Sadly, I have a song by the Spice Girls playing in my head whilst writing this – I think it’s called “When Two become One” (which really was one of their weaker efforts in my opinion!) and bears only a passing resemblance to the subject of today’s blog post which actually has nothing to do with Britpop girl bands but is about whether two wedding photographers are better than one!
So are two wedding photographers better than one?
Well, of course – it depends!
First of all the pros:
More angles: Inevitably, and undeniably you are more likely to get more pictures from a wider variety of angles from from two photographers rather than one. It’s physically impossible for one photographer to be in two places at once and having two makes it much more possible to have pictures of both the bride and groom getting ready in different locations for example.
Wider coverage: With two photographers you are also more likely to get a more balanced and wider coverage. By that I mean that whilst one photographer might be photographing the family groups the other can still be photographing guests. Similarly, one may spend time photographing the tables and details freeing up more time for the other to concentrate of candid shots of you and your guests etc.
Safety in numbers: On a more practical level the chances of an important moment being captured are higher with two photographers than one and there is far less chance of two being ill on the day than one. There will be more cameras at your wedding so less chance of anything going wrong as well.
and the cons:
Paparazzi parade: Your wedding could start to feel like a photo shoot with two photographers there.
Lack of consistency: You might not get a consistent style of coverage. All photographers photograph in a slightly different way and you could possibly find that you get two slightly different looking styles. This could be refreshing and good – or maybe not??
Costings: Finally think about this from a business point of view. Two photographers means two wages. Therefore, two photographers should be considerably more expensive – if not, where are corners being cut or who is it that’s happy to photograph a wedding with all of the associated planning and preparation for a cut price fee? Often second photographers are considerably less experienced and are sometimes little more than bag carriers added onto your photography package as an attractive sounding bauble. That does sound harsh and a majority are fantastic and do a great job but the worst case scenario often does happen.
From my own point of view I have always shot alone. I’m absolutely committed to documenting your wedding in as unobtrusive and as least invasive way as possible and in my view having two photographers there just makes that less possible. I would also be very concerned about consistency as I have developed a style and an approach that’s very personal to me and has taken years of work to get right! I think it would be very hard to have someone else there who would photograph in the same way and would seamlessly fit in with my style. It’s more than possible with planning and foresight to ensure that one photographer is in the right place at the right time to photograph everything. Personally I really don’t always think that bigger is better and my personal view in terms of wedding photography is that a bespoke, personal approach is much better.
That’s not to say that I’m completely right though – it really depends on your own priorities, expectations and desires. Needless to say one very good wedding photographer can do a much better job than two OK ones. Similarly two very good wedding photographers working together can do as good a job, or depending on your take on it, a better job than one very good wedding photographer although the result and experience will be very different. Horses for courses!
If you are looking for one very good wedding photographer who shoots alone because he believes it’s the right thing to do and not just because he’s got no mates to join him then
GET IN TOUCH WITH ME – I’d love to hear from you!