It is because of the rise of people that have not been trained how to shoot weddings. They are self taught and do exactly what they want without regard to the rules. If you don't have the correct equipment for a dark church and the rule is no flash guess what happens. They stand within ten feet and fire a flash off the whole time. Just one example. Another is they are so into building the portfolio they go hog wild moving all over the church to get the shot. We were at a wedding recently where the photographer went behind and actually used the officiant as a leaning post to get the ring shot. The other reason people are just getting more and more rude and only thinking about themselves. Consequences for actions are at an all time low, there is nothing to stop them from acting the way they do.
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 agree. I've run into a couple of "power hungry" coordinators. I'v ehad a couple of them tell me "no flash" whatsoever. Only later, to have the officient tell me to "flash away at your desire. It's not the coordinators wedding. She has no say in it"
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!
dmacmillan wrote:
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 - You will find any person can and will be in the wrong at some point. People here have shared stories about crazy pastors or priests, brides, parents, videographers, etc. We should just hope that everyone involved in any wedding will be loving and remember what the day is about. Many photographers forget this, and have made a bad name for photographers, just as there are plenty of pastors and priests who have made a bad name for clergy. It should teach us that we need to take things on a case by case basis.
A few of my weddings have required I stay in the back, and most seem to request no flash, though I almost refuse to use flash during the ceremony anyway. I usually don't mind either restriction.
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" !
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.
j.curtis wrote:
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.
dmacmillan wrote:
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!
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. ...Show more →
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
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.
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.
) and shouted "do that again will you" !