Somehow I think this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/645205) will give you a hint of what's going on.

PhotosByRDD wrote:
Somehow I think this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/645205) will give you a hint of what's going on.

What does that link have anything to do with this thread?

over here the most adversorial I have come across was when a preist just told to me to sit there and dont move. He gave me the best pew in the house and told me to dump my gear therte so no one else took it.

Not bad, certainly workable.

j.curtis wrote:
PhotosByRDD wrote:
Somehow I think this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/645205) will give you a hint of what's going on.

What does that link have anything to do with this thread?

Studio flashes for the ceremony... somehow you think that's appropriate? The sudden influx of people using intrusive equipment and techniques has no effect on officiants banning photography? The flood of "Soccer Moms With Cameras" that will get right in the couple's faces during the exchange of the vows isn't resulting in a bad rap for wedding photographers? The corelation between the two threads should be blatently obvious... but maybe the fact that it isn't is just another indication of the problem.

The ceremony is supposed to be a serious, solum, religious event. That pretty much applies no matter which religion is involved. Regardless of a photographer's 'style' they should be a 'fly on the wall' during the ceremony. You don't belong up front, in their faces, firing flash left and right and generally disrespecting the exchange of the vows. Stay off the altar for Pete's sake! You don't belong there! Those that show a lack of professionalism or respect are at the root of officiants banning every photographer from shooting the ceremony.

^I was a guest at a wedding last year and the photographer had an AB800 with a huge softbox, zip tied to something on the wall. i had to have my "seeing eye" dog walk me out when the ceremony was over. then she proceeded to take over an hour for formals when the couple said no longer than 30 minutes. IT'S NOT OUR WEDDING PEOPLE!

I had one priest at wedding once tell me I could only use flash during the entrance and then from the kiss to the end. I was also restricted to the balcony. I was fine with it, I had fast enough lenses and enough reach to still get good shots. But the best part is before the wedding started he made an announcement that the couple had a professional photographer taking pictures and for no one else to take pictures. He then went on to say if he saw any flashes he would stop the ceremony and ask for the offending guest to leave. He was strict and kind of a jerk, but no one dared to test him.

I think it is the rush of low cost digital cameras allowing almost anyone to be a "photographer for the weekend" and not take any manners with them. This makes even the most polite and professional photographer take the blame for the handful that should stay home. Throw guest in the mix with flash guns and SLR's and then the church balmes you for them getting in the way as if you have any control over guest running up to the alter etc. I guess today everyone is out for themselves.

I've never had a pastor ban photography from a wedding. I always ask, and they seem surprised that banning the hired photographer was even an option.

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

If "good men and women" of the cloth lose their religion simply because "brides, grooms and parents put their foot down", then they probably weren't very devoted to their religion anyway to allow that to come between them and their god.

I knew of a church that was very beautiful which drew in weddings from other denominations. You had to reserve over a year in advance. People considered it an honorto be married in this curch and it became a local status symbol to be married there.There were no restrictions on wedding photography.
Then the Pastor reired. A new Pastor took over and banned all wedding photography. A community leader asked for this ban to be lifted for his daughter. The Pastor held stedfast. The wedding was held in another church. Members of the church tryed to reason with the Pastor who still wouldn't budege. People started to go elsewhere to be married
Soon the membership started to dwindle. It lost it's status as a place to be wed.
Before too long the Pastor was replaced and the new Pastor had no objections to wedding photography at all. The church made a comeback and it was once again a place of staus to be married but it took a few years

Chris Cooke wrote:
I had one priest at wedding once tell me I could only use flash during the entrance and then from the kiss to the end. I was also restricted to the balcony. I was fine with it, I had fast enough lenses and enough reach to still get good shots. But the best part is before the wedding started he made an announcement that the couple had a professional photographer taking pictures and for no one else to take pictures. He then went on to say if he saw any flashes he would stop the ceremony and ask for the offending guest to leave. He was strict and kind of a jerk, but no one dared to test him.

See - guys like this lose the plot on reasonableness and professionalism. Pity.

Hi everyone - I have been reading FM for awhile now - just registered to post today. I am a relative newbie at weddings - I've been working for a couple of years to slowly building my reputation around our small town.
I shot a wedding a couple of weeks ago in our small town church - beautiful place! Anyway the preacher (whom I know quite well) told me to shot where ever, however I wanted to. I told him that I would only like to use flash on the party coming up the isle. When he started speaking, I would turn it off and move to the back. I shot from the back and from the balcony and got some great shots and felt like I was not intrusive at all.
As I was shooting the bride and groom greeting guests on the way out, a man approached me and said he is a preacher - I said hello to him. Then he said that he wanted to tell me how much he appreciated the fact that I stayed out of everyone's way. He went onto say that he had participated in and been a guest at many many weddings and lots of times the photographers make it about themselves.
I made a little bit of a joke about it and said ' well we'll see how good I am when we see the pictures, haha' But it did make me feel good.
Just wanted to chime in here. I do try my very best to stay out of the way and basically be a fly on the wall.
My teacher at my local community college gets right up in the b&g's faces during the ceremony - I know b/c I have see him the shot that his wife takes from the balcony. He was originally a newspaper photographer - so I don't know if that is why he feels like he can get right in their faces or what.
Anyway - I like this forum and will continue to read daily
~Val in Illinois

I'll add in my two cents worth.

My conract states very clearly, and I go over this with the B&G in detail, that I am bound by whatever the house rules are. No exception. It is up to them to get the officiant to change the rules if they want something that goes beyond the norm.

Yesterday I was informed by the wedding director that no flash would be tolerated during the ceremony. No problem...

She also said that I could not move, not budge, not un-plant my feet once the ceremony started. No movement whatsoever. No moving up the center aisle...nothing.

No problem. Thats the rule. I just planted myself at the back, in the center of the aisle and proceeded.

Now, the funny part was all of the rest of the guests firing flashes and getting up, standing in the aisle, moving around and doing whatever they felt like doing.

I might suggest to the B&G that they have photo etitquette printed in their programs to caution the guests against such egregious behavior in the future.

Bonk, oops, whack... flower girl massacre.

MagicNikon wrote:
My conract states very clearly, and I go over this with the B&G in detail, that I am bound by whatever the house rules are. No exception. It is up to them to get the officiant to change the rules if they want something that goes beyond the norm.

My contract as well states that .. and to be on the safe side I usually attend the rehearsal and ask the officiant about any restrictions and if necessary discuss that with the B&G.

If they are not happy with the restrictions then they can discuss it right away with the officiant.

MagicNikon wrote:
I'll add in my two cents worth.

My conract states very clearly, and I go over this with the B&G in detail, that I am bound by whatever the house rules are. No exception. It is up to them to get the officiant to change the rules if they want something that goes beyond the norm.

Yesterday I was informed by the wedding director that no flash would be tolerated during the ceremony. No problem...

She also said that I could not move, not budge, not un-plant my feet once the ceremony started. No movement whatsoever. No moving up the center aisle...nothing.

No problem. Thats the rule. I just planted myself at the back, in the center of the aisle and proceeded.

Now, the funny part was all of the rest of the guests firing flashes and getting up, standing in the aisle, moving around and doing whatever they felt like doing.

I might suggest to the B&G that they have photo etitquette printed in their programs to caution the guests against such egregious behavior in the future.

Par for the course.........the coordinators throw out their "rules" to the hired vendors, then when the ceremony starts, they go back to their office, have a drink or two and don't even know whats going on in the church........and all the while the guests are making a mockery of any rules............while WE obey them as told..............

I attended a wedding in Croatia, and the photographers were literally standing over the priest's shoulder during the communion. I've never seen anything like it...

That video guy in the pic I posted kept bonking the bridesmaids with the tail-end of his camera. And, he had a large video light. The photographer had a strobe on the altar that would pop in everyone's eyes and he would periodically aim it in a different direction. The photog and the video guy were climbing all over the priests.

Now, I am no shrinking violet but these guys went beyond anything I had imagined possible. They could have used a lesson in reasonableness.

Thanks [insert deity #6381 here] that most of the weddings I've shot have not been in churches and the ones that were did not have any of these random rules applied.

This is good to know that these things might happen. Need to attach something similar to what MagicNikon mentioned about funny rules of venues.

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
That video guy in the pic I posted kept bonking the bridesmaids with the tail-end of his camera. And, he had a large video light. The photographer had a strobe on the altar that would pop in everyone's eyes and he would periodically aim it in a different direction. The photog and the video guy were climbing all over the priests.

Now, I am no shrinking violet but these guys went beyond anything I had imagined possible. They could have used a lesson in reasonableness.

It sickens me to look at that photo. While it may be true that less experienced photographers are responsible for most of these incidents, I personally could have never even held a camera before, and I would have had enough respect for the dignity of the ceremony and its participants to never do this. It has more to do - first and foremost - with upbringing, and those that are too thick to figure this out for themselves have to be "taught" by a pro.

Red - any idea (1) what the agreed-to expectations were of the minister and b&g in this case, and (2) how long the video guy and photog had been shooting professionally?

MJH1 wrote:
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
That video guy in the pic I posted kept bonking the bridesmaids with the tail-end of his camera. And, he had a large video light. The photographer had a strobe on the altar that would pop in everyone's eyes and he would periodically aim it in a different direction. The photog and the video guy were climbing all over the priests.

Now, I am no shrinking violet but these guys went beyond anything I had imagined possible. They could have used a lesson in reasonableness.

It sickens me to look at that photo. While it may be true that less experienced photographers are responsible for most of these incidents, I personally could have never even held a camera before, and I would have had enough respect for the dignity of the ceremony and its participants to never do this. It has more to do - first and foremost - with upbringing, and those that are too thick to figure this out for themselves have to be "taught" by a pro.

Red - any idea (1) what the agreed-to expectations were of the minister and b&g in this case, and (2) how long the video guy and photog had been shooting professionally?

Not so much the dignity of anything but the do not be fully in the way and hit people with your stuff. And, this was Greek Orthodox and it seemed to be anything goes.

I will ignore silly rules but have yet to bonk a flower girl or bridesmaid on the head.

I don’t think it just the rudeness of the paid pro but the many flashes from the guest that also go off. I have yet to run into a Church that said NO to me. BUT back in 1987 at my older sisters wedding the clergy said “NO Cameras of any kind, this is a house of worship and if anyone has a camera that goes off they would be asked to leave.” I also think a lot of Churches are again adopting this rule because it does look like the paparazzi has just been let loose. This also relates to the involvement the B/G has with a Church… if they are Churchgoers the answer likeiest be yes from the clergy… if they are just using the Church for the day… who knows.

I just did a wedding and I asked the Clergy (just happens to be the FOG) and he said “as long as we are not on the alter”. BUT every guest with a camera was running all around the Church… Well “we” at least respected his house.

Remember… this is THEIR HOUSE, and the sacrament of marriage must be respected!!!

One of the first things I ask the B/G is to make sure it’s OK to take photos at the Church/venue… and PLEASE give the clergy my name and number if he/she has any concerns (don’t want this to happen the day of). The day of the wedding I introduce myself to the clergy (some seem to be a camera buff and understand the cameras). I also think understanding someone’s religion is important so you can relate with the clergy, but if the answer is NO… then NO it is.

-p

hassy501 wrote:
If "good men and women" of the cloth lose their religion simply because "brides, grooms and parents put their foot down", then they probably weren't very devoted to their religion anyway to allow that to come between them and their god.

Um, it was a figure of speech. It was also used as being indicative of the attitudes of some church members. It's been like that for a while, but it seems to be getting worse as society in general coarsens. It's also about respect. There are actually well educated, intelligent pastors, rabbis and priests. My son and daughter-in-law can read and write Hebrew and Greek and my son is fluent in Spanish. They both hold graduate degrees.

This whole discussion is about perspective. A religious wedding held in a house of worship should be about the worship service, not about maximizing photo opportunities.

Doug

My sister is the wedding coordinator at our church, and she has a rule that no GUESTS can take photos during the wedding. It irritates her and esp. the pastor to have all the flashes going off constantly. I don't believe there are any rules on the pro, though -- the pro can use flash, stand where he/she wishes, etc.

Question for all about Where to stand during the ceremony --

I've only shot outdoor weddings, and it's a lot easier to move around. as a second shooter, I stand all the way in the back and shoot away. But the pro moves around a bit more - but she's never in the way. She can move sides by going behind the guests -- not in front of the guests. Where do you all stand during a church ceremony? How much do you move around? When do you think you've crossed the line from getting shots the B&G want to being rude an annoying? I'm just interested because I have a church wedding coming up in November (tons of time to plan, but I want to be REALLY on top of things by then).

Great thread.

Deb Brundage wrote:
When do you think you've crossed the line from getting shots the B&G want to being rude an annoying?
I think a good simple rule would be you've crossed the line when your activity detracts from the ceremony. If your movement distracts guests, then it's too much.

Open communication with the bride, groom and officiant is wise. There actually may be times when the B&G would be uncomfortable with things the officiant would allow. There are some images, such as a candle lighting that can also be staged after the ceremony. There's no magic rule. Different churches, officiants and couples have their own definition of appropriateness.

Doug