p.3 #1 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Funny thing I just bought a 40D .. one of the main reasons was the silent shutter shooting which I felt may help during weddings.
Ha! Just yesterday I took full advantage of that feature! We respect the beliefs of the church or pastor, and when it's a case of them viewing the ceremony as sacred, we don't shoot. Yesterday's church just didn't want any distractions. The church wedding director even had us "click" our cameras for her so that she could hear how loud they were. They only wanted us to shoot during the processional, kiss, and recessional (the louder moments), but I shot pretty much the whole time with live view. I will say that I did my best to keep it to a minimum while still getting the most important shots.
p.3 #2 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Mike Mahoney wrote:
And for those who fail to see to business end of church weddings a wedding in a larger church here will require payment to the church of between $250 to $400, depending on your church contributions over the past 12 months.
As an officer of the church and current chair of the finance committee, I can assure you that $200-$400 barely covers the cost, once you pay for heat and light. Also, the sexton usually works a full day. They have to set up for the wedding and then tear everything down and set up for church the next day. Then there's the cost of liability insurance. At my prior church, we ended up restricting weddings to church members because of several incidents of non-member wedding parties damaging the church, culminating in an $8000 plumbing bill when some dumb-a$$ dad flushed a diaper down the toilet.
To think churches are making a mint on wedding ceremonies is like folks thinking photographers charging $2,000 are robbing them blind.
For non believers it's hard to understand that the ministry is a calling, at least for some. I'm aware as you are of those who do make religion a business, but don't throw everyone in the same bucket.
My son reads both Greek and Hebrew. He is also fluent in Spanish and has been to Central America several times, living in homes with dirt floors. He doesn't preach, he just lives his faith. He has gone through college and graduate school on full scholarships and is preparing to begin his doctorate. How many of you wise acres slamming clergy and churches can read the Old Testament in its original language?
p.3 #3 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Oh please. The clergy is a business just like the rest of us are businessmen and women. Hanging a "called by God" sign on you doesn't change the fact that rent/mortgage and salaries must be paid, structural and grounds maintenance is year round and there is always that ever present extra fund drive to expand the sanctuary, support the mission work or contribute to the retired preacher fund. If you don't run your church pursuant to sound business principles your preaching locale will soon be gone.
Your business is being a pastor so get over it would ya. It ain't a bad thing and you won't burn in hell for acknowledging it...So what if your son can read Hebrew. My daughter can dance pointe for hours. These facts don't make you or me any less "businessmen"
p.3 #4 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
And here's another example of churches being run as businesses...even the Presbyterians. Nothing wrong with that by the way, but it should still be acknowledged. From today's local rag...
Sorry, just to add it's not the ones who treat it as business that I'm having a problem with. They give the customers what they want as I try to do at the same time. It's more likely those who see photographers as a crass intrusion who will stop me from doing my job.
p.3 #5 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
dmacmillan wrote:
How many of you wise acres slamming clergy and churches can read the Old Testament in its original language?
Doug
I chaired one of the larger (seven figure) finance committees in our archdiocese for several years yet never thought to bring that fact up to support my views in any thread here yet. So I hope you would show the same restraint when rolling the credentials out.
Doug nobody is "slamming" clergy here .. in fact most of us respect and want to work with clergy.
But any church has business aspects .. they are not primarily a business, but do engage in activities that generate income.
Edited on Jun 29, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Jun 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM
hassy501 Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #6 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
John Power wrote:
Oh please. The clergy is a business just like the rest of us are businessmen and women. Hanging a "called by God" sign on you doesn't change the fact that rent/mortgage and salaries must be paid, structural and grounds maintenance is year round and there is always that ever present extra fund drive to expand the sanctuary, support the mission work or contribute to the retired preacher fund. If you don't run your church pursuant to sound business principles your preaching locale will soon be gone.
Your business is being a pastor so get over it would ya. It ain't a bad thing and you won't burn in hell for acknowledging it...So what if your son can read Hebrew. My daughter can dance pointe for hours. These facts don't make you or me any less "businessmen"...Show more →
Very narrow minded view of the workings of a church or faith based institution.
p.3 #7 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
from the other side of the aisle ( ! ). I am an experienced ex-pro with over 40 years of shooting since my first Leica.
I recently attended a relative's wedding, and I was absolutely astounded by the attitude of the entire proceeding - it was ALL apparently ONLY a photo-op - there was no sense of any religious or, indeed, social meaning.
As far as I am concerned this is absurd. A wedding should be a solemn pact of utmost importance to the participants; if it is not religious it is still a cultural custom of great importance to the participants, to their families, and to society as a whole.
What - weddings had no MEANING until modern wedding photography became a big business ?
I feel the authority - priest, rabbi, preacher, or just social official, has every reason to object to the photographer treating the occasion ONLY AS HIS CHANCE TO EARN BIG BUCKS...often shooting in an obtrusive manner, with a loud clatter, often flash, and often (sadly but lets face it) behaving as if HIS PHOTOGRAPHS are what the whole thing is about.
I realize the wedding is important to the photographer. But his chance to earn the big bucks has nothing whatever to do with the ceremony and if all the bride and groom have to "remember this important day" is - photographs ? ? - How grotesque.
Now that everybody is frothing at the mouth I would make a respectful suggestion. Try a Sony S100fs - just shoot a sample set of images with it. ISO 1600 will make an excellent 13x19 and most lighting will work quite well without flash. You might be able to persuade the church to allow shooting with this during the actual ceremony - absolute silence, no flash, and a very long (400 mm 35mE) very well stabilized reach. The rest of the ceremony could be shot with your usual equipment.
p.3 #8 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
With all due respect Bill, the problem here is not whether the church has the right to set rules. It's about individual employees of the church deciding that they have absolute authority to set their own rules at their whim. Why is it that one employee will allow photography and another over-zealous one from the same church (and I mean the same building not the whole faith) simply decides that no photography shall be allowed?
You have also neatly side-stepped the issue of guests being allowed to do as they like whilst the pro gets singled out. Let's see how you go throwing out the B&G's invited guests.
p.3 #9 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Steverock01 wrote:
You have also neatly side-stepped the issue of guests being allowed to do as they like whilst the pro gets singled out. Let's see how you go throwing out the B&G's invited guests.
I think that's exactly the deal though. Of course the guests will not be thrown out, they are supposed to be there as witnesses and as part of the celebration. If you look at it from outside the situation, you'll see that the pro photographer is just a vendor, a businessperson. As such, he/she can be held to a different standard.
Think about it like this:
You have a studio and you have a paying client coming in for a shoot of her kids. One of the kids tracks in mud all over the floor. What is your response? You will likely ignore it, then clean it up when they leave.
But, what if you hire a plumber to come to your studio and fix the sink and HE tracks in mud everywhere? What is your response? I know that I would most likely tell him where my mop is and let him take care of the mess he made.
To me, the issue isn't even so much about the customer paying you, it's that the event (photo shoot in this case) was about them. THEY were the honored guests in the scenario. I make this distinction because I don't want people to think that I am talking about the church making money and not wanting to tick off their "customers". Maybe a better example would be dinner guests at your house. It's about them, so you let certain things slide.
Jun 30, 2008 at 01:15 AM
hassy501 Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #10 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Steverock01 wrote:
With all due respect Bill, the problem here is not whether the church has the right to set rules. It's about individual employees of the church deciding that they have absolute authority to set their own rules at their whim. Why is it that one employee will allow photography and another over-zealous one from the same church (and I mean the same building not the whole faith) simply decides that no photography shall be allowed?
You have also neatly side-stepped the issue of guests being allowed to do as they like whilst the pro gets singled out. Let's see how you go throwing out the B&G's invited guests....Show more →
Unfortunately there is really nothing that can or will be done concerning guests.....pros are fair game as we are getting paid and NOT part of the guest or families. Institutions have a built in history of regulating the pros, and alot of that comes from NON PROS working in those institutions without any regard for professionalism.
That is what really causes those institutions to look at ALL photographers with the same eye.
p.3 #11 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
I don't seriously expect the guest to be ejected. My point was that they don't get thrown out because they are the guests of the paying customers. I am yet to see a pro ejected either, because we all tend to comply with the requests of the clergy BECAUSE we are professionals. I quietly wonder to myself if they would ever stop the ceremony until the photographer left anyway.
My own personal experience was of discussing with the priest at the rehearsal whether I could photograph during the ceremony and use flash and his answer was yes. He changed his mind on the day and I wasn't even using flash. You've just go to wonder sometimes. Like I said in my first post, the B&G can work it out with him when next our paths cross as they will next month. I'll be at the rehearsal again and I'll remind him of what happened (in front of the couple), and he can set the rules then. If they're happy with it, then so am I.
p.3 #12 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
I had this happen to me at the last wedding I shot in my own church. The minister was the father of the groom. (Not my own preacher.) He announced during rehearsal that there would be no photographs during the ceremony and I knew that no one was going to challenge him. Immediately after the rehearsal, I approached with absolute respect and inquired about a starting/stopping point and we agreed where and when I could shoot. At the appointed time I sat down and became one of the guests during the ceremony.
Just before the end of the vows, I snuck out into the entry way and captured some pretty good stuff through the back doors using the longest lens that I have. I didn't have much choice and I couldn't challenge him. It wasn't even his church, but he was controlling the venue so I was forced to oblige. I ended up recreating many of the ceremony shots, with his assistance and cooperation, and things went ok.
I felt funny because I felt like I was missing the "moment" but the results satisfied the b/g so I guess it was what they wanted. I would prefer not to be limited this way because I think it looses something after the fact. Some of the magic of the momemt was gone, but maybe that's just me...
p.3 #13 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Look, folks. It's really not that hard to check with the church/venue far ahead of time to see what the restrictions are. Don't wait until the day before or the day of to find out that you're not allowed to photograph during the ceremony. Brides might not know well enough to ask, but you do, so do it. If you get caught out at the last minute because you didn't bother to ask ahead of time, that's your fault. As soon as I have a contract and know the venue, I get in touch with the contact person at the venue to find out the rules. I have yet to be caught off guard by overly restrictive regulations.
Now if you check ahead of time and things change on the day of the wedding, that's a different story, but it doesn't sound like that's what's going on here.
p.3 #14 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
One more quick note - I note the replies treat the church as if it is a business.
This is an erroneous approach and concept. And relatively immaterial to boot.
The occasion is NOT about the photographer or his business. It is about an important social occasion.
Judging by the professional photographers seeming consenus of opinion I would suggest you guys check out the church before signing up the wedding, and suggest to the wedding party that they change churches (either change to a different religion or change to another church of the same religion) to get away from a church with strong views on the ceremony.
If the church is just another business and your problem is with an "employee" of that business, this should pose no problem.
We both know how THAT will be received by the bride, groom and their families.
However, it is perfectly possible they would go along with it.
At the wedding I attended everybody concerned - the bride and groom, their family (particularly the bride's - who footed the several thousand dollar photography bill) - AND the church "employee" (aka minister) all seemed perfectly content to have the entire ceremony treated ONLY AS A PHOTO-OP. PERIOD.
I certainly did not express an opinion (then or later) to ANYBODY in any of the families about what I felt to be a ridiculous attitude. Just old age, I guess. I see the wedding as a social contract of genuine importance to society (whether the participants are straight, gay, both or neither) - NOT just a photo-op.
But it is none of my business - there or here - and I apologise for inflicting my opinion on you guys...will butt out in future.
bill wilson
Jul 03, 2008 at 09:07 PM
hassy501 Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #15 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
p.3 #16 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
I just shot one where the wedding couple and I met with the priest in his office and he never raised an objection to me shooting. When the priest passed me during the procession he whispered, "No shooting during the ceremony". I was outraged, slunk into the fifth row, shot without flash, and was unnoticed amid the cacaphony of guest camera flash.
I think this is really about clergy ego. Guess it proves they are human, after all.
p.3 #17 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
rennie12 wrote:
One more quick note - I note the replies treat the church as if it is a business.
This is an erroneous approach and concept. And relatively immaterial to boot.
Nope - church is the largest business in the US. And, since weddings occur in churches fairly often the whims of ill-gratified employees impinge on brides and photographers.
p.3 #18 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Daniel Ransom wrote:
I just shot one where the wedding couple and I met with the priest in his office and he never raised an objection to me shooting. When the priest passed me during the procession he whispered, "No shooting during the ceremony". I was outraged, slunk into the fifth row, shot without flash, and was unnoticed amid the cacaphony of guest camera flash.
I think this is really about clergy ego. Guess it proves they are human, after all.
p.3 #19 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Daniel Ransom wrote:
I just shot one where the wedding couple and I met with the priest in his office and he never raised an objection to me shooting. When the priest passed me during the procession he whispered, "No shooting during the ceremony". I was outraged, slunk into the fifth row, shot without flash, and was unnoticed amid the cacaphony of guest camera flash.
I think this is really about clergy ego. Guess it proves they are human, after all.
But it was your duty to ask. This was the perfect opportunity to do so in front of your clients. Always discuss this with the "commander and chief", but when you have a chance to do so in front of your clients, take it.
p.3 #20 · "You will refrain from photographing ..."
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Look, folks. It's really not that hard to check with the church/venue far ahead of time to see what the restrictions are. Don't wait until the day before or the day of to find out that you're not allowed to photograph during the ceremony. Brides might not know well enough to ask, but you do, so do it. If you get caught out at the last minute because you didn't bother to ask ahead of time, that's your fault. As soon as I have a contract and know the venue, I get in touch with the contact person at the venue to find out the rules. I have yet to be caught off guard by overly restrictive regulations.
Now if you check ahead of time and things change on the day of the wedding, that's a different story, but it doesn't sound like that's what's going on here....Show more →
+1
It is no different then checking if you can, can’t, or need a permit to shoot in a park. I give a B/G a questioner with all the questions we need to get, such as the name of the officiate, need permits, and if any venues will not be allowed photography, yadda, yadda, yadda. AND I also check (just so I have no mishaps).
I will add… it is not up to us to make/brake the rules but to oblige by them… This is what will make you different from “uncle bob”.
