I agree with Ale, couples are free to choose another venue if they disagree with the rules. If they agree to the rules and are cool with having no ceremony shots you have nothing to worry about.
I think in most cases stuff like this has nothing to do with actual teachings of the Church, other than a directive to maintain a reverent atmosphere and minimize distractions. It is due to overzealous individual priests, pastors, etc., who may be driven in part by bad experiences they've had in the past with other photographers, videographers, and uncle bobs.
Is it right for these individuals to put the smack down on ALL photos during the ceremony? No way--they are obviously being obstinate jack asses--but to blame religion in general is silly. Like Matt said you are getting paid the same to shoot less
In my opinion this is something for the couple to work out with the church. I think when you're in the church, you have to follow the rules regarding photography. No pictures is pretty harsh, but I'm sure we've all been in places where they ask us not to use flash photography or to stand only in the back. So long as everyone (and by everyone, I mean the bride and groom) knows those are the rules, then you just have to do the best you can working within the guidelines.
Inku Yo wrote:
I'm sorry, but my rule is this - when I'm a guest in someone's home, I follow their rules.
I think the problem is that the church doesn't really have an owner per se. Around here most churches were built 500-1000 years ago by the local community and as such it's still their "house", not the vicars.
ai3x wrote:
I think the problem is that the church doesn't really have an owner per se. Around here most churches were built 500-1000 years ago by the local community and as such it's still their "house", not the vicars.
Hey, when you're done with the hairsplitter 2000 I have a project I'd like to borrow it for
What you just said would be akin to me going into a Hilton and starting to do all sorts of things that are against the rules and when the manager shows up and asks me to stop I answer "until Paris gets her ass here I'm not listening to you... this ain't yo house, mother$##@#@!!!"
Haha thanks Ale. I understand your opinion before as well the problem is that around here, if you're religious and want any form of religion in your wedding you, by law, have to go to a church. If you want to marry in a church, by church law you pretty much have to go to your local one.
That removes the majority of the choice from the equation and basically leaves you stuck between a rock and a hard place if your vicar says no.
To top it off, if you decide to have a civil ceremony in the UK you don't get to choose who officiates it. It's assigned randomly a few days before the wedding. Some registrars have rules regarding the photography, some don't, it's basically luck of the draw what you end up with.
But a Hilton isn't a house, it's a business, the hairsplitting to me is about whether it's £1000 'fee' to get married there or 'wink wink it's a COMPLETELY (slightly, not really) optional donation of $1000 if you want it' - no other business except organised religion would get away with this demand unquestioned or without ill will.
Basically I object to wanting it both ways, they want (and need) the income from weddings to survive, but also want to act like weddings are beneath them, that they're doing you a favour (but respect the Lord) by letting you "borrow" their church.
That said, if the couples stand for it, I place 90% of the blame squarely at their feet, until someone stops biting their tongue because "you gotta respect Religion" nothing will change.
What REALLY annoys me though are the self-important vergers that spring it on you the day of the wedding, you can see the disappointment on the bride's face but everyone has to keep schtum because it's too late now.
EDIT: Didn't realise how much of this stuff I had to get off my chest, had no idea how angry I was about this! Yet again associating with Beckett gets me closer to a haemorrage.
ai3x wrote:
Haha thanks Ale. I understand your opinion before as well the problem is that around here, if you're religious and want any form of religion in your wedding you, by law, have to go to a church. If you want to marry in a church, by church law you pretty much have to go to your local one.
That removes the majority of the choice from the equation and basically leaves you stuck between a rock and a hard place if your vicar says no.
To top it off, if you decide to have a civil ceremony in the UK you don't get to choose who officiates it. It's assigned randomly a few days before the wedding. Some registrars have rules regarding the photography, some don't, it's basically luck of the draw what you end up with....Show more →
and yet you get to pick who you marry right?
You're still better off than millions around the world
I had one presented to me ON the wedding day once, after I had already arrived and not only did it state when I could and could not shoot, but it also stated that I was responsible for any reckless behavior of the guests in the church during portrait time. I was fuming. I called my husband and he was telling me I shouldn't sign it, I was talking to the wedding planner (who was also at this church for the first time) and she thought it was nuts too, but they said I couldn't shoot unless I signed it. I was literally freaking out, but I was on the clients clock at that point so I signed it because I felt like I had no choice. Never again...
ckhagen wrote:
I had one presented to me ON the wedding day once, after I had already arrived and not only did it state when I could and could not shoot, but it also stated that I was responsible for any reckless behavior of the guests in the church during portrait time. I was fuming. I called my husband and he was telling me I shouldn't sign it, I was talking to the wedding planner (who was also at this church for the first time) and she thought it was nuts too, but they said I couldn't shoot unless I signed it. I was literally freaking out, but I was on the clients clock at that point so I signed it because I felt like I had no choice. Never again......Show more →
Yeah see that's exactly what gets me going, that's just blackmail, you've got to sign something completely unreasonable or YOU look like the bad guy, disgusting behaviour.
I always ask the couple to find out if there are any church restrictions because I have read here about how some churches will not allow any photography at all during the ceremony. If those are the rules then it would seem that nobody that gets married there has any photos of it. That said, if they allow video get a camera that shoots video, and put it on a tripod somewhere and shoot a video...and ooops you grabbed some stills while it was recording...with live view and manual focus it hardly makes a sound. :-) Whether you give them or use the video is up to you bt I bet you could at least grab a dozen basic shots. Maybe.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Yeah see that's exactly what gets me going, that's just blackmail, you've got to sign something completely unreasonable or YOU look like the bad guy, disgusting behaviour.
I had a similar situation with a venue. The solution seems to be something in the contract verbiage that transfers all liability to the clients, INCLUDING any liability the photographer assumes by signing documents provided by venues or other vendors hired by the couple.
If I had such a clause in my contract (with initials on that clause) I would have no problem signing all sorts of crazy releases.
At least they spell out the rules up front so you and the bride know what to expect holding the wedding at that church. Many appear to hint at restrictions to the bride then the day of make it clear they don't allow photos leaving you with a unhappy bride.Of course it could be the bride did not ask specific enough questions during the consult stage with the church. This letter would also prevent any backlash from a unhappy couple or family for not getting ceremony images. You have written proof it was not allowed. If you think you can get around it and shoot anyway they will most likley stop the ceremony and call you out before asking you to leave.
The other problem with this is it's just a generic form. According to the bride their reverend is pretty laid back and might allow photos anyway.
That's the bit which scares me. If on the day the priest says I can take photos, but I've signed something saying I won't, where does that leave me legally? If some busybody sees the photos and pulls up the form I'm guessing I could get in quite a lot of trouble.
