Just attended yet another rehearsal where I was told that there will be NO photography whatsoever during the ceremony .. none with flash,. none without flash, none period. I can shoot the precessional, the register signing, and the recessional. The bride was aghast.

So I sit in the back waiting for the recessional while 250 relatives snap away and the video guy props his tripod (and himself) right in front of the front pew.

There should be some kind of public register where officiants make there views on photography known, so that people can avoid them if they want. Hopefully that may put them out of business.

Vent over.

That's crazy.

Go in ahead of your assistant pretending to be a guest. Have your assistant look like to main photographer sitting up the back and you snap away.
Lots of guest have pro looking gear and to many non photographers a 20'd and a D series look the same when not viewed side by side so the minister would not know.
Or have your second pose as the guest and do all those shots.

In cases like that, it's good to have a second shooter sitting in the crowd snapping away.

I had a minister make that announcement at a wedding rehearsal. After the rehearsal I walked up to introduce myself, and said "I assume that you mean no flash during the ceremony". His response was "No, I don't want to hear a camera click during the service". I looked at him and said "well, you will need to discuss this with the bride, because she just wrote me a check for $2000.00 to photograph her wedding". He went over to discuss it with her, and lo and behold, I photographed during the service.

Nice.....

Marcus Watts wrote:
Go in ahead of your assistant pretending to be a guest. Have your assistant look like to main photographer sitting up the back and you snap away.
Lots of guest have pro looking gear and to many non photographers a 20'd and a D series look the same when not viewed side by side so the minister would not know.
Or have your second pose as the guest and do all those shots.

I have one like that coming up on July 19th..."the ceremony starts at the lighting of the candles" and No photography is permitted during the ceremony... the bride knows about it. The church lady is supposedly pretty mean and nasty and has kicked people out before...She says we have to reenact everything...totally stupid

funny - i never read the line in the bible about cameras being sacrilegious. i guess i better hit the books!

Mike Mahoney wrote:
Just attended yet another rehearsal where I was told that there will be NO photography whatsoever during the ceremony .. none with flash,. none without flash, none period. I can shoot the precessional, the register signing, and the recessional. The bride was aghast..

That is another example of unprofessional and unreasonableness. There is no need for the person to ruin the day with a wet fart like that.

Maybe drag the officiant aside and read them the tune up act. Pity.

Yes, I have another of these coming as well. The priest actually stopped halfway through the ceremony last time he had one of my weddings and asked me not to take any more photos until he was finished. I wasn't using flash and I had been to rehearsal and he had said it was fine even with flash if I wanted to use it... Guess the shutter noise was the problem as everyone else was going crazy with their P&S with full flash.

Apparently it is also just the one priest as I have shot Catholic Ed Graduations at the cathedral and been told by another priest to come and get as close as I'd like. Hell I even shoot first communions and even though the priest doesn't hang around to do formal posed shots afterwards, he has no problem with inviting the photographer in to take shots during the ceremony.

Well I've told the happy couple about my experience with the priest and now I'll see how they handle it at the rehearsal....

double standard-plus, we're much less conspicuous than the P&S crowd in the pews

daniel

I keep seeing this issue come up, and everyone keeps responding as if it were the photographer's issue to resolve.

That's the case only if you let it be the case.

In my experience the best way to handle this is to tell the couple UP FRONT that part of the contract package requires them to notify the presiding official (priest) that it is their wedding and that they have engaged a professional photographer who will have access to all areas of the venue and who will be photographing throughout the ceremony. The couple then has the responsibility to get back with the photographer if they have agreed to any limitations on the photography.

Within the U.S., at least, there are only local church policies limiting photography within houses of worship and their associated facilities.....no laws. This means its all negotiable and the money that is going to the church for the use of the facilities will carry the maximum amount of weight when the subject is breached early on by the couple.

I think it's totally pompous for churches to do this, when the bride is under full assumption that she will have photographs during the reception. I would politely tell the minister that I will not take any photographs if the guests refrain as well. As soon as the first guest takes a photo, I'm not stopping.

Seriously, how many guests get in the way with things, and are way more annoying using their flashes and all. I don't think the church policy would hold up in court if the bride were to sue due to a policy like this, that she was not informed of.

I'm not one to be confrontational, but, if a minister told me this the day before, or the day of, I would still be shooting. I was hired to do so, and I'm doing it unless the bride says otherwise. It's up to him if he wants to stop the wedding and make an even greater disturbance than a silly "camera click". I would ask the bride what she would want first though.

One bad review from a bride that had her ceremony destroyed by an upset officiant, or because they banned photography, and I don't see any future business for that venue.

sboerup wrote:

One bad review from a bride that had her ceremony destroyed by an upset officiant, or because they banned photography, and I don't see any future business for that venue.

I dont think churches count on weddings as a major source of income, so having them have less ceremonies hence less "business" is not a major concern.

If the minister stops the ceremony because of the photographer, my limited experience from actually watching this happen, the photographer is the one looking like a major tool. Yep, a few might say, what was that officiant doing, but most have frowned on the photog.

radioblurs wrote:
double standard-plus, we're much less conspicuous than the P&S crowd in the pews

daniel

+1

AND we don't use flash if it is not allowed either, but there are going to be flashes pop-pop-popping away the whole time. Sheesh. Totally unfair.

~liz

Mike Mahoney wrote:
Just attended yet another rehearsal where I was told that there will be NO photography whatsoever during the ceremony .. none with flash,. none without flash, none period. I can shoot the precessional, the register signing, and the recessional. The bride was aghast.

So I sit in the back waiting for the recessional while 250 relatives snap away and the video guy props his tripod (and himself) right in front of the front pew.

There should be some kind of public register where officiants make there views on photography known, so that people can avoid them if they want. Hopefully that may put them out of business.

Vent over.


yea we ran in to this a few times and I shoot anyway, especially if it is a church I know I wont be back to.

In-fact, today we had one where the minister said no way what so ever. I said to him tough. I was paid $6000 from the bride and groom and I WILL shoot during the ceremony. I will respect your religion and not interfere and I will not use flash but I WILL shoot. So if you cant respect that then throw me out and I walked away.

I shot respectfully as I always do and he came up to me after and said sorry I will rethink the no shooting in my church and let photographers shoot if they work like you.

I would not disrespect the clergy of any church! This is his/hers house, and that’s final (you can and bat you baby blues an see what happens - but no means no). I would advise the B/G that the clergy does not want photos taken (this is beyond your control - I do have this in my contract). I feel it would be bad business to go in and pretend to be a guest after you know “no picture taken”… Now, talk to the clergy and ask if you take pose (faux) shots after the ceremony. If you can, problem solved!

Last week I had a Lutheran minister told me no picture taken during the ceremony (not just me but no one). BUT I can take photos of the precession and recession. I asked about the faux shots, and no problem…. Who’s to know? IMHO the photos look better because you are not running from one end of the ‘church’ to the other end. Just set it up... ring, kiss, and lighting of the candles, whatever.

-p

It seems all of that should have been sorted out before hand. Sounds like the Bride dropped the ball on this one, not the officiants or you.

Tad

Genes Home wrote:
I keep seeing this issue come up, and everyone keeps responding as if it were the photographer's issue to resolve.

That's the case only if you let it be the case.

In my experience the best way to handle this is to tell the couple UP FRONT that part of the contract package requires them to notify the presiding official (priest) that it is their wedding and that they have engaged a professional photographer who will have access to all areas of the venue and who will be photographing throughout the ceremony. The couple then has the responsibility to get back with the photographer if they have agreed to any limitations on the photography.

Within the U.S., at least, there are only local church policies limiting photography within houses of worship and their associated facilities.....no laws. This means its all negotiable and the money that is going to the church for the use of the facilities will carry the maximum amount of weight when the subject is breached early on by the couple.

That sounds all good and legal but doesn't amount to a pile of beans....it's PRIVATE PROPERTY and they can make any rules that they want to........we may not like it, but that's the way it is........don't like it, find another career.............that's THEIR attitude.....not mine.........

The contract means absolutely NOTHING to the priest........as good as ass wipes....

paparazzinick wrote:
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Just attended yet another rehearsal where I was told that there will be NO photography whatsoever during the ceremony .. none with flash,. none without flash, none period. I can shoot the precessional, the register signing, and the recessional. The bride was aghast.

So I sit in the back waiting for the recessional while 250 relatives snap away and the video guy props his tripod (and himself) right in front of the front pew.

There should be some kind of public register where officiants make there views on photography known, so that people can avoid them if they want. Hopefully that may put them out of business.

Vent over.


yea we ran in to this a few times and I shoot anyway, especially if it is a church I know I wont be back to.

In-fact, today we had one where the minister said no way what so ever. I said to him tough. I was paid $6000 from the bride and groom and I WILL shoot during the ceremony. I will respect your religion and not interfere and I will not use flash but I WILL shoot. So if you cant respect that then throw me out and I walked away.

I shot respectfully as I always do and he came up to me after and said sorry I will rethink the no shooting in my church and let photographers shoot if they work like you.

Excellent job !!!

Now, what would you have done had he actually thrown you out ?

sboerup wrote:
I think it's totally pompous for churches to do this, when the bride is under full assumption that she will have photographs during the reception. I would politely tell the minister that I will not take any photographs if the guests refrain as well. As soon as the first guest takes a photo, I'm not stopping.

Seriously, how many guests get in the way with things, and are way more annoying using their flashes and all. I don't think the church policy would hold up in court if the bride were to sue due to a policy like this, that she was not informed of.

I'm not one to be confrontational, but, if a minister told me this the day before, or the day of, I would still be shooting. I was hired to do so, and I'm doing it unless the bride says otherwise. It's up to him if he wants to stop the wedding and make an even greater disturbance than a silly "camera click". I would ask the bride what she would want first though.

One bad review from a bride that had her ceremony destroyed by an upset officiant, or because they banned photography, and I don't see any future business for that venue.

Oh you know people will still get married there.....that one bad review won't stop anyone in the future from using that church/venue/officiant........memories are short......

hassy501 wrote:
Genes Home wrote:
I keep seeing this issue come up, and everyone keeps responding as if it were the photographer's issue to resolve.

That's the case only if you let it be the case.

In my experience the best way to handle this is to tell the couple UP FRONT that part of the contract package requires them to notify the presiding official (priest) that it is their wedding and that they have engaged a professional photographer who will have access to all areas of the venue and who will be photographing throughout the ceremony. The couple then has the responsibility to get back with the photographer if they have agreed to any limitations on the photography.

Within the U.S., at least, there are only local church policies limiting photography within houses of worship and their associated facilities.....no laws. This means its all negotiable and the money that is going to the church for the use of the facilities will carry the maximum amount of weight when the subject is breached early on by the couple.

That sounds all good and legal but doesn't amount to a pile of beans....it's PRIVATE PROPERTY and they can make any rules that they want to........we may not like it, but that's the way it is........don't like it, find another career.............that's THEIR attitude.....not mine.........

The contract means absolutely NOTHING to the priest........as good as ass wipes....


I disagree. I think the pertinent line was this "This means its all negotiable and the money that is going to the church for the use of the facilities will carry the maximum amount of weight when the subject is breached early on by the couple"

That is to say that while the church has not yet got your money (or the booking) they will be more willing to negotiate than after.
So the original point of encouraging the couple to negotiate that as early as possible is pertinent and correct.

In theory that sounds good, but in the Catholic Church, it's not a bargaining chip....maybe in smaller churches, but the Catholic Church would just laugh at that..........

The amount they charge is not really that much compared to getting married at the Ritz or some high end venue.......it's not as if the church is getting rich performing marriages. What they charge is minor.

Edited by hassy501 on Jun 28, 2008 at 08:33 AM GMT

If he has not made a global announcement to the congregation prior to the ceremony that ALL photography is prohibited then he has discriminated against me as a professional photographer. If anyone else is allowed to photograph then I will take a seat in the very back and shoot.

My contract states that I am bound by House Rules, and that some desired photographs may not be obtainable due to various restrictions on photography. But in future I will discuss the possibility of zero ceremony photos with the couple during the consult. That may prompt them to ask well ahead of time .. not much can be done the day before.

Funny thing I just bought a 40D .. one of the main reasons was the silent shutter shooting which I felt may help during weddings.


Edited by Mike Mahoney on Jun 28, 2008 at 08:43 AM GMT

It's been a sore subject for many years.....the pros abide by the rules yet the guests do what they want........we can get banned, but guests don't........in reality, there is little chance of getting banned.......they won't remember who you are unless you do something so stupid that you leave an indelible mark for the ages.