dmacmillan wrote:
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.

There's no magic rule. Different churches, officiants and couples have their own definition of appropriateness.

Doug



Yes, there is no magic. One good thing to keep in mind is that a wrongheaded approach by the officiant is fleeting while nice pictures last forever.

dmacmillan wrote:

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

That my friends, is called hitting the proverbial nail on the head.

One thing I would like to add, after being in the biz since the late 70s ... it isn't just the newbies that are rocking the boat with rudeness due to a lack of experience, I've witnessed many seasoned pros, that step on a lot of toes in the course of their duties as well.

butchM wrote:
dmacmillan wrote:

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

That my friends, is called hitting the proverbial nail on the head.


Not necessarily. And, the maximizing of photo opportunities is a kind of non-sequitur to the notion of "journalism" - documenting an event is not the same as maximizing anything. It is also important to be non-discriminatory in the adherence to dogma.

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
It is also important to be non-discriminatory in the adherence to dogma.
I have absolutely no idea what that means. Please explain.

If a couple feels too inconvenienced by church rules, there's alternatives. I photographed many civil services.

Wedding photographers who have issues with religion may want to consider restricting their work to civil ceremonies or spend their Saturdays photographing dog shows.

I'm pretty easygoing. If I invite you over to my house, I hope you have a good time. I don't have many rules. Don't pi$$ on my rug is one. You pi$$ on my rug and you don't get invited back. If you don't have that rule, that's fine. Stay home and pi$$ on your own rug.

Doug

paulhodson wrote:
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" !

And the Priest should have said...

You can come back on Sundays for any retakes!

dmacmillan wrote:I'm pretty easygoing. If I invite you over to my house, I hope you have a good time. I don't have many rules. Don't pi$$ on my rug is one. You pi$$ on my rug and you don't get invited back. If you don't have that rule, that's fine. Stay home and pi$$ on your own rug.

Now why would one be uncivil to the point where they would urinate upon a floor covering? Unnecessary in all but the most urgent of circumstance.

Evan Baines wrote:
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.
Yes, it really is a shame; and the people that really suffer are the Bride and Groom. I always introduce myself to the Clergyman, and ask what their rules are as far as photography goes. In some cases, I can't use flash and have to shoot from the back of the church, but I've never been told that I can't shoot, period. A lot could have to do with region as well. In New York / New Jersey (where I've done all of my wedding photography) I guess they're a bit more "tolerant" for lack of a better word.

Regards,
Marc

Evan Baines wrote:
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...

Take your G9

It's their wedding and if getting pictures during the ceremony is important to them, then the B&G can always change the venue.

Carl Feather wrote:
It's their wedding and if getting pictures during the ceremony is important to them, then the B&G can always change the venue.


Probably the best course of action if things can't be worked out .. most churches are struggling to keep their parishioners and if couples start to avoid a particular church or officiant then their struggle to keep their flock is made more difficult.

Unfortunately in most cases any photography restrictions are not known until the rehearsal or wedding day, leaving no time to change venues.

Sneak a few...., really :-)