That's pretty much every Saturday for me. Welcome to the Bible Belt. Restrictive is when you're banned from the sanctuary entirely and only allowed to shoot through a window.
Evan Baines wrote:
That's pretty much every Saturday for me. Welcome to the Bible Belt. Restrictive is when you're banned from the sanctuary entirely and only allowed to shoot through a window.
it's a bit ridiculous, sure but it's not new-careless and tactless photographers roam free and mess it up for the rest of us-i remember a post a while back (here on FM) of a guy who was up front shooting pics DURING the ceremony at a catholic church-he stepped on the altar and was yelled at over the PA system by the priest...and he thought the priest was out of line-what a doof! anyways, that's why many (not all) churches have these rules
Heck if the bride/groom don't mind then why is it the churches responsibility to butt in? It's THEIR wedding, that's what bothered me, the Bride is rather annoyed they sprung this on her after she got everything setup.
Evan Baines wrote:
That's pretty much every Saturday for me. Welcome to the Bible Belt. Restrictive is when you're banned from the sanctuary entirely and only allowed to shoot through a window.
Totally agree! Evan, I've had two this year that I couldn't photograph the ceremony at all. Although I did talk one church lady into letting me fire a few thru the window. When I've asked about the restrictions, almost 75% of them will reference a bad experience with a photographer as the catalyst.
With that being said, window shots can be kinda cool too...
I agreee, it's the couple's wedding, but the church is under the minister's control and the couple (and photographer) should abide by the rules set forth. If the couple don't like the rules, they should find some other place. But the minister should have brought this up in the beginning of ceremony discussions, not at the last minute. This gives plenty of reason for the couple to complain about the sudden disclosure of these rules, and perhaps squeeze some flexability out of the minister, along with full cooperation (and maybe some explanation of how they work) by the photographer.
I haven't really run into any significant restrictions. If I prompt them about it, I've only ever been asked to just not go into the sanctuary area, which I've never done anyway. I am also courteous, respectful and quiet. I'm like a ninja. Except for this one time when I was changing lenses and I dropped a lens, and it bounced a few times, rolled for what seemed like an eternity until stopping in front of the first pew, and then everyone turned to look at me...
With regards to restrictions in general. It *is* a special ceremony, so we should treat it with caution and care. If the couple is comfortable with the restrictions, then work within them. If they are not, go to bat for them. It's simply a balance between what the couple wants from their ceremony vs their photography if they are forced to choose. For some couples, like those of the LDS, they know ahead of time that there can't be any ceremony pictures, others will move their ceremony to another venue if restricted too severely.
Until the introduction of the Civil Ceremony here in the UK most churches had these rules.
When working a church for the first time, or the church has a change of clergy, I make an appointment with the clergy to discuss my bride and grooms wedding, normally this will be at the rehearsal with the B/G and parents also there. I get the bride to ask if she can have the service photographed by a professional with no moving and no flash, so not to disrupt the service, and find it is very hard for the clergy to refuse in front of the families.
Remember, manners cost nothing and I have many local churches where I am the only photographer allowed to work and even my seconds are surprised when we attend these churches, as they are not allowed to work there.
So pick your worse church and make an appoint to meet with the clergy and sell yourself.
Evan Baines wrote:
That's pretty much every Saturday for me. Welcome to the Bible Belt. Restrictive is when you're banned from the sanctuary entirely and only allowed to shoot through a window.
ouch.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me, I've had 2 weddings this year where I was told categorically that no photos at all would be allowed at any point during the service.
David.G wrote:
I agreee, it's the couple's wedding, but the church is under the minister's control and the couple (and photographer) should abide by the rules set forth. If the couple don't like the rules, they should find some other place. But the minister should have brought this up in the beginning of ceremony discussions, not at the last minute. This gives plenty of reason for the couple to complain about the sudden disclosure of these rules, and perhaps squeeze some flexability out of the minister, along with full cooperation (and maybe some explanation of how they work) by the photographer.
Well, not really. The minister doesn't make the rules. The rules are made be a committee of church members (in most churches it is the property committee or worship committee, something like that) who are elected/appointed by the church leadership. The minister has input, but usually isn't the final authority. This is not true of all churches, but most churches are governed by a church board of some kind.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day at my church that sums it all up. It said "God so loved the world...
... that he did NOT send a committee".
Quan wrote:
wats that no photography allow for 30min thing? isnt the whole ceremony only about 20-30 minutes? so that means no photos at all for the couple?
most catholic /christian weddings incorporate the ' mass ', hence it takes about an hour for the whole ceremony....some priests/churches enforce the 'sacredness' of the whole ceremony...some are lenient.
ContagiousIdea wrote:
Heck if the bride/groom don't mind then why is it the churches responsibility to butt in? It's THEIR wedding, that's what bothered me, the Bride is rather annoyed they sprung this on her after she got everything setup.
Yeah, but it's not their church! They may own their wedding, they don't own the church!!!!! They want freedom to have the photographer roam around, not care about the "sanctity" of the ceremony, then they can have the wedding outside in their own back yard.
When my kids have their birthday party at my house, everyone is free to roam around... as long as they don't go into my bedroom, my wife's jewelry boxes, my bedroom cabinet drawers, my swimming pool (unless I'm there as lifeguard, and I choose when that will be), my daughter's underwear drawers, etc. etc. etc. They follow the rules or they get yelled at. If they continue to misbehave, they're thrown out of the house.
...you'd think it was common sense, and yet, we'll find "guests" on our bed, watching TV in our room, unattended, without anyone telling them they can open our bedroom door and go in. Their excuse is as lame as your, "it's their wedding." Their excuse is, "it's a party. We're supposed to have fun."
You know what? My bedroom is sacred grounds. You don't go in. Period!
