Or am I running into more and more churches that outright forbid photos during the ceremony?

I'm not talking about LDS or other denominations that have classically banned photos during the service.... It seems like more individual churches are establishing this sort of policy than I'd previously seen. I wonder if this has anything to do with the influx of untrained individuals into the industry...

I just seem to be seeing this more and more frequently.... I just spoke with yet another church coordinator who informed me I won't be getting any ceremony pictures...

Its because rude photographers, who are on this forum by the way, that have no respect for the venue. Instead of fighting with the photographers, they just ban them.

j.curtis wrote:
Its because rude photographers, who are on this forum by the way, that have no respect for the venue. Instead of fighting with the photographers, they just ban them.

Yes, ultimately its because of rudeness. I just wonder why rudeness seems to be on the rise (explaining the rising number of bans).

I try to explain to them that I have literally staked my life on my ability to be a discrete observer.... sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I had one pastor who literally wanted to hear the sound of my shutter before deciding on my shooting restrictions, but who afterward acknowledged that he was never even aware of my presence.

Regardless, of the cause, its a real shame in my mind.

Evan Baines wrote:
I wonder if this has anything to do with the influx of untrained individuals into the industry...

Churches are banning ANY type of photography during the ceremony. I've shot weddings where virtually every guest had a camera of some sort .. looked like half-time at the Super Bowl.

Most pros I know make every effort to respect the ceremony, and some even purchase pretty expensive lenses specific to shooting from a distance so they won't interfere with the ceremony. But I'm sure there are a few "pros" who are being a pest and making the road more difficult for the rest of us.

Unchecked guest conduct can become a nuisance so they just ban all cameras, period.

Good point Mike. I've also seen the pew-paparazzi effect, but I didn't think about that affecting the attitude towards pros.

We've been lucky so far, the worst restriction we've gotten is no flash.

ken

I find it interesting between cultures. I've shot at churches that allow me to shoot, just as long as I'm not ON the altar... Makes sense... Then I attended a wedding in France, and it was like Brad and Angelina were getting married, EVERY person at the church had a camera and was literally in the pastor's face... haha... I know churches have to draw the line somewhere, in an attempt to keep some order. And everyone knows the phrase... "A Few bad apples, spoil the bunch." Sad, but true

Never an issue. Ever.
Though the rise of the church coordinator and their quest for power might be something you are experiencing.

In my experience there are more brides, grooms and parents that put their foot down and explain to the officiant that they have paid for the church, paid their salary for years and now want pictures.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about rookies being jerks or not knowing the ropes. Yes, it is possible. I am heavily involved in church work myself and although our local church is very open, man if you want to sit on the rafter to get a good angle, go for it, just sign a waiver, I think many other denominational churches are getting "older" and grumpier. I have seen a trend moving away from traditional "church" weddings and more to golf courses, vineyards, etc. Tennessee might be a little more "old" and grumpy anyway Evan.

I have read posts in this very forum about ignoring "priests who think they are in charge." Well, they ARE in charge. Marriage is a sacramental rite of the church. If couples want a free-for-all ceremony run by the inmates, then they shouldn't get married in a church in the first place. I am not at all surprised that photographers are banned in some churches when I read the attitudes expressed fairly widely in this forum.

It is a sad new trend for chruches to ban photographs all together. I am beginning to believe it is stemming from the onslaught of new photographers only concerned about making a buck and taking as many pictures as possible. I have heard of and seen inexperienced newbies who only have a kit lens be right on top of the couple as they are saying their vows. That is making all of us look bad. The priest/minister/rabbi/etc dont know the photographers experience or background. They just decide to make a blanket ban on pictures. Also the shooters who "machine gun" weddings to get that ONE shot are having a negative effect on us. During key parts they will just hold down the shutter to get as many images as possible to "make sure" they get the picture. Not only does that send up a red flag to you being inexperienced, it also disrupts the ceremony with the clatter of an incessant shutter. On the "Pro" side the other thing I believe that can be attributing to this "ban" is those who dont turn off the "BEEP"!!! Seriously!! If you have to rely on a audible tone to let you know when the picture is in focus, should you really be shooting weddings?

I like the term "pew paparazzi" that is awesome! Sometimes it does look like that. Dozens of flashes (and beeps) going off all through a ceremony definitely bothers me but image the officiant getting pelted by the flashes! That alone would make me ban photographs!

As professionals we arent only selling our images, we are selling our tact, professionalism, courtesy, discretion, experience, and most of all and most over looked COMMON SENSE!! It is the people calling themselves Pro's that dont exercise these things that are making it harder for us to do our jobs!

Chris Cooke wrote:As professionals we arent only selling our images, we are selling our tact, professionalism, courtesy, discretion, experience, and most of all and most over looked COMMON SENSE!! It is the people calling themselves Pro's that dont exercise these things that are making it harder for us to do our jobs!

Well said - 100% in agreement.

+1 Chris.

Well said Chris!

I'm just frustrated because tomorrow I'll be a wedding photographer who won't actually be shooting the wedding, through no fault of my own. I can totally understand when there are actual doctrinal reasons why photography is banned, but I have to regret whatever the circumstances are that have caused churches to ban photography when there are no strictly religious reasons for doing so.

All of these rules are ultimately between the church and its parishioners, but it still bums me out because I want to offer the most complete coverage I can to my couples. The bride in this case doesn't even know yet: I only found out because I contacted the church directly (as is my policy) to pay respects to the officiant and inquire as to any restrictions.

How many have you run into in the last 6 months? Just curious. I know Presbyterian churches sometimes don't allow any photography during the ceremony. I have photographed two such but it was years ago.

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Chris Cooke wrote:As professionals we arent only selling our images, we are selling our tact, professionalism, courtesy, discretion, experience, and most of all and most over looked COMMON SENSE!! It is the people calling themselves Pro's that dont exercise these things that are making it harder for us to do our jobs!

Well said - 100% in agreement.

Red, I'm really not try to pick a fight, but I recall you saying something along the lines that you will do what every your client wants with no regards to the venues wishes.

Whats with the change of thought? I'm not complaining, but this does go somewhat against your previous posts.

This is two in the last 3 months, with another one recently booked for later in the year.

I'd say it's 50/50 % between the "pew paparazzi" and "pros" who know no bounds.
I agree that a ceremony in a religious house is or should be sacred, and cooperation is essential.
And I'd love to see guests BE guests, and not would-be wedding photographers. That's what I do when I attend as a guest, I sit in my seat and appreciate the beauty and meaning of the occasion. When people say : "I thought sure YOU'D bring your camera", I reply, "I'm not working, I'm here as a guest".

For this wedding season, i had only job where no photos were allowed....and that was at an LDS Temple...........i have not experienced any upswing in prohibition........

j.curtis wrote:
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Chris Cooke wrote:As professionals we arent only selling our images, we are selling our tact, professionalism, courtesy, discretion, experience, and most of all and most over looked COMMON SENSE!! It is the people calling themselves Pro's that dont exercise these things that are making it harder for us to do our jobs!

Well said - 100% in agreement.

Red, I'm really not try to pick a fight, but I recall you saying something along the lines that you will do what every your client wants with no regards to the venues wishes.

Whats with the change of thought? I'm not complaining, but this does go somewhat against your previous posts.

No change here at all. Professionalism, courtesy, discretion and experience. This is what all the professionals at the weddings I attend or work tend to exhibit. On occasion there may be a minister or officiant that loses the plot but this is rare.

It is because of the rise of people that have not been trained how to shoot weddings. They are self taught and do exactly what they want without regard to the rules. If you don't have the correct equipment for a dark church and the rule is no flash guess what happens. They stand within ten feet and fire a flash off the whole time. Just one example. Another is they are so into building the portfolio they go hog wild moving all over the church to get the shot. We were at a wedding recently where the photographer went behind and actually used the officiant as a leaning post to get the ring shot. The other reason people are just getting more and more rude and only thinking about themselves. Consequences for actions are at an all time low, there is nothing to stop them from acting the way they do.

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Never an issue. Ever.
Though the rise of the church coordinator and their quest for power might be something you are experiencing.

In my experience there are more brides, grooms and parents that put their foot down and explain to the officiant that they have paid for the church, paid their salary for years and now want pictures.


I agree. I've run into a couple of "power hungry" coordinators. I'v ehad a couple of them tell me "no flash" whatsoever. Only later, to have the officient tell me to "flash away at your desire. It's not the coordinators wedding. She has no say in it"

KK

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Never an issue. Ever.
Though the rise of the church coordinator and their quest for power might be something you are experiencing.

In my experience there are more brides, grooms and parents that put their foot down and explain to the officiant that they have paid for the church, paid their salary for years and now want pictures.
I'm flabbergasted. I thought it was the Lord's church, but what do I know? I'm just a member of five generations of ordained Presbyterians, now an Episcopal Vestry member and the father and father-in-law of Presbyterian pastors.

In almost all mainline churches, what policy not established by the denomination is determined by the church officers, who are elected lay members of the congregation. If they have a beef, they need to direct it to the deacons/vestry/session/whatever.

It's the idiot "brides, grooms and parents that [sic] put their foot down" that make good men and women of the cloth lose their religion. I know from experience (spending years as Stewardship committee chairman) that the jerks who think they own the place are the ones who pledge $250 A YEAR and think they're being generous!

Doug

dmacmillan wrote:
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Never an issue. Ever.
Though the rise of the church coordinator and their quest for power might be something you are experiencing.

In my experience there are more brides, grooms and parents that put their foot down and explain to the officiant that they have paid for the church, paid their salary for years and now want pictures.
I'm flabbergasted. I thought it was the Lord's church, but what do I know? I'm just a member of five generations of ordained Presbyterians, now an Episcopal Vestry member and the father and father-in-law of Presbyterian pastors.

In almost all mainline churches, what policy not established by the denomination is determined by the church officers, who are elected lay members of the congregation. If they have a beef, they need to direct it to the deacons/vestry/session/whatever.

It's the idiot "brides, grooms and parents that [sic] put their foot down" that make good men and women of the cloth lose their religion. I know from experience (spending years as Stewardship committee chairman) that the jerks who think they own the place are the ones who pledge $250 A YEAR and think they're being generous!

Doug

Doug - You will find any person can and will be in the wrong at some point. People here have shared stories about crazy pastors or priests, brides, parents, videographers, etc. We should just hope that everyone involved in any wedding will be loving and remember what the day is about. Many photographers forget this, and have made a bad name for photographers, just as there are plenty of pastors and priests who have made a bad name for clergy. It should teach us that we need to take things on a case by case basis.

A few of my weddings have required I stay in the back, and most seem to request no flash, though I almost refuse to use flash during the ceremony anyway. I usually don't mind either restriction.

I was at a wedding (many many years ago) where the pro missed the priest making the sign of the cross (couldn't get the fresh plate in the camera ) and shouted "do that again will you" !