BE SURE to have at a minimum an assistant or 2nd shooter at your first wedding!

[fuccisphotos]

<p>To all you newbies out there, the number one piece of advice I can give you for your first solo big wedding is to have an assistant or second shooter with you. If you can't afford to hire one, at least have a friend come dressed similarly, and professionally, to help you. Fucci's Photos did its first big wedding this weekend. How the pros ever go out and shoot a big wedding all by themselves astonishes me. We had 3 photographers. Myself as the lead, my husband and a co-worker who had been taking a photo class for the past few months. To cover the bride, groom, and the guests coming in while making sure that every piece of equipment is accounted for, lights are held in the right spot, and checking off that each critical shot has been taken, was very time consuming. <br>

In the end the photos turned out great. My husband and co-worker got some fabulous shots and were incredibly helpful!<br>

So no matter what the size of your first wedding, be sure to at least have SOMEONE else along with you, preferably someone with a bit of experience with an dSLR.<br>

Good luck on your first big "solo" jobs!<br>

-Vail</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I would counter this notion by suggesting that you never shoot a wedding for hire without first serving an apprenticeship of some sort as an assistant and/or 2nd shooter for at least a season. I would also suggest that before you open an independent studio that you work for an established studio for a period of time......</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>As David says, it really does help to know what to expect from having good experience. Assisting is a good place to gain/begin that experience.</p>

<p>Vail, are you able to share some images? Love to see what you got cooking ;)</p>

<p> </p>

[colleendonovan]

<p>I was trying to figure out how to say the same thing my favorite David's said, but they said it much better. I can't imagein having THREE new photographers trying to figure out what to do next at a wedding. Kind of sounds like a circus. </p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Hmm. If the minimum is 'an assistant or second shooter', I wonder what's the maximum? :-)</p>

<p>Vail, where did you see the advantage of three people? Was it just as a means of managing complexity or did it allow you to accomplish something more concrete -- and if so, what?</p>

<p>Personally, I'm a big fan of dual photographers but only for one specific purpose: to allow coverage in two places at once.<br>

To be honest, the idea of shooting a wedding with someone whose only qualification is "a bit of experience with a DSLR" would not fill me with confidence -- in fact, I'd much rather work alone than with someone who wasn't equal to the task.</p>

<p>So tell us what happened. What kind of wedding was it and how did you use people?</p>

[rt_jones]

<p><em><strong>I would counter this notion by suggesting that you never shoot a wedding for hire without first serving an apprenticeship of some sort as an assistant and/or 2nd shooter for at least a season.</strong></em></p>

<p>Couldn't disagree more and this mantra gets a little old. Especially in this era of economic recession. Nobody is taking on 2nds. At least those main shooters worth their salt (and why would you want to work for anybody else?)</p>

<p>Edit: I see now you say, "for hire". Perhaps we're on the same page then.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>This post was meant for those posters we've seen who seem to just be picking up cameras and taking jobs without ever having any apprenticeships or training, or those that are doing their very first wedding as a primary shooter. While I totally agree, doing 2nd shooting apprenticeships first is FAR better, many of our posters here have already booked jobs and are planning on going into it solo. <br>

I had 3 people because originally my husband wasn't sure if he was going to be able to make the wedding or not, so I had lined up another second shooter. As requested, here's how I used the people. <br>

This was a LOW budget wedding. The couple was made aware that it would be my first larger professional wedding (I had done a few small house weddings before, and provided images for my friends and family before at larger weddings). Due to budget constraints, they didn't want me coming out hours beforehand to get many shots of them getting ready, etc, but still wanted some. So the time was VERY crunched before the actual ceremony started. So my husband took the shots of the groom putting on his tux, my co-worker got shots of the guests streaming in, and I took shots of the bride getting ready. <br>

For the ceremony, 3 shooters was not necessary. We had the telephoto on the tripod at the back of the room and the co-worker shooting with a shorter lens up front.<br>

For the formal posed shots I took photos with Flash, my husband took shots without flash (and the little moments in between of people getting ready for shots), and my co-worker checked off from the list that I had made in advance of the key family shots to get. She also kept people from coming in from the sides because it ended up raining that day so we weren't able to do the photos outside as planned.<br>

This part could easily have been done with just 2 people, one doing the checks, the other doing all the shooting. It was nice to do them so quickly though, since the Bride really wanted to just move on without doing as many formal shots as she had originally requested.<br>

During most of the reception it wasn't necessary to have 3 photographers either. There, just having one is really just fine. The only time it was really good to have another shooter then was the bride had expressed to me earlier that she really wanted guests to dance. No one was dancing. Some guests had asked me if they could do the electric slide. So even though the DJ didn't have the electric slide we had him play a song with a similar beat and I got people up there and got them dancing the electric slide which resulted in people staying out on the dancefloor long after the song so we could get some good guest dancing shots. My husband and co-worker got some shots of people while I was a bit tied up with helping guests with the steps. <br>

Also at other times I was helping the bride with different things, shoe changes, etc. That's one of the things I make sure to do. I had an assistant assigned to me from the reception hall the day of my wedding to help with stuff like that, but many brides can't afford that. So I bring with me bobby pins, advil, bandaids, quick snacks, etc, and offer to help the bride do some tasks like put on their shoes (since we don't want them crunching their dress all funny, etc). They've gotten to know me before the event so they feel more comfortable asking me to do stuff like that than asking my photo assistants. While I'm taking care of these things, my assistants cover any thing else that's going on then.<br>

Then later the rain cleared up at the end of the wedding when nearly all the guests had left. I convinced the couple that it'd be worthwhile getting some outdoor shots since they had nixed the shots indoors I had planned of just the two of them earlier because they just wanted to see their guests. While I worked with the couple outdoors, I had my husband round up all of our equipment, lighting, etc for indoor shots and load it up in the car. My co-worker helped to position the dress just right outside, etc, and then also took a few shots.<br>

In the end, I'm putting many of my husband and co-worker's photos on the DVD I will be giving the couple. The only photos they took that would look OBVIOUS as inexperienced photographers were the table shots of guests, and shots of the minimalist centerpieces. The table shots they didn't realize that I actually meant you have to ARANGE the people, not just take shots of them sitting at the tables. Luckily I caught that they were having problems with that, and I got the rest of the table shots and showed them how in the future you should pose people, etc, around the guests that are least able to move (i.e. handicapped or elder members of the family). For the centerpieces I showed them how much later in the reception when there was a lull in the action we could actually take one out of the context of the table and make a more artful composition in better lighting.<br>

I would still say though, for those out there that are skipping the rather important apprenticeship step, and even those who HAVE had apprentices, when you do your first wedding when you are the primary shooter, have SOMEONE with you. Again, having someone with experience is ALWAYS better. But at least have someone to help you. Be it lugging the equipment in, or making sure that you can stay behind the camera while the dress is properly positioned, etc. And frankly, having another person there for the moral support is good as well. <br>

For photos from it, I'll post a few, but the wedding was just on Saturday and I haven't had time to really go through and edit them yet.</p>

<div></div>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>My shot of the couple outside, it still needs some color correction.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Vail--please upload some of the images to your photo.net gallery and link to that, or provide a link to your images. Multiple images, particularly if they don't show up in the thread, are against forum guidelines. After you have done so, I will be removing the images here that don't show up.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Sorry about the multiple posts, didn't realize that wasn't allowed. You can find just a few of them here on my photo.net site:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=965234">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=965234</a></p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Interesting story. I have a couple more questions, largely because I'm intrigued by why people fall into certain photography routines, especially when they're starting out without being inducted by someone else. And also because I'm not American, and so have a different starting point.</p>

<p>How big was the wedding? Difficult to tell from your room shots, but looking at the tables I'd guess around 120 people. Did you feel that helping the bride into her shoes, or carrying pins, painkillers and feeding her snacks, or shooting table shots were all things that were expected of you, and that you therefore needed to plan (and resource) for?</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p >This is very interesting story and a very interesting original post, also. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I too am intrigued and I was intrigued at the beginning and have been following the thread since you first posted this Advice. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Added to Neil's questions –</p>

<p > </p>

<p >> I have pieced together that your term "large wedding" means "lots of people" rather than "Covers a long period of time" - is that correct? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >> Also were the table shots at the Customer’s request, or something that you believed was necessary?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >> For me - the most interesting element is the business perspective. You mention that – <em >“Due to budget constraints, they didn't want me coming out hours beforehand to get many shots of them getting ready, etc, but still wanted some. . . . my husband took the shots of the groom putting on his tux, my co-worker got shots of the guests streaming in, and I took shots of the bride getting ready.”</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, for the sake of discussion, for you to cover those three elements of the coverage would have taken maybe two hours including travelling? ? ? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Did you actually save on total labour time (total person hours including travel time) by having three people shoot for that period of time? Or did you just end up giving the customer more and that actually cost you more in labour.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That might be good – I am not suggesting it is good or bad – I am merely asking a question. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >> Also, this to me is the most important of any business perspective questions: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I take it that I can assume that you, Vail, were the senior (the most experienced) of the three Photographers at the Wedding? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It seems that one major benefit of having two others assist you was logistics (gear, cartage, check lists etc) – the other key advantage for you was providing the Customer with an expanse of images which you concluded, you would not have been able to provide working alone. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But also, you obviously feel that experience of<strong ><em > having two other people take images for your business and under your business name was beneficial for you.</em></strong> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In this regard, did you consider that if you were not assisting the Bride with shoes and bobby-pins and thereby leaving your Assistants to take care of the shooting the images for your business; and if you were not having to watch the Table Shots and later instruct your Assistants on the how to do those properly next time; and if you were not worrying about how the Table Centre Pieces were shot by someone else . . . you would have had more time to execute these precision shots, yourself?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[fuccisphotos]

<p>It was about a 100 person wedding, no bridal party. Just the bride and groom. The was set to start at 12pm. We got there at 10:40 AM. We were contracted from 11:30 until 4pm. There wasn't much traffic so we got there 20 minutes earlier than I intended to get there. I tend to like to be at my locations about a half hour or so before the time we are contracted to start that way I don't feel rushed during the set up. <br>

The groom arrived at about 11. I got the rings from him and set up the ring shot. The bride did not arrive until about 11:30. She wasn't in the dress until about 11:45. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Did you feel that helping the bride into her shoes, or carrying pins, painkillers and feeding her snacks, or shooting table shots were all things that were expected of you, and that you therefore needed to plan (and resource) for?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neil, this is NOT standard practice in America. It is however something we offer as standard at Fucci's Photos. We want to put the bride at ease as much as possible that day. If she's happy and relaxed, her face will reflect that in the photos. <br>

The table shots portion was my own error. I should have just done that myself. It was something the bride had discussed earlier that she wanted. I thought they were a fairly easy shot to take, but apparently that isn't the case. Also the table shots are good for getting other guests to purchase photos. I provided them with cards where they could buy the photo online themselves and had the wedding planners have a page where people could leave their email if they wanted to be notified when the photos went online.<br>

For the centerpieces, my husband and co-worker took the shots on their own, without me asking them to do so. Then they came to me and said I'm not getting very good center piece shots. I was planning on getting them later any ways myself, I just turned it into a lesson at the same time.<br>

The labor provided by my husband and my co-worker was free to me. My husband looks at it as a fun thing we get to do together, and my co-worker got experience interacting with people. Most of her previous work had been with still lifes, architecture, and people who are in her cityskapes, for her photography class. <br>

In the end I would say it was win win for everyone. The bride and groom had people coming up to them saying how impressed they were with the photo coverage. They will get many more usable beautiful images to choose from than if I had shot alone. All my equipment made it home in one piece. My stress levels were much lower than if I had shot it myself without a doubt. My co-worker learned a great deal and said she had lots of fun. My husband is starting to develop a good eye. Originally he didn't contribute much more than holding the lights and brute strength on a job. Now he's contributing great images and making good posing suggestions.<br>

As I build up my experience I hope to eventually be able to command higher prices etc, but I also find a certain joy serving a couple that otherwise would have just had to rely on photos taken by friends and family or a craigslist photographer. I am finding there is a huge market for this type of job. So in the future I hope to keep a low end branch of the business available to couples on tight budgets that provides them with shooters who are fairly green, but that can produce some good images for low prices. </p>

 

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>I'm not convinced that you need to assist a wedding photographer before you start shooting weddings. It certainly wouldn't hurt to get a bit of experience, but if you're a good photographer and have the personality for it, I don't see the transition as being all that hard. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the novices that post to this forum with beginner photography questions.<br>

Wedding photography isn't that complicated. It's not even that technical. If you've come from a lifestyle or photojournalist background or anything even remotely similar, the anticipation and awareness of the moment needed for weddings is already part of your experience. In addition, there is plenty of access to brides that are looking to hire a shooter on the cheap and it shouldn't be that hard to get a few weddings under your belt in short time and hopefully start to move up the ladder.<br>

I assisted on a wedding once- for an editorial photographer who was shooting for a photo editor he had a close relationship with. I second shot on a wedding once for images for my book. I feel my experience as an assistant in the commercial- editorial world carried over fairly well. I never felt that I would learn enough carrying a light stick or someone else's bag to justify the poor rates wedding photographers are often notorious for, or more importantly, my time.<br>

Having said all that, I agree that it's great to have an assistant at a wedding, even if it's just for the company.</p>

<p> </p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>We want to put the bride at ease as much as possible that day. If she's happy and relaxed, her face will reflect that in the photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I fully agree. Happy relaxed people enjoy themselves and tend to make good pictures.</p>

<p>But I'm highly intrigued that your route is to encourage that feeling of relaxation by being attentive, feeding them, providing pins, clips, sewing, bandages, helping them dress, etc. If it works for you that's fine (I'm not suggesting you should do anything different) but it's the exact opposite of how I work, or what I think I'm there for. I wonder whether you'll still have that opinion in a few years - and to be fair, if this was your first 'real wedding' then it could be argued that your opinions about what works or doesn't are not fully formed.</p>

<p>I agree with Senor about not needing to assist. I'm entirely self-taught at weddings and proud of it, and I actually feel my work and approach is stronger for being true to my instincts, and not influenced in any way by other people. (Which is why I was wondering what it was that set your expectations/direction about pins, plasters, sewing kits, feeding the bride, etc.) I recognise you view those things as a value added service. Equally, I view the fact that I don't do those things as a value added service. Just goes to show there's no standard approach.</p>

<p>Culture is also an interesting dimension. The short timescales you mention are pretty familiar to anyone doing weddings in the UK - in fact, yours may still be rather more generous. Over here the wedding day tends to run very fast paced: some of the schedules I've seen mentioned in other threads just in respect of formals can be longer than we get for the ceremony and speeches combined. Also wedding sizes may be different: 100 people would probably be low to moderate size here. I tend to start thinking 'big wedding' when it gets above 300.</p>

<p>Interesting to compare notes.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Thank you for answering my questions.</p>

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

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

<p ><strong ><em >“The labor provided by my husband and my co-worker was free to me. My husband looks at it as a fun thing we get to do together, and my co-worker got experience interacting with people. Most of her previous work had been with still lifes, architecture, and people who are in her cityskapes, for her photography class. In the end I would say it was win win for everyone. [husband leaning more etc] . . .”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong>Understood. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“They will get many more usable beautiful images to choose from than if I had shot alone.”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong>Understood.</p>

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

<p ><strong ><em > “It is however something we offer as standard at Fucci's Photos. We want to put the bride at ease as much as possible that day. If she's happy and relaxed, her face will reflect that in the photos.”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong>Understood.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“I am finding there is a huge market for this type of job. So in the future I hope to keep a low end branch of the business available to couples on tight budgets that provides them with shooters who are fairly green, but that can produce some good images for low prices.” </em></strong></p>

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

<p > </p>

<p >I wish you well in your venture. It seems this is a well thought-out, niche marketing plan to provide both service and product. Thank you for sharing it is so much detail. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I suggest you initiate a plan <strong ><em >now,</em></strong> for not being trapped. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also I think you need a plan as to how you will have TWO branches to your business one being "low end" - - - that's very interesting - - - thinking about using employees or sub-contactiors . . . <br /></p>

<p >> there is "time" </p>

<p >> there is "quality" </p>

<p >> there is "quantity"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Which goes ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

[felix_mizioznikov]

<p>I did my first wedding with 120 people solo with one 5d2 and a few lenses. the wedding went great and I'm still getting referral work from the guests, several that followed were also solo but with two 5d2's. As much as Vail is advising to go with an assistant, I've been doing it solo and have always been praised on my work, from my experience I've found that it's much easier with two camera bodies than one. sometimes an an amateur second shooter will cause greater harm than good because if your friend the "second shooter" if off taking shots out of your control and guests want those shots (guests remember hat shots were taken of them) and the shots came out unacceptable then you have unhappy guests that did not get the shots they were anticipating and will never think twice to call you again.<br>

prior to my first I never had wedding training. I primarily work with models, fashion, interiors and stock. <br>

starting of as a second shooter would be helpful if you may lack confidence in your abilities. </p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>>William, I'd say for the "low end" one, what goes is likely quality. For example, the studio I used for my own wedding, you could pay over $10,000 for the same set of services but with the person who owned the studio shooting as the primary, or between $5000-$6000 using one of their contracted photographers. After seeing the portfolio of the contracted photographer, while not as good as that of the owner of the studio, the quality of his work and his personality seemed perfect for our wedding, and it was. What I'm looking to do is create a scaled down version of that. I'd still perform the color correction and editing, and provide the full set of products we offer the higher end clients. Many of the craigslist photographers don't have professional proofing sites, they are just going to provide images on a disc, which is also fine for some couples.</p>

<p>>Felix,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did my first wedding with 120 people solo with one 5d2 and a few lenses. the wedding went great and I'm still getting referral work from the guests, several that followed were also solo but with two 5d2's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad your first wedding went well and you didn't have any equipment failure. Personally the idea of shooting at someone's wedding without at least a second camera body on your person disturbs me. I'm gonna put out the suggestion to the other newbies on this forum who may read this, please please please, go with a 2nd body, rent one, borrow one from a friend if you can't afford one (and practice with it BEFORE the wedding). Felix you may disagree, but having that level of equipment redundancy I think is a must. Also from my experience this weekend, it would have been worth it to rent better glass if you can afford the deposit associated with it. Having to rely on the higher ISOs was a hindrance. Yes lightroom and photoshop have taken care of most of the grain/noise, but still, I prefer to not HAVE to shoot at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>Also, I don't doubt that there are people out there that can shoot weddings solo, and do it well. After the most recent one I did, I really give them kudos for possessing that talent. What this post was supposed to do is encourage those who are just STARTING OUT to have someone with them. There seem to be many people in this category on this forum, so it was just a bit of first hand perspective from someone starting out as well.</p>

<p>Of the shots being taken by a "second shooter" who is a friend, I should have clarified. If the person you choose to bring along with you has little to no experience shooting with an SLR, giving them your extra body is probably not the best way to go. Having the extra body on you with a different set of lenses on it already would likely be better. If they do own an SLR and you have seen their work and it is fairly decent, well composed, and fairly well exposed, then maybe. It depends on your comfort level in their work. I still would say having someone there to help me set up my equipment, and having someone to help corral people for the formals, especially when on your FIRST wedding is smart.</p>

<p>As for what's considered a large wedding, yes, I wouldn't say 100 people is HUGE. It is however bigger than the weddings in homes I've shot with 40-60 people. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose. ;)</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Also, as for feeding them, the snacks are just there in case they have a low blood sugar moment. I know it's hard to believe with all the sugary cake around, etc, but so often the Bride hasn't been able to eat all day. Talking to guests usually takes precedence over eating the food. Not to mention, being stuck in a hot tight wedding dress doesn't make you feel too great either over several hours.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for answering my questions.<br>

Brava.<br>

WW</p>

[acute]

<p>I think there might (just might) be a danger of falling into a trap, of thinking that EVERYTHING has to be documented at a wedding. It really doesn't need to become that complicated. I would rather have a series of excellent basic shots that a ton of mediocre images. To me, personally, one photographer is enough. And then everybody knows which way to look and where to be for the photoshoot.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>Wow, to think I shot weddings part time all on my own for over 25 years! Don't know how I managed. As a previous poster said, I was self taught and learned what I could from books and such. There weren't any online forums for info, and no Internet at all. Never did any promotions, got work by word of mouth. And it was quite some time before I actually had a backup camera body, never did have a second flash.</p>

<p>Just glad I got out of it 15 or so years ago, as I was becoming a drag to actually do weddings in the (relatively) hot summers!</p>

<p> </p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Just going to state again, this post wasn't necessarily meant for those with tons of experience. It was aimed at those posters on this forum who are novices shooting their very first solo wedding.<br>

As far as what Andrew said of having photos of everything, you are definitely right. This can be overblown. This was something just yesterday I realized I need to go over with my 2nd/3rd shooters. If the image isn't capturing anything particularly interesting, it's not worth shooting. Consequently I have had to review over 2000 photos for a 5 hour shoot, MANY of which are junk. But still, the piece of mind they provided me that day photos they did get that are very strong I'd say are worth me combing through several junk photos to find the gold.<br>

To each their own ;)</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Just going to state again, this post wasn't necessarily meant for those with tons of experience. It was aimed at those posters on this forum who are novices shooting their very first solo wedding."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

And my point was that no one should be shooting a wedding for hire without sufficient apprenticeship experience before covering their first solo wedding. Back in the day, no studio would ever send someone out to do a wedding solo unless they were confident that they were capable of handling the job. It's a wedding, no second chances and no excuses.</p>

 

[redstar_redstar]

<p>I have small experience (1 solo wedding, 40 guests and 2 weddings I followed someone)<br>

About to do solo wedding in July. Scared but confident in myself (scared for equipment , rebel xti and 18-55 lens)<br>

You have to start some day. I feel that the more weddings I do, the more experience I will get. <br>

I see that more experienced (professional) photographers talk negative about starters and their first attempts (especially weddings). I take Vail’s post as more of a story of the experience she had, rather then maybe advice. <br>

I would love to have a second shooter, but can’t afford them J</p>