I'm looking to find a second shooter for some of my events and I have a question:
Would you rather have someone with higher quality work, but no wedding experience, or someone with lower quality work, but experience shooting weddings? How do you weight the two skills?
Also, for those of you who have seconds, have you noticed that certain kinds of people are more available/reliable than others? For instance, is someone who shoots weddings on their own likely to be a safer bet than, say, a college student?
I'm not trying to stereotype people, but I'm curious if others have noticed a pattern.
gfrasur wrote:
Would you rather have someone with higher quality work, but no wedding experience, or someone with lower quality work, but experience shooting weddings? How do you weight the two skills?
Higher quality work every time...
Also, for those of you who have seconds, have you noticed that certain kinds of people are more available/reliable than others? For instance, is someone who shoots weddings on their own likely to be a safer bet than, say, a college student?
You're probably better off with someone out of college, in my opinion. Not just for the reliability, but the perception of age and professionalism.
i generally stick with 2-3 guys that i know. THese guys are college students that are studying photography. They have high quality work but not alot of wedding experience. With that said, I dont have to pay them too much. (bc they are in college and bc not alot of wedding work)
they are there mostly to take candids. ALL the important stuff Im there and in control.
