Is your second shooter your wife??

I've never really considered a two man shoot. Although I do shoot for another guy quite often and he works in pairs.

On these occasions I've discovered how less hectic it can be. But is it worth it?

To those of you who use second shooters, do you not just hate giving away a slice of your potential profit?

Or do you believe the benefits increase your bookings and so pays off in the end?

Hey Clive

I only use a 2nd shooter if I really have to! Like when I have a dual bridal prep so I just pay my 2nd shooter to go to the guys getting ready, bringing the camera back to the ceremony and then they go home.

I really cannot see any huge advantage in having a 2nd shooter at the ceremony as my main cam can run itself while I shoot cutaways on the 2nd camera and really, at the reception I cannot see any use for a 2nd shooter at all.

The extra footage from a 2nd shooter COULD get messed up (I have seen posts here to that story!) so I guess if you want to slack off and just supervise then it might be OK but I would rather know what I'm shooting, plus editing is easier cos I shot it so I remember any issues.

I have never had any bride cringe when they know I'm shooting solo so have never had a booking turned down because of that. If you are going to pay $500 for an assistant for the day, doesn't it make normal business sense to add at least $500 to your prices?? (unless it's your wife of course)

I'll stay solo always and only use a 2nd shooter IF I really cannot physically do two things at once ..and I do charge extra too!!! We work hard enough already without having to make a reduced income to carry a 2nd shooter.

Chris

If I could I"d always shoot with a second permanent shooter, would make life so much easier but I"m having a hard time to get it sold, my clients are not willing to pay the extra amount of cash for it, they see my demo's, ask if I did them alone which is the case and then say, "that's fine, we don't need a second shooter" after I explained the benefits to them.

This is a difficult one - If I shot with a second shooter then the potential for greater coverage and (dare I say it) more creative and artistic shooting would increase and thus justify an increase in the price for the couple - they's be getting an improved product.

If however the 'second shooter' is your wife/girlfriend/husband who simply waves a handycam around and is there basically to carry stuff and make your life easier on the day then I fail to see how you can pass this cost on - unless they are prepared to do it for free.

If it's a 3 site shoot sometimes my girlfriend comes and helps fetch and carry - she also films a little with my Sony VG20 on full auto but I don't charge more - I just treat her to a curry :)

For bridal prep I film up to an hour before the ceremony and then dash off and charge a certain price for this - for an small extra my girlfriend will turn up to film the last hour such as the leaving of the house etc. This is added value and so I'm happy adding an extra charge for it.

Pete

Over the years I've shot 2nd and used 2nds. there are good and bad points to both. Being a 2nd for me has still meant, shoot it like I was #1. IOW, don't get stupid about framing, focus, etc. because what if the 1st has a problem with his camera or whatever. I don't take over of course but put as much care into shooting 2nd as when I'm 1st.

As for using 2nds, there are 1 or 2 guys I trust implicitly. Enough to the point that I really don't have to say much to them and it does make me feel better that I have someone else shooting that pretty much thinks as I do. IOW shoot it like they own it. What if I have a camera failure etc.

I've worked with a few over the years that frankly gave me pause especially after loading the footage and yelling things like "you big dummmie!" and my fav "what the %^&%$#6675#%$@(&*^4543$##_++ were you thinking, what garbage"...I also have a 3rd unmanned running for a safety shot and in most cases it gets a better shot than the 2nd! ;-)

Like I said good and bad to both sides and while using a good 2nd who I and trust does lower my stress level a bit frankly I don't trust anyone so I try not to use a 2nd unless I had already committed to it when I sign the client OR it's a church that pretty much requires I have one because of the layout!

It requires someone you trust. Mine is my wife, though it was supposed to be the other way around. Last night I met a photographer's 2nd shooter, and will be talking to him about helping out on a few dates next year. He usually gets $200 to second shoot for 10 hours (wow, I know), but is transitioning to being a solo shooter.

IF you're considering it, you don't offer it as an add-on. I find that doesn't usually work since clients don't see the value. Instead, find two or three people you rely on reguarly, and just raise your prices and put out a better product.

Here are the benefits I've seen:
more flexiblity to be in two places at once. One shoots establishing details/groom/family while the other stays with the bride, etc.
Quicker setup and movement: By myself, I need 15 minutes or so to setup a first look/speeches/first dance since I'll position two cameras fixed. With a 2nd, it's less of an issue. This is good since they don't always give us good notice before these events.
Knowing a 2nd camera will also be taken care of, reframed as needed, etc. instead of me having to shoot as if my camera is the only camera.
Cutaways of family during important moments.

I give my clients a demo of 1 shooter, and 2 shooter wedding day. I let them know the price difference.

They seem to always choose the 2 shooter.

I don't take a hit in the wallet. Rather, i take a hit in my editing time. I also feel that paying a qualified and trained shooter better, gives me way more confidence in a better product.
I get angles and slide shots that single shooter weddings don't offer.

I get angles and slide shots that single shooter weddings don't offer.

That's just the part I am not able to sell, for example the vows, with a 2 shooter team one guy gets a medium wide of the groom and the other a close up of the bride while one shooter could operate a 3rd camera getting the parents reactions as well.

As a single shooter I just get a wide shot with bride and groom in one shot and if I"m lucky a unmanned camera pointed at the parents gets some reactions from them but from a wider distance.

This is an example they should clearly see the advantage of a 2 man team, not so much when using a extra slider shot at the back of the church, but when they hear the price difference to get the second shooter they always choose the single shot showing both of them, it shows the moment and that's ok for them, they always go for the cheapest option.

Hey Noa..That's okay also.

When the clients ask for single camera, i realize that budget comes before style. Therefore, I don't concern myself with what "I" think is better for them.
Plus, my edits cut through like knife on butter..

I've shot with my son for several years now and we instinctively know what we need to be doing. I trained him to think and see my way so when ever we walk in to a venue we're usually thinking along the same lines anyway.

He always shoots the rear camera and I always shoot the front/side cameras in a ceremony. We never need to worry about each other getting in the shots because we know how long each of us needs to get the shot and be in the position we need to be in. We have specific gestures and hand signals that communicate very well, as long as we can see each other of course.

In fact, I no longer think of him as a second, but more of an alternate first. We both have our strengths and weaknesses. He generally grabs the establishing shots while i set up the audio and unattended cameras. He's better with the slider than I am, but I'm better with the Jib and hand held.

Then, after the day is done we also share the editing, they he will typically colour and I will do audio. So it's not a first/second shooter situation, it's really more of a partnership.

The sad thing is that too many brides are wanting "cheap" rather than "good" so we've been steadily steering more towards corporate than weddings because supporting two of us is getting harder on weddings alone.

My wife and I run our business together and she is a very competent videographer and editor. She also attends all the wedding shows with me, as Brides seem to like to talk to another female.

If we have two wedding enquiries for the same day, we are both able to take on a solo wedding with a pair of cameras. If it is a joint video and photo package, I can work solo, but my wife can't do both solo so we only take on one joint package. If there is only one booking on the day of the joint package, then my wife would take the main video camera whilst I take a second video camera for the ceremony and speeches, but concentrate more on the stills.

It's a setup that works well, enabling us to cover various combinations of bookings and hopefully maximising the income as it is all coming into the same household.

Roger

Having the missus as a second shooter is probably the best scenario as long as she has the same passion as you. Mine has not ..no interest in stills or video and no interest in weddings. I took her to one many years ago and she said "Never again!"

Mu second shooter has already qualified in a degree for film and television which to me is neither here nor there as it seems to be more theory but she does have a good eye and can think ahead ..when the bouquets come out she is already arranging them so she usually covers everything I ask of her.

Going rates for 2nd shooters here are between $30 ph for a novice to $60 ph for someone decent so over a full wedding you are looking at putting an extra $600 at least on your price to cover costs which can quite easily push you out of the bride's budget range.

Chris

If you are going to pay $500 for an assistant for the day, doesn't it make normal business sense to add at least $500 to your prices?? (unless it's your wife of course)

"unless it's your wife" ... ... ... ... Just going to let that seep in for a second.

Moving on. Use a second shooter when you need a second shooter. For some shows that I do, it is impossible to get the angles and dynamic motion that you need if you do not have a second shooter (or a third). For other shows, I could work alone, but having an assistant saves me time and stress.

If the shoot NEEDS another shooter, charge for it. If it is mostly for your benefit and not essential, then it may not be as appropriate to bill it as a line item. Mostly, I work alone, but getting basic help when needed should be built-in to your costs, and you can write it off on your taxes at the end of the year.

I started with a second shooter after about 2 years solo and have never looked back. I did it initially because by chance I ran into someone who was interested in helping. He was a young film school guy who was very skilled and who also shot with the same gear that I use. After a couple of shoots together we were totally synced. Having the second shooter boosted the quality of my product and in turn allowed me to gradually increase my fees well above the cost of the second shooter. Not to mention the reduced stress of having someone else to rely on during the crazy parts of the day. I think the key though is finding a reliable and skilled resource. I can imagine that if you were trying to train a less experienced person it could be more of a detriment at least in the short term until they got up to speed.

Art

There are circumstances where a second or even third shooter is necessary for proper coverage e.g. large Jewish or Asian wedding. It's certainly nice to have a second shooter where you are going to have real time multi-camera coverage e.g. during service, speeches, first dance but not obligatory. You need a second shooter where action is going on in two places at once which usually means the. bride & groom getting ready but the other week I shot with a colleague where the couple left the church by horse & carriage then went off to a heliport & arrived at the reception venue by helicopter. While my colleague went to the heliport & attached GoPros in the helicopter I went straight to the venue to be in place to grab shots of the helicopter arriving & the surprised guests.

I agree Nigel

However the important thing that is posed by the original post is "How do you justify less profit" ..Dunno about others but if a second shooter is required then the bride must pay for the extra OR if you shoot with a second/third shooter anyway it must be covered in your pricing surely??

My wedding last weekend had the bride request limo shots departing from the prep venue and shots of the limo arriving 10 minutes later ..I obviously needed to set up at the Church 30 minutes ahead so my 2nd shooter stayed with the bride BUT she did pay extra for having 2 people for that short time.

It's pointless costing a wedding for one shooter and then deciding to have two more and killing your profit ..that wouldn't make any business sense

Chris

A couple of points on this.

a) Judging by the business I get on my current rate, I very much doubt i would get much interest from people to pay 300 more for a two shooter package. I'm not sure how others manage to sell that!

b) If you use two shooters as standard, and realise that most couple don't care about the fact their is tow of you? Isn't the temptation there to lose the second guy and keep the prices the same.

In 30 bookings, I've had just one enquiry asking if its a solo package. And when I said yes, she went ahead and booked anyway.

In a city (Los Angeles) where there's often 3, 4 or 5 shooters at some of these weddings, I don't regret in the least using two shooters for every Wedding. We actually probably wouldn't appeal to the higher end Weddings without multiple shooters because that's what they expect. While I realize small town Weddings may be a bit different, I find the cost of a 2nd shooter worth every dime. I think it comes down to how much detail you want covered. Plus, couples love hearing things like "when we go off and take family and couple's photos/video, my 2nd camera op will be getting shots of your cocktail hour and reception detail so you guys won't miss a thing." Every time I say that I see a look on their face that says "phew! I won't worry now about having to miss my entire cocktail hour, etc." Sold.

My camera op moves all our equipment (7 bags), sets up lights if needed, checks focus at various focal distances, white balances the cameras in the Reception room (sometimes its very, um, colorful in there) and taps in for audio all before I walk in. Then when the camera rolls I can have more interesting tight shots because they can follow the action rather than staying wide and boring all the time. Also, when things run behind as you all know they do, most of the time I don't worry cuz my 2nd has things all set and ready. When you start to work higher end jobs charging more and more, you won't even think about the extra "cost" of a 2nd camera op. It's not extra, its just part of their deal. I guess it all depends on what market you are targeting.

Sure, I can do a Wedding by myself and I did for the first couple years in this business, but the extra angles, details, and overall coverage in addition to the help I get all day long is well worth it in my opinion.

Hey Clive, would there be any disadvantage to your offering two shooters as a package alongside your usual packages?

I used to work for a company that offered both solo and two-shooter packages -- and the majority of brides did go for the two-shooter package, though it was either $300 or $500 more expensive (depending on hours of shooting). I did sort of push this package though. Said to them things like: it's better to get two close-ups during the vows rather than just one; it's safer, to make sure things are not missed, in case one camera has problems; you have the option of doing a split when covering prep in the morning; you can get shots during the reception speeches not only of the speaker, but also the B&G and whoever's being talked about, etc.

Hi Adrian

What would be the advantages from the bride's point of view between a solo person running 3 cameras on their own to someone with a 2nd shooter?? I know technically a 2nd shooter is better but from the brides side I'm not sure they could be totally convinced that a bunch of locked off cameras is a lot inferior to having an actual 2nd shooter. Being solo always at ceremonies I have one cam on a tripod in the aisle, one either on the balcony or high up on a stand and then one on my shoulder so I have 2 fixed POV's plus a variable one that can go anywhere. That gives her a 3 cam shoot and virtually nothing missed so how would you convince her that having 2 camera people is a better option, despite the extra cost.

Chris

Hey Chris, to be honest, I think in the couple's mind a camera operator = one camera. They don't think to themselves about unmanned cameras, or one person operating multiple cameras. So maybe that's part of why I could talk people into two-person packages so easily.

In my experience, if the question is asked at all it is usually ' How many cameras do you use?" not ' How many operators do you use?'. I do agree with Chris that it is difficult to justify extra personnel cost to many couples if you are already offering multi camera shoots. If I use a locked off opposite angle camera, I always have it set to the highest possible resolution, so that I can add zoom crops at the editing stage. Most couples take it all for granted anyway in the final edit, but I have on occasion been asked how I managed to get a gentle zoom on the vows from two angles with only one cameraman.

There are occasions when two operators are useful, but experience, confidence and planning makes it unnecessary in most cases.

On a side note, I was at a wedding show recently and there was unusually another wedding company exhibiting. We got on well enough, but I was interested when talking about the number of operators, that they were horrified that my wife and I both film as solo shooters. Apparently, they film each wedding with 3 shooters, each with 2 cameras! Looking at their video, I wouldn't have been happy with the filming if I filmed it solo, so I presume they lack the confidence and feel that more shooters gives safety in numbers. I would bet that they use students or family members for free though, as there was nothing showing to justify it.

Roger

Thanks Roger and Adrian

I must admit that brides never ask me "how many operators" (the only time one did actually ask was so she could plan for meals) Then again I do stipulate that the ceremony is a three camera shoot (more for peace of mind for both me and the bride too) My top mount camera has got me out of many sticky situations where the ample rear end of the MOB has blocked a camera and whether there was an operator on it or not, it wouldn't have been different. My principle is simply ..my main aisle camera gets the important stuff like the actual vows. My roving camera captures whatever I want it to capture and my high mounted camera provides me a fresh angle (or gets me out of trouble)

I used to let my second shooter stay for the ceremony in the old days after we did a dual prep but then she had the shoulder mount cam and ran around shooting the interesting stuff and I was stuck watching the main cam which was boring!!

Admittedly I have never advertised "two camera persons or three camera persons" so I honestly cannot say whether brides would rather book a videographer with "multi-operators" or not at a higher price. I would certainly like to be able to attract higher prices but it would have to be a lot more than just extra money to cover the operators ... there would have to be a fat profit in it for me as well otherwise having extra ops seems pointless apart from having a partner or two to chat with or fetch and carry.

As a comparison in a different industry, my daughter is a musician and found it was hard to get gigs with a two piece so she also went solo and does very well and the clients still love the music. Remember, like video, the end user is not as fussy as we think and we tend to go over the top with technical perfection anyway.

Guess we all work in different ways.

Chris