Very familiar. Came to a friends UK wedding, the hired photog was bound by these limitations.
Only allowed to stay in the back of the church and only shoot at the signing. A pity I knew this poor lad......stole one of his bodies in broad daylight straight out of his hands and played uncle Bob.
But in this case if its from the couple, obey the rules....
It's the uncle Bob's and the 'take 1000 pictures with flash standing everywhere' photogs that led to this contract. Just prove you are the better and discreet photog.
For myself let the church get to know you. Get to the rehearsal, meet & greet the vicar AND the rector. Contract mentions unless the rector approves
Start making very very discreet no flash pictures from the side. If they appreciate your style the rector can give you permission. As long as you honor the church, stop taking pictures at the holy moment, he will hopefully meet you halfway and allow you to take discreet pictures from the side, without flash.
Anyhow, if you are discreet you can bend the rules a bit during the ceremony. Just stay 'invisible'
Also be able to mention the moment you will click. This will show them you only take delibirate picture when needed. And the only time I think it's really needed to move in is the rings.
Workaround: A lot of shots can be done after the service.
Kick out all the guest outside and let them wait...and take 5-10 minutes with bride and groom to take some pictures forbidden to take during the ceremony.
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 →
Wow. I would have signed but crossed out/caveated the reckless behaviour of the guests bit.
I find the language in that document rather vague. It doesn't cover the processional, only the recessional. By "no photographs" do they really mean no photographs or is it flashes going off they're actually trying to avoid? Are they discriminately selecting you because you're the hired gun or are they uniformly requiring all in attendance to observe the same rules? And there's nothing stated regarding what happens if you break that rule. And nothing about where the lines are drawn, for example, is the kiss considered part of the sacred ceremony you can't photograph or does it announce the exit which you can photograph? So, legally, it's a piece of junk.
They're tired of the novice photographers who create a nuisance by the unprofessional manner they have when they shoot. So they try to lay down the law.
Whether you sign it or not, the Rector's got his rules. So whether you sign it or not, the best bet is simply to smile, be nice, introduce yourself, stick out your hand for a handshake, assure him you wish to observe their rules, and then finesse your questions to "make sure I have it clear". Letting them know in this way you're not like the rude jerk they had last week, you may find them more agreeable with this approach.
If I was in a position where I couldn't influence it, I'd respect it - I agree that it is 'their' house.
I'm not going to lie though, I think this opinion is a load of crap and is part of the reason I'm working on setting up some sort of working group between photographers and the church.
Will they let you take video? Video there is no noise of shutter or flash going off. You could then make still from the video for there wedding book.
You can always stage it after the wedding.
I have in my contract that I follow all the rules of the place we are photographing at. I don't want to tick off any church or place because I might be shooting there again sometime.
6. HOUSE RULES: The photographer is limited by the guidelines of the ceremony official or the reception site management. THE CLIENT agrees to accept the technical results of their imposition on the photographer. Negotiation with the officials for moderation of guidelines is THE CLIENT'S responsibility; “________” will offer technical recommendations only.
Mark_L wrote:
As long as the couple are aware and agree, yes. They make the decision on where to get married, not me and part of the decision is whether the relevant photographic coverage they wish is allowed.
I don't see what the big deal is. You're being paid your asking price, correct? And the couple is aware of it. Sounds like you've got an opportunity to make a bunch of money for sitting in a pew in the back and resting your legs for 30 minutes. Just make sure you kill the portraits and everything else about the day.
I personally think ceremony shots are often overrated and can definitely be distracting. I'm hoping to implement a "self-imposed" no flash during ceremonies this year. Unfortunately, I feel the need to explain my reasoning for this preference to brides and allow them to choose for themselves whether I use it or not.
In a word, yes. Yes I would sign it. I'd have a conversation with the couple about it, but house rules are house rules, and while I'd try to talk to the priest etc. if necessary (respectfully conveying my intentions and how I work), ultimately the couple chose the church and agreed to its rules. As a professional I can't go burning bridges to make the couple happy and get banned from a location. If it was a destination thing it wouldn't be as much of a concern, but I'd still respect house rules.
I don't see these much, but when I do, there's always a story behind it. Usually some previous photographer made a jackass out of himself during the ceremony. Sucks that you have to pay because of someone else's bad behavior, but sometimes you just have to play by the rules.
Ultimately, it's up to the couple to deal with this situation.
Now each party should bring a solicitor (lawyer) to the consultations with the vicar and photographer?
Somebody a lot smarter than me once said something abut the number of rules and regulations (and their complexity) being a good indicator of how dysfunctional a system had become.
If the B&G are aware of and accept the church restrictions then sign it. If any one church has practices that couples don't like then they are free to marry somewhere else.
I've been around long enough to see why some churches restrict photographers but also know that couples want to have great photos of their ceremony. It's a decision and choice that ultimately is not the photographers.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
If any one church has practices that couples don't like then they are free to marry somewhere else.
Its not that easy in the UK unfortunately. They don't have the freedom of choice re churches that we enjoy in Australia and US. They are pretty much obliged to use their local church.
So what happens is you shot pics after signing it? Do they put you in the church prison? ?
So just show up toward the end of the ceremony for formals and basically recreate any ceremony shots they want. Perhaps suggest that the guests all stay in the pews so the posed ceremony looks real.
A pity I knew this poor lad......stole one of his bodies in broad daylight straight out of his hands and played uncle Bob.
?