2 photographers vs 1 photographer, pro and cons

It seems like a no brainer. Why would you hire a studio that offers 2 photographers for the day vs a studio that only has 1 photographer. Myself, I am usually the only shooter but I let my assistants shoot when I don’t need them for other tasks and I have many other very good photographers that I can call on to be a 2nd shooter. So why wouldn’t you want 2 photographers.

The cons are obviously the price. These are professionals and the additional costs are in the $1000 or higher range to include them in the package. A lot of studios who have 2 shooters will have a 2nd shooter who isn’t as competent as the first shooter. And some have a 2nd shooter that have a different style that doesn’t match the first shooter. A lot of the greatest wedding photographers on the planet work solo.

The advantages are several. On a large wedding where you want a record of everyone, 2 or even 3 shooters would be necessary. For some wedding ceremonies, movement is greatly restricted and having 2 shooters is the only way to cover all the angles. Lastly, some brides would like coverage of the guys while another photographer covers the gals. Again, the only way to shoot this is 2 shooters.

A truly great coffee table book will rarely need more than 3 great pictures per page which means 120-160 great pictures. Other than the exceptions listed above, I prefer to have the pictures be mine. That way the pictures have a consistent look and feel. The final piece of advice is if you are not sure, have your photographer show actual complete wedding albums (or in my case, coffee table books) and you should be able to tell if your photographer can handle the entire wedding or if an additional shooter is needed. I hope this helps you with your choice of photographer (or photographers).

Michael Steinberg