My answer to this question might surprise you.

No, I don’t think having a second photographer is absolutely necessary. I also don’t think having a first photographer is absolutely necessary or having a wedding in the way that we do them now is absolutely necessary. These are luxuries, is the truth.

Whoever started the myth that whether or not you should get a second photographer depends on the number of your guests. They weren’t a photographer. It makes no sense.

70% of the time on this, my answer is going to be no. You don’t need a second photographer.

How I would answer this question depends on what your wedding timeline looks like.

If you have a wedding timeline that is a bit more spread out, you have some wiggle room. You are able to budget in more hours of coverage with your photographer. Then one person, I think, is perfectly capable of covering everything that needs to be done.

However, if you have a timeline that’s pretty tightly packed and there’s not much space, you’re probably going to want that second photographer. It allows for two things to be happening at the exact same time and both being covered. So if your bride is getting ready, one photographer is with you capturing those bridal portraits and all of those special moments for that second photographer is with your groom at the same time while he is getting ready, doing groom portraits versus that one person having to go back and forth, which obviously takes up more time.

The other reason you would want a second photographer is if you really want those second angles, most specifically for the ceremony. With my company, we would normally have someone placed in the front of the aisle for a ceremony capturing the bride issues coming down, and then someone at the back of the aisle capturing the groom’s reaction as the bride comes down.

So if you have a shorter timeline or you like the versatility of having two angles, then yes, you will want the second photographer. If those things aren’t important to you, then the second photographer won’t be either.

Hear me out unless your top priority is getting a photo of all of your guests. The number of your guests should not determine whether or not you need or want a second photographer. That’s what a photo booth is for. You want a picture of all your guests? Get a photo booth. Whether or not you need a second photographer is determined by other pieces of the puzzle.

If you love the idea of a first look seeing each other before the ceremony, most of my couples want to be able to see that moment from both perspectives. You want to be able to see the bride’s reaction and the groom’s reaction. You should get to photographers if your ceremony location has a lot of rules about where photographers are allowed to stand or when during the ceremony, they’re allowed to move. You should get two photographers.

Those are just a few examples that have nothing to do with your guest count, but everything to do with how you actually want to be able to remember your wedding day.

Realistically, every wedding I have shot, with the exception of maybe one or two, I could have shot by myself. I think a second photographer is one of those things you’re told that you need, but you don’t actually need it.

Now, there are situations where you do need a second photographer. If you’re wanting to get certain photos. If you’re getting ready at two separate locations and you want photos of each partner getting ready at each location, yeah, a second photographer can be helpful. Or if you have an absolutely massive wedding, I’m talking 240 plus. Then again, a second photographer can be helpful just because it can be hard for one person to get across the space. I’ve had weddings where couples have purchased a second photographer and it’s honestly been a bit more of a pain in the ass for me. When it’s a super small venue, we kept running into each other. We all got the same photos on repeat.

I have photographed over 100 weddings completely solo in addition to several others with second photographers. There’s two things I’ve seen with second photographers.

When I was really new and some other new people that I’ve met along the way. Sometimes they’ll have a second photographer just because they need one. They need one to just deliver the basics. But for those of us who have been doing it for a long time, I will tell anybody that I can absolutely shoot a wedding by myself.

The reason that you might want two photographers is not just because of all the reasons you’ve probably heard. You get more pictures, you get more angles, you get things happening at the same time. You can be a little fast and loose with the schedule, blah, blah. It’s because it frees the original photographer up to be creative, if it’s a strong second.

What’s happening is if you just have one photographer, they’re always going to take the same shot. It’s always going to kind of look the same, the back to the aisle for the kids. It’s going to be just everything predictable that you’d expect because even if you’re not aware of it, you have a lot of expectations about what you’re going to see in your final wedding photography set.

A second photographer with an experienced team of two people who are both awesome. You’re going to get weird stuff. You’re going to get the weird kind of overhead shot of the ceremony. You’re going to get more details stuff because things are never quite set up in the right amount of time. You’re going to have more pictures of guests interacting with each other like a cocktail hour or when the main photographer is busy.

So definitely worth it if you love photos.