Photography package question(s)

[Evan Baines]

Just realized I left out the two photographer bit.

 

My advice on this is always the same: if you're being promised two photographers, you should be seeing two portfolios. Far too often, photographers will offer "two photographers" when the second is an unpaid photo student or under-trained spouse (Don't get me wrong: there are some GREAT husband/wife duos out there-- and participating on this forum! But more frequently one is the REAL photographer and the other is less adept.). I have even seen, on one memorable occasion, a photographer using his 14-year-old daughter as a "second shooter."

 

You will never go wrong by asking to see samples of the second photographer's work, as you can judge for yourself how much value is added by that person. If the second shooter is truly talented, don't be surprised if the price reflects that. Talented photographers don't work for free. Like many photographers, I choose to make a distinction between "assistants" (do not expect quality photo production from these) and "second shooters," from whom my clients expect a very high level of work.

 

Obviously, having two talented photographers will give you more quality images than having one. However, I would personally opt for one really good photographer over two mediocre shooters.

[Nic Dragomire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Baines Just realized I left out the two photographer bit. My advice on this is always the same: if you're being promised two photographers, you should be seeing two portfolios. Far too often, photographers will offer "two photographers" when the second is an unpaid photo student or under-trained spouse (Don't get me wrong: there are some GREAT husband/wife duos out there-- and participating on this forum! But more frequently one is the REAL photographer and the other is less adept.). I have even seen, on one memorable occasion, a photographer using his 14-year-old daughter as a "second shooter." You will never go wrong by asking to see samples of the second photographer's work, as you can judge for yourself how much value is added by that person. If the second shooter is truly talented, don't be surprised if the price reflects that. Talented photographers don't work for free. Like many photographers, I choose to make a distinction between "assistants" (do not expect quality photo production from these) and "second shooters," from whom my clients expect a very high level of work. Obviously, having two talented photographers will give you more quality images than having one. However, I would personally opt for one really good photographer over two mediocre shooters.

I was with you on the first one Evan but not this time.. Firstly, I shoot 2000-3000 photos myself, my second will shoot 1000-1500 in a normal day. I deliver about 500-700. Most of which will be mine. Your paying for my talent, my vision, my art, my photography, not my my second shooters. My second shooter provides a different angle or perspective, and insurance in the event that one of my cameras goes down in the middle of something important, I can grab his 2nd body and continue shooting with 2 cameras as normal.

I've shot weddings with some really big names in so cal and in wedding photojournalism as a whole and I see what they deliver when its said and done. I know what I shoot and some of my stuff makes the cut but not that much, and its not because it wasn't good stuff. The primary photog is what the client is paying for. For instance if you look on Chenin Boutwell's blog she makes mention of me regarding a wedding we shot recently. But the majority of the images are hers. People don't drop 6-15k on Chenin's photography and then get a bunch of stuff from the 2nd shooter like you are insinuating.

Looking at the one portfolio or website of the primary photographer is fine, its up to that photographer to deliver consistent images like their portfolio suggests they do.

[Evan Baines]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nic Dragomire I was with you on the first one Evan but not this time.. Firstly, I shoot 2000-3000 photos myself, my second will shoot 1000-1500 in a normal day. I deliver about 500-700. Most of which will be mine. Your paying for my talent, my vision, my art, my photography, not my my second shooters. My second shooter provides a different angle or perspective, and insurance in the event that one of my cameras goes down in the middle of something important, I can grab his 2nd body and continue shooting with 2 cameras as normal. I've shot weddings with some really big names in so cal and in wedding photojournalism as a whole and I see what they deliver when its said and done. I know what I shoot and some of my stuff makes the cut but not that much, and its not because it wasn't good stuff. The primary photog is what the client is paying for. For instance if you look on Chenin Boutwell's blog she makes mention of me regarding a wedding we shot recently. But the majority of the images are hers. People don't drop 6-15k on Chenin's photography and then get a bunch of stuff from the 2nd shooter like you are insinuating. Looking at the one portfolio or website of the primary photographer is fine, its up to that photographer to deliver consistent images like their portfolio suggests they do.

I think that there are different models out there Nic. For instance, regardless of how high the caliber of my seconds (and I've had some great photographers guest shoot with me), I typically only use a percentage of their work, which holds very true with what you just said. However, in the case of duos like the McLellans (two first place WPPI prints this go around... not too shabby), etc.... its a much more even partnership. In such a case where there are legitimately two superb photographers working together, its reasonable to expect to pay a premium for two shooters.

I honestly feel that in cases where one photographer is the primary creative force for a studio, one GOOD photographer is totally enough, but a GOOD second provides a level of additional backup and security. However, I continually see studios aggressively selling "with us you get two shooters." My only purpose of the last post was to advocate that if a studio is trying to convince you that they are a better value on the basis of two shooters, it is reasonable to ask to see the quality of the actual second. Even in cases such as Mrs. Boutwell's, would you say that your work added nothing to the client's final result? If only for backup, the presence of a second of your caliber was a huge asset to the client, and one I'm sure they had to pay for (even if only subsumed in the overall package price, you don't work for free, do you?). Now, its sort of assumed that as you get on up toward 5-figure price-points that the photographer won't be using junk seconds... but not all of these ladies here are shopping for $10,000 photographers.