Not allowed to move

[penn10]

I am shooting a wedding next month where the church has a specific rule for

photographer -- stantionary!

 

Basically I have to pick a spot and stand there for the whole ceremony. I am

thinking maybe reserve myself a seat in the center location of the aisle so I can

shoot people walking down and pass me as well. After everybody walks and

ceremony starts, I will just step out and stand in the middle of the aisle and shoot

from there.

 

What's your experience with this situation? I mean what is the one best spot to

shoot the entire ceremony? There is actually a balcony in the back of the church,

even if my 70-200 can reach close enough (I seriously doubt), I won't be able to

shoot people walking down the aisle.

 

Any tips/advice are greatly appreciated!

 

Frank

[twatkinson]

I would talk to the couple, so that the are aware of the restrictions placed on you and

how they will affect their pictures. I would also ask them what their "key shots" are. A

big overview shot of the entire ceremony may be very important and they can live

without the aisle shots, or maybe it's her dad giving her away that means the most to

her. After you talk to them, you can plan your attack from there. Anyway, that's my

$0.02!

[penn10]

Thank Talitha! I've already talked to the bride, she is totally aware and she asked me to make my own judgement. She doesn't care either way. So that's why I am asking what position would you be? Thanks again.

[richsimmons]

Can you stand behind pulpit so you can get them coming down the aisle and get their faces while the ceremony is going on? You'd also be able to see all the faces of the guests.

[penn10]

Rich, I thought about that, but I might be blocking bridemaids' view. Not too sure about this ...

[conraderb]

first, clarify if this means that you are only allowed one spot for the entire time, or if you are allowed to shoot the processional from the front and then move back somewhat. hopefully the latter is possible.

 

if I couldn't move at all during the ceremony, I would probably be center aisle and back to some degree, depending on the surroundings. if it is a huge dramatic church, you can get better shots from further back, and if smaller, get closer.

 

that said, this is a great time to get a remote camera setup :-)

[walter_degroot]

how much will you bet that guests will be snapping away like mad?

Jumping up, flashing, and disturbing everything?

I would go to the church and pastor and say goodby.

 

you are the PRO. tell them if ONE flash goes off or if ONE guest jumps up

that all bets and all rules are off

let the church know it in no uncertain terms.

the marriage is a "sacred cerimony" sure

but there has to be a level playing field

[hjoseph7]

Get yourself a Monopod and some fast telephoto lenses and you'll be fine. I shot a funeral a couple of years ago and the Main photographer was situated about 90 degrees from the altar. He practically stayed there for the entire ceremony. His angle of view covered the entire church, but I'm sure he probably missed some full-length shots.

[surfidaho]

Howdy!

 

Most establishments that have "no movement rules" allow people to shoot the processional from the front with full flash, then everything else from the back with no flash once the ceremony starts.

 

I would shoot from the balcony. You don't have to worry about large hats, you've got the best seat in the house, you don't need ultra-closeups for the ceremony, and recessionals photographed from the balcony are awesome.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[surfidaho]

Howdy!

 

Mary, I'm going to post a link to a wedding shot from a balcony with a 70-200mm lens for instructional purposes.

 

www.lesboisphotography.com/PatrickAndShara/?show=070217_163122_1.html

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[cabbiinc]

I would say that you need a telephoto lens on one body and a wide angle on another and be certain that you get the kiss and everything in that region. The kiss is what I would concentrate on and anything else that vantage point would yield, the rings, the prayer, all that.

 

A second shooter would also do you alot of good. Being that you cant move a second vantage point would be ideal. Possibly a third shooter/assistant as well depending on the grandure of the church.

 

A remote camera could work, but if something goes wrong with it you wont be able to do anything about it. Nothing wrong with trying but I would have a second shooter as well.

 

If something goes wrong and you absolutely have to break the rules then do it as descretely as possible. I could be wrong but I doubt that the officiant will stop the whole ceremony for you.

 

That's what an amerture like me would do.

 

Dan

[edward_brewington]

I was in the same predicament once. If ever that is told to me again,I will not comply. Just be as descreat as possible and do your job. Don't move around too much, but get the shots that you know are important. The Bride will appreciate that you got the shots. Some officiators are overbearing,and you are working for the B&G not the officiator. You don't want to be in the position to have to explain to the B&G and family why you don't have certain shots. Trust me on this they will not understand any restriction put upon you. Get the shots respectfully.

[picturesque]

I agree with some above--double check with the church coordinator--most churches will let you stand in the aisle (if at the back) with flash to get the processional, and then get to your stationary spot immediately after the bride reaches the altar.

 

Usually, if told to pick a spot and stay there, coordinators say it should be behind the last seated guest. The best place is in the aisle on the floor or in the balcony. If you are not in the aisle, you don't get the full length shot of the couple. Visit the church and gauge the length of the aisle to figure out what focal length you need to get reasonable shots of the altar area.

 

The thing about being stationary at the back is, you just concentrate on getting the highlights of the ceremony and leave it at that, or you re-create some shots later for focal perspective and angle of view variety. It can be done quickly and efficiently but you have to have a plan and know what shots you want. You will be surprised at how these re-created shots can look real. The emotions are still there.

 

Several things--it does not hurt to ask the officiator to turn the bride and groom toward each other during the vows and ring exchange so that at least you see a side view of each. Or tell the couple. Usually, you don't see the groom putting the bride's ring on, but you do see the bride putting the groom's ring on (re-create both later, especially close-ups). Same with candle lighting, if they have one. They should stand to each side of the candle so at least you can get a shot where you can see the candle flame.

 

I also pointedly ask the officator to stay after the ceremony and not take his robes off, so that I can get the re-creations and the one posed shot with the couple. Many of them run off right after the ceremony is over.

[picturesque]

You folks who would break the rules--I have seen and experienced the officiant stopping the ceremony to tell the photographer to get back/out, etc., although when I experienced it, the officiant thought I was the rule breaker when I was not at fault. The couple or their families may appreciate your breaking the rules on their behalf--IF you get away with it. If you don't, they will not support you because they have no say in whether the church allows you back at some future wedding. Even in large cities, what you do now can and will affect you down the line.

[ilkka_nissila]

Why would the couple hire a professional photographer and have the ceremony in a church which does not allow the photographer to move about? I think that's just a terrible way of spending money! Two photographers, one who has facial view of the couple during the ceremony, and the other who is on the aisle, this is possible.

 

But one photographer behind the guests? It's entirely unreasonable. The officiant, altar, and bride and groom are all squashed into one plane. Very impersonal and cold.

[picturesque]

I could be wrong, but usually, if told to be stationary, a second photographer on the side, close to guests is probably not going to be allowed. The whole point of being stationary (from the church's point of view) is to minimize distraction from the photographer's movements, and to prevent him or her from walking around. That is why, usually, standing behind the last seated guest goes hand in hand with being stationary. Frank did not say this was a rule for him, though. If he hired a second photographer, he might be able to place the second somewhere else, but stationary. However, any position along a side aisle or at the rear of the altar, to the side, might only allow one face to be shown, not both.

 

In any case, we photographers have to remember that the wedding is not all about the photography/photographer. I would say part of being a professional is managing to get the necessary shots with grace--in other words, not antagonizing officiants and church staff with aggressive attitudes and actions. I personally find it amazing that many photographers refuse to re-create. I understand the drive to get it all as it happens and how it fits into the PJ philosophy, etc., and when possible, I do that too. However, when faced with a choice of going against church rules or re-creating, I re-create. As I said above, the emotions are still fresh, so the images are still powerful, but you have to be organized.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>In any case, we photographers have to remember that the wedding is not all about the photography/photographer.</i>

<p>

I agree. But I would have to be sure that the B&G understand the implications of the restrictions on the quality of photography before agreeing to do the wedding.

<p>

<i>

I personally find it amazing that many photographers refuse to re-create.

</i><p>

For me, recording things as they are/take place is at the heart of photography. I wouldn't want to bother the people involved by having them do it all again. That would turn the situation into a circus in my mind. And often a redo isn't quite the same as the original. Once I remember asking the couple (who were my friends) to do the kiss again because I had a flash recharge issue at the very moment. The recreation was just not serious at all, it went into excess. I've always felt that events as they occur for the first time have a freshness and gentleness that a recreation is unlikely to capture. Just my feelings.

[sam_ellis]

My only suggestion would be to speak to the actual person performing the ceremony. I've been told "the rules" by church managers only to have the priest or minister tell me not to worry about it and to get the shots I need for the couple. As someone said, it may only be a rule that is in place once the religious part of the ceremony begins. You may be free to move around until the first prayer and then again for the kiss. Some officiants/churches are more sanctimonious than others, you just have to deal with it.

 

I was going to suggest a second photographer as well, but again, it depends on if the couple is willing to pay the extra. Restrictions placed on you shouldn't affect your bottom line.

 

I personally would never intentionally break the rules of the church! If the rule is no flash, I will not use flash regardless of what the guests are doing. I can't imagine how it would look to the 100-300 guests if the officiant kicked the photographer out- talk about negative publicity!

 

I did get a "no flash" rule once and the minister told all the guests before the ceremony started that they weren't allowed to take any pictures. I was obviously happy that she made the rule for everyone and not just the professional.

 

Sam

[craig_shearman1]

At this point you are obviously locked into this wedding and will have to make the best of it. But going forward I would keep this on your list of "bad" churches and tell future brides you won't accept contracts to shoot there because the restrictions are unreasonable and keep you from delivering the quality of work the bride should be able to expect.

[walter_degroot]

OK the B*&G always want nice wedding photos, and they hire a potographer.

in the event they stay married 50 years ( I am at 48 today)

the main photo sits on the mantle and visitiors exclaim.

who is that or "what happened to you"..

but as a fairly conservative church member, I cannot see the unreasonable

restrictions put on photographers.

THAT IS unless some previous photographer or videographer acted like a clown and

made it HIS day not theirs.

I have seen the mother of the groom act as if it were her day.

and I have heard a pastor say " it;s MY CHURCH" and what I say goes."<p>trouble

is there will be lots of snappers and snapees at the wedding and it is unfair to

the working professional.

[cabbiinc]

"You folks who would break the rules" I assume your talking at least in part to me since I am the only one that even suggested it. But I want to point out that I said "If something goes wrong and you absolutely have to break the rules then do it as descretely as possible". In other words do your absolute best to not have to break the rules. Talking to the B/G and agreeing to recreations is one way of not having to deal with that. All good points.

[picturesque]

Dan--I wasn't singling you out. Several people talked about breaking the rules. I commented because I have heard other wedding photographers express outrage at rules and say that they don't think they should have to follow rules since the bride and groom are their bosses, not the officiant. I also commented because, as I said, I have actually seen photographers thrown out, as well as had an officiant throw me out--mistakenly. I think the outrage and ignoring the rules are silly when you can get great images following the rules--getting what you can during and re-creating after.

 

Ilkka--I agree with you. Re-creations are not the same, the moment has passed. However, if you can't get that moment, you can still, with some effort, get 'similar' moments, that will still look fine in the album and years later--still function in the same way, as images that help your client remember the ceremony and possibly the emotions of the day. I think your example is not the norm. I've asked couples to recreate the kiss, ring exchange and just looking into each others eyes, and many times you couldn't tell it was a recreation. Even if you had free rein during a ceremony, you still can't get some shots you can get if you recreate--such as extreme close-ups of the hands and rings, or in a Hispanic ceremony, the exchange of coins.

 

Of course, it is entirely up to you and your client, what would be appropriate, but in my opinion, an image, even if recreated, is better than no image, and sometimes the recreated image is better than what you could have gotten otherwise. And recreations are better than annoying the officiant/church staff, particularly since they can bar you from ever photographing in their church again. They at least have that much power, no matter how photographers assign authority. With the way the market is now, I would not want to have that happen in too many churches in my community, and I doubt that clients will change the church on the request of the photographer. Again, the wedding is not about the photography.

[surfidaho]

Howdy!

 

Walter Degroot said:

 

"THAT IS unless some previous photographer or videographer acted like a clown and made it HIS day not theirs".

 

That is precisely the point. The rules are usually there because somebody did.

 

I look at rules as just another creative challenge. It's my job as a professional to get the best results possible while conforming to the rules of the establishment.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[patrick_p]

I understand why they don't want a photographer running around snapping shots. It can be very distracting and detract from the moment. It is not all about the photos afte all.

 

Just ask the priest and couple to stay after the ceremony to do some posed shots.

[lorriman]

Nadine:"I doubt that clients will change the church on the request of the

photographer.

 

As I've been lead to understand: for marriages Catholics are beholden to their

parish priest, and in theory might not be given permission to have the ceremony

elsewhere (although a bishop can overrule, but a bishop will prefer to support the

priest). I know of a parish priest who chose to exercise such power to stop the

couple having a priest of their own choice instead of himself.

 

So if a lot of your clients are catholics and the parish priest is on the difficult side

then, as NAdine suggests, it probably would be best to avoid being banned.