mcarr wrote:
Good grief, this is ridiculous. Some of you can't seem to understand that it's DISTRACTING when the doofus... er, I mean phototog, stands front and center and otherwise makes a spectacle of himself. It would be rude, regardless of whether or not it was in a church. Some of you need to get off your high horse. It's NOT about you or your artistic vision... or whatever.
Now, that is a tad extreme. No one said anything about making a spectacle of themselves. Though I have seen and heard a few dufi making spectacular and off topic speeches in the middle the wedding.
The only restrictions for the last wedding I did, were I couldn't stand on the altar. Okay that's fine. But guess what five other family members did? They stood on the altar to get pictures, and blocked my shots. I could've hit them over the head with my telephoto lens :|
mcarr wrote:
Good grief, this is ridiculous. Some of you can't seem to understand that it's DISTRACTING when the doofus... er, I mean phototog, stands front and center and otherwise makes a spectacle of himself. It would be rude, regardless of whether or not it was in a church. Some of you need to get off your high horse. It's NOT about you or your artistic vision... or whatever.
Obviously you dont do this for a living. I do. I have shot 700+ weddings. Nowhere did anyone say anything about making a spectacle of themselves. We have the experience and equipment to ensure we are not making a spectacle of ourselves. Walk a mile with any full time wedding photographer...then comment. See how it can be done correctly...then comment. See how Uncle Bobs do it, then comment how much worse it would be with a pro.
No its not about us....nor is it about the church lady..or even the minister. It IS about the bride and groom.
bb
I think it should be left completely 100% up to the bride and groom as long as their is no destruction to the Church. Its their wedding after all and pictures are the only way to record the event.
That, sir, is impressive. It's a wonder you haven't become cynical and bitter after all these years.
Of course it's about the bride and groom. They have chosen to follow a particular religion, and house of worship in which to hold their wedding ceremony. They are aware of the restrictions placed on the photographer (if any), and no matter how unfair they may seem, they have chosen to proceed as planned. It's certainly not my place to insist upon access to restricted places during the ceremony. I can ask nicely, and many times this works very well, but I'm not going to cry if I'm banished to the back of the church. As I said, the B&G have accepted the restrictions, so what's the big deal?
mcarr wrote:
As I said, the B&G have accepted the restrictions, so what's the big deal?
Often it is the bride's mother that wants the church deal. The bride has one vision and just goes along to get along. Weddings are rarely about the B&G.
mcarr wrote:
As I said, the B&G have accepted the restrictions, so what's the big deal?
Many times the B&G had no idea about the restrictions until they get closer to the wedding. The B&G's generally go to the church first and if they don't explicitly ask to see the photography restrictions, I highly doubt it will come up before they have already selected the church.
Brad Barr wrote:
Can someone quote the chapter and verse in the Bible where it specifies no photography??
Didnt God create light...which is the essence of what we do
So in my next ad, should I put something to the effect of, "What God to photograph your wedding? I created the light, and I'll get you the best light you could imagine. As I am perfect, so will your wedding day and pictures. I guarantee it!"
I've signed one of these as well. Most churches don't have anything for the photographer to sign, but relate the information to the bride and groom with written instructions that they are to share with their vendors. At least they are letting you get pictures of the ceremony. I've had 3 churches that only let us watch the ceremony with no pictures taken. Yvette
Which is why one of the first things I ask my B&G's what the house rules are for the ceremony location. You're right, most have no idea that there would be rules, but I don't let them find that out on the day of the wedding.
Scott Mosher wrote:
So in my next ad, should I put something to the effect of, "Want God to photograph your wedding? I created the light, and I'll get you the best light you could imagine. As I am perfect, so will your wedding day and pictures. I guarantee it!"
There is a local golf club - about as high end as one would expect - they have more photo rules than 99% of churches. And, I always feel bad for brides because they start out excited and do not find out the rules until a week before the wedding. Gorgeous location but no photos allowed. The RF's do not pay market value property tax and want to keep the 100 acres on the DL.
but I'm not going to cry if I'm banished to the back of the church. As I said, the B&G have accepted the restrictions, so what's the big deal?
I dont cry about it either...in fact the last Episcopal church I shot in...the one that banished me; they were astounded when rather than skulk out to the foyer, I suggested an alternative...a remote camera set up near the altar triggered by PW's from the foyer where I was to be banished....low and behold...that was no problem at all, and much to her pleasure and delight (and the bride and groom's) we came away with the first ever photographs in their church from the altar position during the ceremony. All were happy...(although the church lady still managed to scold some ner'do wells who popped off some point and shoot shots...how dare they!!! Anyway, there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.
But i agree with your point. In fact, when confronted at that same church about the restrictions, my response was "no problem as long as its ok with the Bride and Groom" For it is they for whom I work, not the church lady. And like you said, if they are fine with it, then I dont have any problems with it...Although I disagree with the restrictions on merit, I will abide by them of course.
bb
Scott Mosher wrote:
Didnt God create light...which is the essence of what we do
So in my next ad, should I put something to the effect of, "What God to photograph your wedding? I created the light, and I'll get you the best light you could imagine. As I am perfect, so will your wedding day and pictures. I guarantee it!"
Ummm I think you mistook what I meant...God created light...and capturing the light is what we do... you know photo-graphy writing with light....the definition of what we do....
Your information is a little misleading re: not seeing the inside of a LDS building. You can go inside any LDS CHURCH, just not one of the temples. If the couple getting married is having a temple marriage, there are NO pictures inside the building, regardless of religous affiliation (that includes point and shoots and camera phones.) And being a member of the church does not automatically get you access to the temple, either.
I have the restrictions often and I use a not known-to-the-church lady 3rd photographer. She appears as a guest of the groom and photographs from about the 4th or 5th row with this.
If an RSVP card or "ticket" of some sort is required for entrance to the ceremony, I get one from the B&G and give it to my 3rd. Crank up the ISO and shoot wide open.
Images are fine and it works..... well so far.
GCasey wrote:
This has come up several times, and most posters have agreed that a pro photographer needs to adapt to the circumstances of the venue.
Understood, I can adapt to any circumstance and infact it makes my job easier, I'm sorry for the B/G as they had not anticipated this and are now in a hard spot. I'm a bit annoyed as I can't get the shots that I would have wanted but can still do it 'well enough'.
GCasey wrote:
A bride may want a wedding in a certain church because of a wide center aisle or the decor, for example, and never enter the church again. A wedding demands intensive use of the church's facilities, usually on a Saturday, while the church usually has its most intensive program scheduling on Sunday. Cleaning and straightening up after a wedding is no small chore.
Understood and payment is made for services rendered, once again who is the customer here?
GCasey wrote:
This has little to do with photography, and I mention it just to share another perspective. A wedding is the formal, public occasion for a B&G to make significant commitments to each other, and a pastor focuses on that commitment when planning the ceremony and is not 'staging' it for the benefit of a photographer. Yes, the bride will be part of that planning process.
Understood, however the B/G wanted me to be closer than allowed, hence their decision for picking me based on what they wanted.
GCasey wrote:
The bride needs guidance from the officiant on photography guidelines.
A recent bride in our church family was very happy with her photographer because he and his second said they would be very unobtrusive during the ceremony. A photographer roaming around during the ceremony is going to distract attention away from the ceremony.
Depends on how you look at it, I CAN be and have been 'unobtrusive' however in this case the Bride didn't want me to be as unobtrusive as I am being forced to be now. Roaming around can be distracting however some don't mind that at all.
GCasey wrote:
J. Curtis summed it up well: So what's the problem?
Pretty much norm. All it states is you need to clear the sanctuary 30 minutes before the service. No flash. You must remain at the back of the church.
That's pretty much the norm.
I understand thats your norm, it hasn't been mine; just my experience; hence why I posted it because I'd not ever heard of the church contracting the photographer before, different if the client tells me directly. Forcing me to remain at the balcony or the back 3 rows restricts what angles I can shoot from and neccessitates a reduction in photos as well due to having only a 90angle or so to shoot from.
Make sense?
GCasey wrote:
Most photographers recognize they are there to serve the B&G and to record their ceremony and wedding activities. Part of that process is to work within the guidelines of the venue. It's not about a personal ego trip. One self-declared pro photographer said a few weeks ago that he insisted on full access to the bride's room while she and her attendants were dressing.
Guidelines and restrictions are there for a reason.
Hence my annoyance, neither I nor the bride was happy; I'm mostly annoyed because I can't give the bride exactly what she wanted now. Where do you see me on an ego trip? I see no similarity to invading a females privacy while dressing compared to a church restriction on when/where the photography can be taken. Understand this is an issue shared by both me the photographer and the bride, this is not the bride vs photographer, please only allude to situations that match.
Nathan Whitchu wrote:
I work for a Catholic newspaper and have to deal with this all the time. As my editor once said "this isn't a baseball game". This IS a sacred and holy ritual to some people and should be treated as such. Is that particular contract restricting? Yes. But should you be allowed to just roam wherever you want to and disrupt what the bride, groom and officiant consider a sacred rite? No! Most priests I meet are more then willing to make some compromises and meet me more then halfway from where this contract puts you though.
Hey now look at what I was saying, I'm with the bride on this one, she and I both want more.
Perhapse I wasn't clear enough let me provide a bit more background. The Pastor in this case has no connection to the church he's a family member. The church was payed for the use of the church, hence services rendered and it makes the B/G a client. If the B/G don't mind me 'roaming and disrupting' then whats the problem? We've allready tryed negotiating with the Church through the Bride and thats a no go, they allow no quarter.
Brad Barr wrote:
Can someone quote the chapter and verse in the Bible where it specifies no photography??
Didnt God create light...which is the essence of what we do Now I dont mind not being allowed up on the altar...I dont really want to be up there anyway. But off to the sides...especially if you can be out of the direct view of the guests....should be allowed imo. I have been banished to shoot thru a door...and for what All that resulted was a host of cell phone cameras and p&S's got to shoot the event, and not the photographer with the fast glass who could have easily done it with no flash at all. Now which one was more disruptive And for goodness sake why would a videographer be allowed to be up front and not a photographer? I cant tell you how many times I've seen that one.
The images that are obtained from a frontal view of the bride and groom are often some of the most treasured images captured from the entire day. They reflect the pure emotion of the moment...and it is at that moment before God...and all their families when the true magic happens. You simply cant recreate that afterward as so many ministers pontificate.
To have those memories forever captured should be considered extra special in the eyes of the church, not banished.
This is the very essence of what we do...capturing the moment of all moments. God didnt say go to the back of the church...that idea was thought of by those with misplaced ideals of what religion is all about. We dont disrupt the sanctity of the event, we preserve it forever for those brides lucky enough not to be encumbered by such overzealous church leadership. Sure there have been a few overzealous photographers that have caused more of a ruckus...but there are just as many overzealous ministers out there. Perhaps instead of banning photographers, they should aid in the selection such that it might ensure they dont use Uncle Bob or Debbie Digital who dont have clue....and instead seek out a qualified professional with the equipment, skills, and experience to carry out the task without being a pain....
ok..sorry I'll get off my soapbox and stop preaching now ...Show more →
Thats the spirit! Exactly what I think, heck at my wedding I let my friend have free reign, and the Pastor of the event was one of my friends he didn't care. The venue was my parents house so again I was good to go. I wanted damn good photo's to memoralize the event I didn't care if one of my family members was annoyed (none were) at the shutter or if he blocked the view for one moment.
