Each year I check out my competition to see what they are doing. Most often I am ahead of the game. I have noticed lately the trend is to include a second photographer. I have bounced back and forth for several years thinking about whether I should add a second shooter. I decided not to and here is why.

Most often a second shooter is not of the caliber as the primary photographer. Many are cutting their teeth learning how to photograph weddings. Some are married couples. There are the few who are full time working professionals helping out as the second photographer.

I certainly don't knock any of these scenarios.

But, for me it just doesn't work.

I have a very distinctive style and method that would be hindered by adding someone with a different style. Because I don't have a specific way I shoot every wedding, as they are all different, I change my lighting and the way I capture the event.

How I shoot depends on the weather, light and couple.

Each is unique and holds their own special challenges. And to be honest, I am a control freak. It is a great responsiblity capturing all those little moments and in an artistic manner. I take it very seriously. My clients hire me for my style. Not someone else's. 

So, if I were to add a second shooter they would have to match my style which no one here does and they would have to be exceptionally experienced. As of yet I haven't found anyone who fits this bill that isn't working their own business. So for me adding an additional photographer would not yield more and better photographs. Instead they would seem discombulated. Now I could add presets that make all the images look the same visually but content-wise they would not be the same or even close. 

That's why I don't include second photographers for weddings. Not to say I wouldn't be open to it but like I said, your final photographs are exceptionally important to me for both content and artistic representation. To do that it must only be me holding the camera. At least for now.