Taking pictures in and around churches

<p>There is a thread about taking pictures at malls. My story is not as clear cut. The other day I decided to take some pictures of local church and its surroundings. There were a few statues of Jesus, a grotto and a nativity scene. The statues and grotto were outside, in a sort of a garden, and surrounded by a 3ft high stone wall. There was a small gate but unlocked so I walked in and started snapping pictures. I then left for my car but before reaching it some lady ran out of the church and asked me "can I help you"? The real question of course was why are you taking pictures here? So my question is did I do anything wrong and if I should do it again elsewhere? Was the garden outside the church private property? It almost looked like a park.</p>

<p>I would say the real question was <em>"can I help you?"</em> Had she wanted to ask you why you were taking pictures, she would have been free to do that. Often best to take people at face value and avoid the confusion of projecting what they "really" mean.</p>

<p>Some answers you might have provided to <em>"can I help you?"</em>:</p>

<p><em>"No, thanks."</em></p>

<p>OR</p>

<p><em>"This is a lovely garden and church. I hope you don't mind my having taken some pictures."</em></p>

<p>You mention a gate, so my guess is the garden was on church property. I don't know the legalities of entering property that's got a gate that's been left unlocked. Many churches and church grounds are open to the public, at least during daylight hours. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but assuming a church is private property (though obviously somewhat different than a commercial mall), they can set whatever policy they want regarding photos. I would hope, it being a church and all, that if you were respectful in your response, and the woman had a problem with your photographing, she would have let you know that in a kind manner. In the future, I'd ask someone if someone is around and you're going into a gated area. If no one is around, I'd take pictures and be prepared to respond to any questioning politely and respectfully.</p>

Here we go again...!

 

Most churches are "private property open to the public." During the times that the public is admitted to the premises, unless signs prohibit

photography, visitors can take pictures. However, if an agent of the owner asks a person to stop taking pictures, photography must

immediately cease. If the photographer persists, he or she is a trespasser and can be removed from the premises but during the

confrontation, his or her camera or film cannot be seized and digital images cannot be erased without the photographer's consent.

 

The general rules apply when no religious ceremony is occurring. During ceremonies, photographers risk being charged with violating

laws that prohibit any disturbance of a religious ceremony unless they have explicit permission to take pictures.

<p>if you were in a situation where you could provide copies of the photgraphs., it would be a nice gesture if you would offer.<br>

with sigital ir would eb very easy. You might also ask it there is anything arcetectuarally interesting or unique..<br>

again offer copies. You might get some good photos/.</p>

<p>It was early morning and I was rushing to work. Had it been a more leisurely time I would have engaged in more conversation. I thanked her and said "just taking pictures" and left. Not the most courteous approach. I must say she indeed looked worried what am I doing snapping pictures at 8am. It is not exactly a tourist place. Anyway, here is one of the pictures(captured by EOS 650 on Fuji 200).</p>

<p><img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/415093/98480010.jpg" alt="" /></p>

>>> So my question is did I do anything wrong and if I should do it again elsewhere? Was the garden outside the church

private property?So my question is did I do anything wrong and if I should do it again elsewhere? Was the garden outside

the church private property?

 

No, I don't think you did anything wrong. With respect to that particular church being private property or not, and how that affects you as a

photographer, I wouldn't want to speculate to the point where you could hang your hat on my advice. I just don't know. It's a good question. From what you laid out, I would have taken pictures as well.

 

>>> The real question of course was why are you taking pictures here?

 

Very astute of you. Fred is wrong, the phrase "can I help you" (among others) being a common proxy for "why are you

taking pictures." It comes up from time to time when I and others shoot on the street. It's less confrontational when there's doubt.

 

>>> Had it been a more leisurely time I would have engaged in more conversation.

 

It's a good opportunity. Every so often shooting on the street I'm asked a similar question. I usually answer with "I'm documenting the city (San

Francisco)", or "I have a photoblog and I ..." An honest and simple answer such as that has always worked. And, I enjoy the

conversation that usually follows, which sometimes results in a posed portrait.

<p>The thing is we, photographers, see picture taking opportunities in situations that look absolutely uninteresting to most people. That is the root of suspicion, I think. What could possibly be of interest here for someone to stop his car to take pictures on a cold January morning?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The thing is we, photographers, see picture taking opportunities in situations that look absolutely uninteresting to most people. That is the root of suspicion, I think. What could possibly be of interest here for someone to stop his car to take pictures on a cold January morning?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had the cops called on me entering a neighborhood taking pictures of old houses from a public street, but I understood why the cops were called because no one thought what I was shooting was interesting and so thought what I was doing looked suspicious.</p>

<p>I entered the grotto of my local Catholic church and took some shots just before noon on a bright sunny day, but before I did I hunted someone who was there and asked if it was OK to shoot pictures which they gave me the go ahead.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/15120502</p>

<p>So Ben's advice seems to be the solution in your circumstance.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"This is a lovely garden and church. I hope you don't mind my having taken some pictures."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my usual response, along with a smile, whenever I photograph publicly accessible but technically private places. So far, so good, works on places like museum grounds, parking lots, strip malls, cemeteries, pretty much everywhere there's an unfenced transition from the public street or sidewalk onto the privately owned but publicly accessible property.</p>

<p>If there's a fence and gate, I ask first. Same with private residences, even if there's no fence or gate between the sidewalk and yard. I've encountered that many times in my area when I wanted to photograph older homes using petrified wood.</p>

<p>So in the specific situation Brian described I'd probably have asked first, since there was a fence and gate - even if largely decorative.</p>

<p>With places like horse stables I've asked in advance to avoid disrupting their operations and endangering any critters or people.</p>

<p><<<<em>Fred is wrong, the phrase "can I help you" . . . blah,blah,blah</em>>>></p>

<p>Of course Fred is not wrong. Brad, on the other hand, is projecting what the woman meant from his and his buddies' vast experience shooting in church gardens, I suppose. My point, which Brad chose to miss, was not about what the question actually meant. It was, as Lex seems to have understood, about the quality of the response to the question. Brad, for such a supposedly astute street photographer, you so often miss the actual point of what people here say, instead dwelling on silly little details that you can find fault with. I'm surprised you're not punched in the face more often.</p>

And Fred is being his usual nasty self. That nastiness is a result of running out of gas not being able to offer any real-world experiences dealing with

people encountering photographers with unknown motivations.

 

>>> My point, which Brad chose to miss, was not about what the question actually meant.

 

No, Brad didn't miss anything. I offered what has worked for me, over many years of shooting on the street and meeting and conversing with

many hundreds of subjects, taking their portraits, and making friends in the process. It is good advice and has served me (and others who take the

same approach) well. I understand how this would be foreign to you. It's telling that you cannot accept other peoples' approaches as actually

working.

 

Your assumptions, where you fail to try and understand what other people might be feeling and experiencing and how they choose to communicate

with photographers (people with cameras with unknown motivations and intentions), really demonstrates a lack of empathy. This dovetails with your

postings on the Street & Documentary forum, where a poster will seek advice about having a bad experience due to hostile confrontations that are

the result of candidly photographing subjects on the street. Experienced street shooters recommend first looking within, at their own behavior and

trying to understand how a subject might feel being surprised by a stranger using a camera, with unknown motivations, taking a picture and having

his/her space invaded. And then adjusting one's own behavior shooting and communicating based upon that understanding. Fred's view is that it's the subject's fault and

that's where the problem lies; ie blame the subject, again, demonstrating a lack of understanding and empathy towards others.

 

>>> I'm surprised you're not punched in the face more often.

 

I haven't been punched in the face, ever. But I understand how your views would lead you to believe that should be the natural outcome of any sort of

adverse encounter.

>>> The thing is we, photographers, see picture taking opportunities in situations that look absolutely

uninteresting to most people. That is the root of suspicion, I think. What could possibly be of interest here

for someone to stop his car to take pictures on a cold January morning?

 

Excellent, Brian. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Look within and try and understand what people

might be feeling and experiencing when they encounter you, a stranger with unknown intentions, with your camera. With that as a basis, it's easy to diffuse a potential negative encounter and engage positively.

<p>Brad, the ultimate . . . and only . . . maven.</p>

<p><<<<em>Fred is wrong</em>>>></p>

<p>My apologies to Brian and those posting here. I shouldn't have taken this bait. My slightly late New Years resolution. Don't get drawn in in the future! We'll see if I can follow through.</p>

<p>Brian, you may want to check with the specific church regarding any photo policies. I know of at least one that has a sign posted asking that photographers respect others' privacy while shooting in their historic cemetery. It doesn't ban photography on their property, it only asks one to exhibit courtesy to others who come for private visits. And a large church here is open to photography only on certain days, but they do not allow tripods or flash. I have always been welcomed when I ask, first, if I can take photos on church property.</p>

<p>FAIW, I sometimes find old church grounds very interesting to photograph. There's usually someone around to ask permission. The answer is usually "yes" when I explain what I'm doing. I think the answer might have been "no" a couple of times, and I respect that. I am particularly sensitive to gravestones and sanctuaries. I have been given permission to photograph both, and I always change or obscure names on gravestones.</p>

<p>My policy is always to ask permission first, if possible, when photographing anyone else's property. When photographing people, I often ask permission after, whenever asking first would ruin the photographic moment. I try to extend courtesies to people beyond what the law requires of me.</p>

<p>I once wandered into what I thought was a "park", on New Providence ,Nassau Bahama. I photographed the lovely gardens, until the soldiers with the rifles showed. It seems I was on the grounds of their Governor's mansion, not in a "park". Lesson is, ask before shooting.</p>

<p>Had you knocked first and asked. The lady would have overwhelmed you with sweetness and stories. At least this has always been my experience.</p>

<p>>>Had you knocked first and asked.<<<br>

I did not know someone actually lived there. She came out of the back of the church and looked to be hastily clothed. Often, there is nobody around on church grounds. </p>

<p>Brian, I have found in the UK that the reaction to my photographing in churches can vary from (uusually) welcoming to (occasionally) positively aggressive. The most common response is on the welcoming end of the scale and tends to be more welcoming as the church becomes smaller, or more remote. However some church people have insisted on my seeking permission, especially if I am using a big camera and / or a tripod. I take the view that they are entitled to ask me to leave, as it is their church, and anything more than that is generosity on their part. <br /> So, if there is anyone around who looks official I make a habit of asking permission to take photos and also dropping a couple of coins into the collection box on leaving. If they say they do not allow photos I leave it at that.<br>

I was once welcomed as an answer to prayer when I went into a church where there was some archaeology going on. A large paving stone grave had been lifted and they wanted a photo of what was underneath. Unfortunately I had just used my last film..... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My policy is always to ask permission first, if possible, when photographing anyone else's property.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Isn't a church supposed to be God's house? Pretty tough to get an answer for those of us that don't have a direct connect. FWIW, I've shot in and around lots of churches in the US, Mexico and Europe, if there are posted or stated rules, I follow them. Nobody seems to care at all except if there's a tripod involved.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't a church supposed to be God's house?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Astute observation, Jeff! I love it! Note to self next time: "I prayed and asked God if it was OK. He told me to go right ahead!" :-)</p>

<p>I don't think you did anything wrong either , and I think its fine to photograph until told to stop assuming that you didn't force an entry and didn't photograph anything particularly sensitive. I will typically make a donation to a church that allows me to photograph unhindered , but not if they prohibit photography.</p>

<p>I've had the "can I help you" thing a lot- though rarely in churches , and although the tonality of delivery influences the meaning, its very often a euphemism for "wtf are you doing?" or"explain to me what you're up to" I'd like to think that my response would be along the lines of "I just enjoy taking photographs in and round churches . I do it a lot. I presume that I'm not causing a problem" And most of the time it probably is. Sometimes though it pops out more like "Not unless you've got a roll of fast 120 with you" or " yes actually, is there anywhere near here where I can get a decent coffee?" depending on their apparent attitude and indeed whats going through my mind at the time. </p>

 

<p>LOL Sarah:</p>

<p>I have photographed churches, temples and mosques all over the world. Seldom has anyone objected. Though there was a clear sign at the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul that photography was not permitted. Easy enough to respect. (Even though I understand that in theory it is now a museum, I visited during a prayer session).</p>

<p>And once in Varanasi a guy on the Ganges objected to me photographing the ghats from his canoe. Since he had the paddle and I had a water-sensitive camera, I thought an appeal either to one of his gods or to a local ordinance might have been out of the question, and complied.</p>

<p>But generally, I have found the gentle beauty of most places of worship makes a wonderful photographic subject. If you are sensitive to the spiritual stillness of the place, surely you will be sensitive to the approach of another person. </p>

<p>Once, in fact, in Malaysia I visited a Daoist temple where the congregation was celebrating an important feast day with their spiritual leader sitting on a chair of nails in a trance state, cutting his tongue repeatedly on a meter-long sword then kissing yellow prayer sheets to bless them. The church elders were happy to welcome me, and kept suggesting different angles from which I could photograph closer to the action: big lens, tripod and all.</p>

<p>By the end of the ceremony, some hours later, I was as exhausted as some of the incense-bearers or drummers. I believe I was welcomed because I did my best to evince respect. </p>

<p>Which is basically taking Sarah's approach in a practical way!</p>

<p>I haved photographed a number of interiors of churches and cathedrals and I always, if possible, ask permission, given that they are in one sense private property, but also because they are churches and have a special significance to others. Since churchyards are more public, i.e. open, then I usually just taken the pictures, but would also ask permission if there is someone at the church. Once upon a time churches were left open to the public during the day but now, sadly, they have to be locked unless someone is there to invigilate.</p>

<p><strong><em>some lady ran out of the church and asked me "can I help you"?... ...I must say she indeed looked worried... ...Anyway, here is one of the pictures... </em></strong><br /> <br /> Whoa! Is there any possibility she meant "Can I help you?" in the context of assisting with exposure/lighting issues?</p>