be photographed - just look around - think laterally.<br /><em></em><br /><em>"The photo students cover most school events for the school newspaper" . . </em>. is there a School Rule which disallows submissions to the Editor? . . . you seem also to have a command of written English - (another lateral thought).<br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><em><strong>"</strong></em><strong><em>What do I need besides backups in order to have the proper equipment? . . . However, if there is a piece of equipment that I am fatally missing then I would like to know? Is it megapixels and ISO performance? </em></strong><em><strong>"</strong></em><strong><em></em></strong><br /><em></em><br /><em>Negating Backup Equipment, and if you are referring to equipment specifically for a Wedding Kit: Yes, I think more Megapixels and better, High ISO performance would be appropriate for the main working camera at a Wedding, than what you have with your D70s. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Perhaps more importantly, I think a wider, fast prime is necessary. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>You are using (and looking at using) APS-C format (Nikon = DX). This means your 50/f1.8 acts like a short telephoto lens, which is fine for short telephoto type portraits. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>But it is not fine if you are in tight confines, like a small Church or Chapel, and there is a No Flash Rule – a 24mm / 28mm / 30mm or even 35mm prime would be more useful, than a 50mm, in these situations. Anmd another Prime would be a good mate for your 50mm</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>A solid Tripod and / or Monopod.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>These three areas I see as the greatest shortfalls, for a basic Wedding Kit.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>WW</em></p>

[james_rizzo]

<p>"<strong><em>. . </em> . is there a School Rule which disallows submissions to the Editor? . . . you seem also to have a command of written English - (another lateral thought).</strong> "</p>

<p>I have never heard of someone other than a photo student submit a photo let alone have it published. Large camera gear attracts more unwanted attention than I care to deal with.</p>

<p>"<strong><em>Negating Backup Equipment, and if you are referring to equipment specifically for a Wedding Kit: Yes, I think more Megapixels and better, High ISO performance would be appropriate for the main working camera at a Wedding, than what you have with your D70s. </em> <br /> <em></em> <br /> <em>Perhaps more importantly, I think a wider, fast prime is necessary. </em> <br /> <em></em> <br /> </strong> <em><strong>You are using (and looking at using) APS-C format (Nikon = DX). This means your 50/f1.8 acts like a short telephoto lens, which is fine for short telephoto type portraits.</strong> "</em></p>

<p><em>So the prime should be purely for the speed? My 18-50's 2.8 won't be adequate? And as for a wedding body, would you reccomend a D90 or a D200? The D200 is cheaper and way sturdier, however it has less MPs and worse ISO performance. I would think both durability and ISO performance would be needed in a wedding environment, but theres no way I can afford a D300.</em></p>

<p><em>As for the prime, the 50mm seems like a good midrange portrait lens. There's a gap in my focal lengths from 50mm to around 120mm, and the 75mm fits in there nicely. I'll look into some wider primes, however don't wide angle lenses distort too much for portraiture?<br /> </em></p>

<p><em>"</em> <em><strong>A solid Tripod and / or Monopod.</strong> "</em></p>

<p><em>I have both.<br /> </em></p>

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

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>re School Photos "Large camera gear attracts more unwanted attention than I care to deal with."</strong></em><br>

<br>

Ok, that was one example, just an idea to stimulate some lateral thoughts. I appreciate you might not want to engage that particular idea: but I encourage you to think about and then follow up others.<br>

<br>

<strong><em>"So the prime should be purely for the speed?"</em></strong><br>

<br>

Primarily yes. If you read over many of my posts you will note I value lens speed as the most important nearly all of the time. F2.8 is not really a fast lens: it is a fast zoom lens, but not a fast lens.<br>

Some folk disagree with me; but I think a two or three F1.4 or F1.8 Prime Lenses will save the bacon more often than not, especially if you are Photographing Weddings in venues where Flash is limited or prohibited.<br>

But also a <strong><em>wider</em></strong> prime, becasue (only) having a 50mm can be very limiting.<br>

<br>

<br>

<em><strong>"As for the prime, the 50mm seems like a good midrange portrait lens. </strong></em><br>

<br>

Yes, I agree the 50mm is a good portrait length, especially on an APS-C body (Nikon = DX). I use a 50/F1.4 quite often on my Canon 20D. It is a very useful combination at a Wedding, IMO.</p>

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

<p ><em><strong > </strong></em></p>

<p ><em><strong >There's a gap in my focal lengths from 50mm to around 120mm, and the 75mm fits in there nicely.”</strong></em></p>

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

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

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

<p ><em>This comment does not make sense – I think you have doubled up on the 1.5 factor – your 50mm prime is the same Focal Length as the 50mm ends of your 18 to 50 zoom. I think this comment is just a mistake. </em></p>

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

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

<p ><em>Also, in reality, there is not really a large gap between 50mm (on your zoom or the prime) and the 80mm on your longer zoom. The tow zooms you have are a good pair regarding their Focal Lengths, IMO.</em><br>

<br>

<strong><em>"</em></strong><em><strong> I'll look into some wider primes"</strong></em><strong><em>however don't wide angle lenses distort too much for portraiture?"</em></strong><em></em><br>

<br>

Yes in some circumstances and at the very wide, more so. Also when you move in very close or take a very high or low camera angle . . . I think the distortion you are referring to is "foreshortening". <br>

<br>

The point I was making is, your 50mm Fast Prime would be supported by a wider fast prime, especially for larger groups or smaller spaces or both. <br>

<br>

But the point is 30mm lens on your Nikon will give a field of view of what a 45mm lens would be on a Full Frame camera - so that makes it a "normal view lens". A 28mm is a little wide and a 24mm is wider still. <br>

<br>

With some care in regard to your camera position, any of these FL will give good full length portraiture of one or two people and good group portraiture, when used on your APS-C (DX) body, in tight surroundings.<br>

<br>

Try it for yourself: set your zoom lens to 28mm and use it for Full Length Portrait shots - note how you can control the foreshortening by keeping the camera elevation at about chest height of the subject(s) and note how you can control any barrel distortion by ensuring the camera is square to any horizontal and vertical straight lines in shot, (like a door frames, window sills, ceiling cornices, etc.)<br>

<br>

In regards to a camera choice, I am not intimately involved with Nikon DSLR, and I think you have a lot of photos to take with your D70s . . . as you said you do not have the money for another camera yet, so that decision can wait a bit, IMO. <br>

<br>

But I do understand the passion and impulse and the wanting to plan - I just think your energy could be directed into more making Photos with what you have, or assisting a Wedding Photographer or both, than thinking too much now, about what is best to buy down the track.<br>

<br>

Good Luck<br>

<br>

WW <br>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

[james_rizzo]

<p><strong><em>"This comment does not make sense – I think you have doubled up on the 1.5 factor – your 50mm prime is the same Focal Length as the 50mm ends of your 18 to 50 zoom. I think this comment is just a mistake." </em> </strong></p>

<p><em>I was under the impression that the 50mm was an FF lens, so the crop factor brings it to 75mm, while the 18-50 was a DX lens, which means there was no crop factor on a DX body.</em></p>

<p><em><strong>"But I do understand the passion and impulse and the wanting to plan - I just think your energy could be directed into more making Photos with what you have, or assisting a Wedding Photographer or both, than thinking too much now, about what is best to buy down the track."</strong> </em><br>

<em>I agree. Apparently, I underestimated the business of wedding photography. I may email a couple of local elementary schools to see if they have any events they want me to shoot. I could use the experience, because I currently have nothing on my resume other than about a year of experience working a fancy camera.<br /> </em></p>

[William Michael]

<p><em>

<p><strong>I was under the impression that the 50mm was an FF lens, so the crop factor brings it to 75mm, while the 18-50 was a DX lens, which means there was no crop factor on a DX body."</strong><br>

<br>

This understanding is incorrect.<br>

<br>

As I understand the "DX" lens is (primarily) designed, and is "DX", because it throws an <strong>image circle </strong><em>to just cover the smaller APS-C sensor. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>So, if a “DX” lens were used on a 135 format or “Full Frame” DSLR, the image would have a (severe) <strong>vignette, </strong>because the image circle of the lens, would not cover the full area of the sensor.</em><br>

<br>

The 50mm <strong>Focal Length</strong> of the lens remains the same, no matter what. <br>

<br>

The <strong>crop factor</strong>, to which you refer, is an indication of how much of the scene the smaller DX sensor sees and records with any particular lens. This is related to the <strong>Field of View</strong> of the lens. <br>

<br>

FYI:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/crop_sensor_cameras_and_lenses.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/crop_sensor_cameras_and_lenses.html</a><br>

<br>

<br>

Note that the later detail in this paper refers to Canon APS-C and x1.6 Digital factor – for Nikon it is x1.5.<br>

<br>

WW <br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

 

</em></p>

<p> </p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>Join your local PPA chapter as a student. Go up to people and ask if you can help them on any nearby weddings. If nothing else, you can ride with him/her and your parents may be willing to take you- just like a soccer game :-)<br>

You have enough gear to provide additional coverage. They may want you to be mostly an assistant, but that's good too. Either way you learn.</p>