FWIW, I had to sign a very similar agreement at the last church. This included shooting only from the back of the church and not to use any flash.
The "church lady" was adamant that I adhere to the guidelines. I said "no problem". Once the ceremony got underway and she saw that I was being very respectful of the church's wishes, I asked if I could move around to the side to shoot the B&G from a different angle. She said "sure", just don't use your flash.
I found out later that the church instigated these rules because too many photographers were disrupting the ceremony by using flash or laying on the ground in front of the alter, or moving around and blocking the view of the guests, etc. Once she saw that I wasn't going to be a problem, she was more than happy to bend the rules a bit.
Brad Barr wrote:
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...Show more →
Great Idea, I knew I needed some PWs! Now mabey I can justify them to my wife
Being told to shoot at the back of a church is a disgrace. I never use flash in a church and I'm far less disruptive than the guests who hold out their little cameras who fire off flashes all through the ceremony.
emandavi wrote:
Yeah, but it's not their church! They may own their wedding, they don't own the church!!!!! They want freedom to have the photographer roam around, not care about the "sanctity" of the ceremony, then they can have the wedding outside in their own back yard.
Cash exchanged hands, services are rendered they got this contract AFTER everything was setup. I'm not sure what your version of 'sanctity' is but I can be unobtrusive and still be near the front.
emandavi wrote:
When my kids have their birthday party at my house, everyone is free to roam around... as long as they don't go into my bedroom, my wife's jewelry boxes, my bedroom cabinet drawers, my swimming pool (unless I'm there as lifeguard, and I choose when that will be), my daughter's underwear drawers, etc. etc. etc. They follow the rules or they get yelled at. If they continue to misbehave, they're thrown out of the house.
...you'd think it was common sense, and yet, we'll find "guests" on our bed, watching TV in our room, unattended, without anyone telling them they can open our bedroom door and go in. Their excuse is as lame as your, "it's their wedding." Their excuse is, "it's a party. We're supposed to have fun."
You know what? My bedroom is sacred grounds. You don't go in. Period!...Show more →
Sounds like you need to find better friends, did you charge a cover charge? If money exchanges hands and there is a resonable belief of the house being open to all then you've got no legal ground for that one. You might want to stick to situations that actually matchs up to the situation.
mcarr wrote:
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.
It would certainly help all parties if the photographer would discover the house rules about photography at the wedding location and relay this to the bride, who probably has not even thought of it.
If the bride does not agree with the photographic restrictions, she needs to arrange for another location. Expecting a church to cater to every whim of a "paying customer" is rediculous, whether it is for photography, catering, etc. Most churches will do everything possible to help the bride with her wedding. Our church has provided space for weddings for people who came only for the wedding and were never seen again. They are informed of our policies and have the option of accepting them or going elsewhere.
I have photographed weddings, but not as a profession. One of my first actions has been to find out what the B&G want, check on the policies at the wedding venue, and then relay the policies to the Bride. That's not so difficult.
ContagiousIdea wrote:
...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.
That's a good example of what to do if the B&G want a photo session rather than a sacred rite. Hold the wedding somewhere other than a church, and use photo-friendly celebrants.
But if the wedding is in a church, then the rules of the church take precedence over the B&G's desires. Period.
As for, "Where is it written in the Bible..." Dogma and doctrine come from two sources: sacred scripture and sacred tradition. That's why different churches have different forms and rituals, and why a Catholic Mass is different than a Pentacostal Tent Meeting.
For photographers there is one simple guideline: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It is not our rite, so it's not our right to dictate what's "reasonable" and what's not.
BrianO wrote:
That's a good example of what to do if the B&G want a photo session rather than a sacred rite. Hold the wedding somewhere other than a church, and use photo-friendly celebrants.
But if the wedding is in a church, then the rules of the church take precedence over the B&G's desires. Period.
As for, "Where is it written in the Bible..." Dogma and doctrine come from two sources: sacred scripture and sacred tradition. That's why different churches have different forms and rituals, and why a Catholic Mass is different than a Pentacostal Tent Meeting.
For photographers there is one simple guideline: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It is not our rite, so it's not our right to dictate what's "reasonable" and what's not. ...Show more →
THAT was uncalled for period end stop.
Wow look at you, quoting scripture in one mouth leaking out derogatory comments out the other. What a great example you are and I take offense to the idea that allowing a photographer to be before the last 3 rows and occasionally block the view of someone for a moment as a 'photo session' rather than a 'sacred rite'. I respect the public ceremony that my wife and I participated in and will never allow anything to divide us, along with the fact that my family and hers are very well grounded in Judaic Christianity (distinction made purposefully)
You made your point quite awhile ago but you continue to return to this thread and crap on it, I understand your viewpoint very clearly. That you are dogmatic and can't follow what you preach, where did you see me articulate any desire to go against what the church wished? Where did I state that I was going to do so against their wishes, I believe the B/G should have some control over what they are paying for, rather than get the rug ripped out from under them after they paid.
IF the church had told them BEFORE they settled up then neither the Bride nor I would have a problem with it, however it was not that way.
Basically this thread is finished, thanks for the participation that I had, I had not heard of this before and now I have gained experience from others. I was expressing a human emotion of annoyance and hoping that I could commiserate with others however this has turned into a flame thread going as far as attacking my own very marriage, not what I planned at all.
Once again, thank you for those who were a positive participation and understood the spirit in which it was intended when I did the first post.
BrianO wrote:
But if the wedding is in a church, then the rules of the church take precedence over the B&G's desires. Period.
Nope - not at all. The rules of the church are generally mired in a wide range of hypocrisy and at the whim of the fuddy duddy in the frock. Reason, professionalism and patience will generally prevail in all but the most silly of circumstance.
Also - the actual wedding is a fairly minor aspect of any wedding.
ContagiousIdea wrote:
"Wow look at you, quoting scripture in one mouth leaking out derogatory comments out the other."
What derogatory comments? I certainly didn't mean anything I said to be taken that way. I was trying to be quite specific. There is nothing wrong with a secular wedding, and nothing wrong with wanting a wedding to be "an event" complete with lots of photographs.
"You made your point quite awhile ago but you continue to return to this thread and crap on it."
I think you must be confusing me with someone else. The post above and this one are the only two I have made in this thread; it must be someone else who "continues to return to this thread."
FWIW, I wasn't trying to comment on your wedding, so much as trying to use yours as an example of a good way to handle the wishes of a B&G that don't want a highly "religious" wedding. Several posters after the OP had been suggesting that a priest should change the way a church does things to conform to the desires of the B&G, and you appeared to find a method that worked without offending anyone.
What you took to be negative comments were intended to be compliments. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
The thing is...there is no "one way" to do anything regarding a wedding. There is no "one way" to do things in religion either. Just look at the vast differences. Even among Christian faiths things are all over the place...who is right? Not for any of us to say frankly. Some churches broadcast their services on tv...some have live bands on the altar...some have taken whats written and warped it into all manner of permutations. Again, who is right?? Wars have started over this...in fact a majority of the wars fought in the last 4 centuries have ties to religion.
Just look at the last few posts...again people getting all riled up over religion......not a very "Christian" attitude at all. The idea of a wedding being above any celebratory acts or relevant coverage is a man made one..not a biblical one. It says what God has joined together let no man put asunder. It doesnt say let no man photograph.
Frankly I dont care what the church rules are as long as the bride and groom know about and agree to them, then I have no problem abiding by them. Want me to sit outside?? No problem, again, as long as the B&G are fine with it. Do I agree with that rule? Of course not I think its an ignorant rule and based upon nothing, but then I dont have to. Its not my church. Its only an issue, if the B&G werent told before hand. Or....and this has happened....if we go ahead and sign their silly document, and then the priest/minister whatever decides not to live up to his end.
I was in Catholic church in Coral Springs, we had to sign this "contract" stating that not only would we not do any photography inside, but that we would take no more than 30 minutes to do the formals following the service. No problem, whatever....
So the ceremony is over, and the hugs and kisses are flying outside the chuch, and the priest starts locking the doors....I'm like, hey, we have to go back in for formals. He says no, you cant. By this time the bride is now in tears.....voices are raising as are blood pressures...so i take this self righteous priest aside, and ask wtf he means we cant go inside...to which he says there simply isnt time. I said what about the contract you forced us to sign He says and I quote "you're not gonna hold that up are you" I said you bet your bottom dollar I am...and we ARE going back in and we wont take more than the 30 minutes but we ARE going back inside to do the formals.
A key point to remember. NOT all things done in the "name" of religion are just. One need only remember 9-11 for that. Often extreme views will be cast upon the scene. Just like a wedding....some take a more extreme view on what is "correct" wedding behavior in the eyes of whatever version of God they happen to believe in as well. But there is no "one right way" for wedding coverage. We just need to find out what the "right way for today" is, and make sure the b&g are fine with it and go on to the next gig.
bb
It's continually amazing, sometimes amuzing, to learn how ill-informed a few people are about churches and their value to their community!
Our company directed thousands of (actually about 9,000) capital funds campaigns for community non-profit organizations and churches over the past century. Community clients included: YMCA, Camp Fire, Senior Citizens centers, youth community center, arts organizations, community recreation centers, American Red Cross, private schools, colleges, adult literacy programs, community indoor hockey arenas, hospitals, nurse's training programs, Boy Scouts of America, sheltered workshop to aid physically and mentally handicapped people, retirement homes, mental health center, etc. If you want more causes and details, e-mail me. More than 80% of our work came from repeat service or referrals, so we must have done something right.
Without exception the community causes I worked with over 30 years saw their leadership come from the churches in the community. People came from practically all denominations and participated because they wanted to improve the quality of life in their community. These causes would not exist if those volunteers did not choose to get involved.
Yes, churches have problems, because they are made up of people, and people have problems.
Churches have more important things to do than salve the ego of a few photographers. Most posters on this thread recognize that and work with the church during a wedding. Others need to learn or lose the privilege (not RIGHT) to photograph in a particular church. The "in your face" attitude of some would lead me to choose someone else if I needed a photographer.
GCasey wrote:
Yes, churches have problems, because they are made up of people, and people have problems.
Churches have more important things to do than salve the ego of a few photographers. Most posters on this thread recognize that and work with the church during a wedding. Others need to learn or lose the privilege (not RIGHT) to photograph in a particular church. The "in your face" attitude of some would lead me to choose someone else if I needed a photographer.
+1
Topics dealing with Christianity always tend to bring particular FMers out of the woodwork.
Whatever the venue, just work with the house rules. It doesn't hurt to ask for less restrictions, but don't cry about it.
there are lots of photographers out there that are pretty rude to everyone during the ceremony and this notice may be in response to that. there are some places in the town I live in that don't allow photography during the ceremony - because of that I also have a pricing that begins after the ceremony. After 30+ years of earning my living at this I just do what I am paid to do. No photos at the ceremony? I say "ahh thats to bad. this is what I can do for you instead".
ContagiousIdea wrote:
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'.
Understood and payment is made for services rendered, once again who is the customer here?
Understood, however the B/G wanted me to be closer than allowed, hence their decision for picking me based on what they wanted.
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.
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?
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.
Your comment brings up another valid issue. The bride needs to know the terms of using the wedding facility, whether it's at a church, a country club, or another place, and agree to those terms. The bride (and her photographer) will have problems if she tries to dictate to any venue what they must do. "Bridezilla" has become a new word to describe a bride who makes unreasonable demands.
An "ego trip" to me is where a photographer tells the wedding facility people he or she will take pictures from wherever, whenever, etc., no matter what the facility's policies are.
I've taken photos from behind a pastor, for example, after he and the B&G both requested it. I'm not comfortable doing that, but in the case I did as they wished. At other weddings, no flash was allowed during the ceremony, and I set up a camera in the balcony to take those images. Flash was allowed as the bridal parties approached the front, and as they left. Everyone was aware of the policies and all were happy with the photography.
There are a lot of issues to take into account, aren't there? One of the first slogans I learned in my profession was, "Don't assume nothin'!" A true pro will ask enough questions to know the venue's policies and make certain that the bride knows them -- well ahead of the wedding. The details are important.
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Nope - not at all. The rules of the church are generally mired in a wide range of hypocrisy and at the whim of the fuddy duddy in the frock. Reason, professionalism and patience will generally prevail in all but the most silly of circumstance.
Also - the actual wedding is a fairly minor aspect of any wedding.
RWR
If the wedding is to be held at "science hall" and they have these rules (or substitute "science hall" in BrianO's sentence), would you say that the convention hall is mired in a wide range of hypocrisy and at the whim of the fuddy duddy in the professor?
I solved my problem with the priest who gave me a hard time about taking photos last time by going over the whole saga with the bride and groom whose wedding I did last Saturday as they were having the same priest. The priest denied ever saying a word to me. The bride told him in no uncertain terms that she would make the biggest fuss DURING the ceremony if he even so much as looked at me the wrong way. He folded and was sooo nice to me on the day I almost puked. Having said that, I didn't rub his nose in it either.
Of course I went nowhere near the alter and shot without flash except for the entrance and exit. I didn't have to stand in one place either. No one was distracted by me. Some might have been distracted by the young son of the happy couple who wandered up and down the alter throughout the ceremony and stood by both the priest and the guest delivering the reading at various times....but not by me.
Things are different in this country from the US anyway. The "quickie" wedding ceremonies that are the norm here are only about 20 minutes in duration anyway. I haven't personally seen a nuptual mass for many years.
Do you think anybody in this crowd is interested in me? They don't even look all that interested in the priest. The ceremony was actually going on at the time.
Whatever the venue, just work with the house rules. It doesn't hurt to ask for less restrictions, but don't cry about it.
Nobody has cried about anything. We do this every week. We always ask about the restrictions. That doesnt mean the restrictions make sense. Sorry you are afraid of a little conversation, and perhaps a differing opinion on something. Really...its ok to disagree.
I like the way you word it 
He says and I quote "you're not gonna hold that up are you" I said you bet your bottom dollar I am...and we ARE going back in and we wont take more than the 30 minutes but we ARE going back inside to do the formals.