Not allowed to move

[peter_ferling]

So you've explained to her the limitations, and she put it in your hands, (she has enough else to worry about). Don't set this up to fail before it starts. Make it work. You're the pro. Scout the area, take a few test shots.

 

Click, click, click in a quiet church will sound like bang, bang, bang anyway. Folks know your there for a reason. So the ruling is a silly limitation that will have to be followed anyway.

 

The house rules are the rules. They have reasons for imposing them. It wouldn't hurt to ask why.

 

Some say break the rules in order to produce good work at the expense of being black listed. Doing so will simply enforce the need to keep them, or worse, impose a no photo policy for future weddings. Making it tougher for others after you, (you can thank the ones who came before you for creating the need for the rule you have before you now).

 

I would just smile, find a suitable location and start shooting. Then focus on the shots that worked. Some of that stuff might not find it's way into your portfolio, but you will have managed to document some precious moments that matter to the B&G anyhow.

[William Michael]

1. Who told you so?

 

I have been told many `rules` only to find out (from the person in charge) what the actual rules are.

 

2. And what are the REAL rules? The description whilst definitive might not be accurate:

 

Does the `whole `ceremony` means the moment the Bride enters the Church to the moment both the Bride and Groom leave the building?

 

If yes: Then (in most Churches) the best place to be is at the end of the Church looking down the aisle. But far enough inside to get a front on shot at the beginning of the Processional.

 

BUT I emphasise you need to define clearly what `whole ceremony` actually means.

 

3. Communication with the key people:

 

As an example: once I was specifically told, by the Curate that I `could not move during ANY of the ceremony`. But after a chat with the Rector, I was absolutely allowed to walk backwards a down the aisle for the Processional, with Flash: provided I could show him I could retreat to the rear and be stationery, by the time the Bride and her Dad had reached the Choir Steps.

 

That was easy to do I volunteered to show him at the rehearsal, he was a bit shocked, I think, but agreed.

 

When I showed up at the rehearsal I asked if I could retreat to the rear of the Choir Stalls, at the side, but very close to the Sanctuary and shoot without flash for the whole Ceremony: again the Rector wanted confirmation I could do it with NO DISRUPTION. So during the rehearsal I took two rolls on pan film with a 645 on a tripod (changing the film once).

 

He heard nothing . . . the rest is history.

 

The fact was, this Rector had a few bad experiences and had simply issued a general edict to the Curate.

 

You need to speak to the boss.

 

You can negotiate anything, usually, even if it is confirmation to do a re create later.

 

And even if you can`t negotiate anything you want, at least you know what the rules actually are.

 

Most likely you will be remembered favourably for introducing yourself in a business like and polite manner before the event: in my experience, very few photographers do introduce themselves to all the key players prior to the event, but it does not suit all business models to take the time so to do.

 

WW

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

When I can't move, I ask if I may place a camera on a tripod in the front then I ask my assistant or a guest to stand where I think the bride and the groom will stand. I then lock my focus on the guest with my 50mm 1.4 ISO 800 to 1000 (depending on the light) and throughout the event I trip the shutter remotely without flash. Normally this yields about a hand full of shot that I can use. This is where the 2d camera body comes in handy. Good luck.

[ilkka_nissila]

There is a middle ground between the photographer "running around snapping shots" and the photographer not moving at all. It is possible for a photographer to move so that they don't create a distraction. That's what the church should ask from the photographers.

[tonmestrom]

I've been told that once by the priest before the wedding and he was very strict about it. You know the type, no sense of humour at all. I blatantly refused and asked him who was more important at that moment he or the bridal pair. While that put him off balance he still refused. When the ceremony started I took my shots from all the angles that I wanted. If looks could kill.... Still, it was a fairly lengthy ceremony and after that while I did a groupportrait outside the church he came to me and actually thanked me that I hadn't disturbed the ceremony and I was welcome in his church anytime. How's that for character.

It seemed he had some very bad experiences with amateurs who almost climbed on the altar to get their shots.

 

So my advice would be the same as Williams. Talk to them a few days before and reach a understanding.

[andre_grobler]

I placed the limits on our wedding togs... just no flash during the sermon part, no shots during vows and I do parts. The kiss and rings etc. do what you want and need, preferably from about 3m+ away... don't interrupt proceedings. after service go wild as long as the light was good... Picked time and location for good light in the first place...

Loved the results... the church has lovely light that time of day, some of the pics were a bit noisy, but as I told them I'd rather have the moment than the shot... but it was a very spiritual thing for us, ymmv. We set the whole tone like that, so all the guests fell in with it, without being told, they only snapped while togs did...

[dave_hoffmann]

I agree with a post above -- REMOTE CAMERAS.

[bjscharp]

Me too. Go a bit wide (say 35mm), so chances are better the B&G will be in the picture. Set a medium aperture, and focus won't be super-important.

 

You'll need to do some PP (cropping, background blurring), but any picture is better than no picture.

[vrankin]

I'm in the position of being the officiating pastor for thirty years of weddings, plus

being an avid photog and having done weddings while in seminary years ago. I can

give you the view from both sides that might be helpful. First of all, it's true that a

wedding in a church understandably has to be a sacred ceremony first, and a media

event second. Hardened positions on both sides cause tremendous tensions. So

the best approach (the one that works with me as the officiant) is to introduce

yourself personally to the officiant sometime very early in the process, ideally

around the time of the rehearsal. Let the officiant know that you respect the need for

the ceremony to be the central event. Ask whether you may have the freedom to

move about before and after the ceremony, using your flash. Offer to work

discreetly without flash during the ceremony. Ask the officiant where you will be

allowed to work. Then, ask for one more place. It works with me. We have a place

in the front corner of the chancel where the photog can shoot over the shoulder of

the officiant and get the couple, wedding party and congregation. Ideally, a second

person can work (also without flash) from the balcony, a nice vantage point, and the

center aisle. Mutual respect gets the best results. I know this from both sides. I'm

always more positively inclined toward a photog who takes the time to introduce him

or herself and negotiate. Someone who takes over the whole process believing that

the room ought to be theirs because they have a commercial commitment to the

couple will not impress me well, and may need to be addressed in the presence of

others. I've only had to do this once, in over one hundred weddings.

[bobsimsphoto]

I am not saying that I agree with churches who have this policy, but this is why the

couple hires a professional to shoot their wedding. We, as professionals, are

supposed to be able to get the shot no matter the restriction/circumstance.

 

I shot a wedding 2 weeks ago that had the same restrictions( I even had to sign a

contract from the church stating I knew and would follow the rules of the church

which the bride and groom had to sign as well). I was only permitted to shoot w/

flash for the processional/recessional.

 

So, I shot the proc/rec. with a 5d w/24-70 f2.8L w/580EX on flash bracket and

then I moved to the very back of the church, and positioned myself in the center

aisle where my assistant was waiting with a 40D(on a monopod mounted w/ 70-

200 f2.8L).

 

I understand it is our job to "get the shot", but I will not do anything that could

cause me to get "banned" from shooting in a certain church, which has happened

to some photographers in my area, BTW!

[shawn_mertz]

About 1/3 of the weddings I do are still like this. It is traditional wedding photography. I

did a wedding last year, they had assigned spot for the processional 7 pews from the

back. During the ceremony at the door just inside, over 150 feet from the couple. The

officiant was the bride's father. Many churches still believe ceremonies are sacred. This

isn't a big problem, recreate a few shots if they want to.

 

I have a done weddings that I wasn't allowed in the hotel room during the ceremony,

because they thought it would be distracting. Not a problem, The couple chooses the

church, roll with it. Wedding photographers should never behave like paparazzi.

[think27]

Many of you should try and understand that sometimes the couple is getting married at a church they grew up in and wouldn't think of getting married elsewhere.

 

Other reasons could be location, capacity, the "look" of the church etc.

 

When possible - if you are chosen or talking to a couple before they pick the wedding venue - it is a good idea to suggest they talk to the priest/minister/rabbi before hand and see if the policies go hand in hand with the priorities of the couple. Some couples have the ceremony as the first priority and the photography is second.

 

Bottom line without repeating some good advice from Nadine, Peter and William - as the photographer - YOU have to make the best of it. Breaking the rules is a bad idea because some churches will not let you back in and you then are the ones making it tough for the rest of us.

 

I've had only two experiences where I was not allowed to "move". One where I was not even allowed to photograph the processional from the isle.

When I know in advance I have an unmoving officiant (pardon the pun), I tell the couple to say they don't have an official photographer but a family member will take photos from the pews but with no flash. They then designate a spot for me in the pew on the isle so I can lean over and shoot to my heart's content. Or - shooting from the balcony with a zoom lens is a wonderful way to capture the ceremony.

 

William mentions negotiating. I've had quite a few officiants bend the rules for me. I talk to them, show them my rubber soles, explain how quiet and unobtrusive I am and that always - guests say they never even knew I was there - and asked for a tiny bit of leeway being very clear on what I'd like to do. I often get a good response with "some" boundaries but not as many as was initially implied.

 

One church said one spot in the balcony only. They then relaxed and let me move around in the balcony. (The promise to move slowly and my rubber soles and no flash got me that compromise). Others - as soon as they found out I didn't use flash - they were cool. Outdoors - when told no flash - got the officiant to relax and say - no flash in his/her face - so I waited until he looked down or shot from a position where he wouldn't see the flash.

 

I agree with the advice to talk to the officiant first. In some churches there are strict rules but different priests/ministers etc.. within the same church have varying degrees of compliance.

[plavchak]

Remember, most times you can re stage the shots you miss. Such as the ring exchange, kiss, candle lighting ect.. after the ceremony. No one will ever know this when looking at the pictures.

[wedding-photography-denver]

If you have to pick a spot, the back of the aisle (behind the last guest somewhere) on the grooms side would be mine.

[matt_needham]

I agree that it's best to ask the actual officiant. About half the time I find their personal rules aren't as strict as the house rules. I've had different priests in the same church be at opposite ends of the spectrum: one is "no flash! no movement!", and the other says "anything goes" and actually helps organize the ceremony so it's easier to photograph.

 

My contract says I am obligated to follow any photography restrictions set by the location/officiator. I discuss it with the couple before they sign the contract, and do my best with the options I'm given. I've found most folks are very understanding.

[lou korell]

"I am not saying that I agree with churches who have this policy, but this is why

the couple hires a professional to shoot their wedding. We, as professionals, are

supposed to be able to get the shot no matter the restriction/circumstance."

 

Sorry but no we are not. As professionals we are expected to respect the rules of

the venues at which we work and also if that venue is a church, the sanctity of the

church and its regulations.

 

When couples decide to marry in a church they are making a choice. Their

ceremony has religious connotation and as such they are bound by the

regulations set by the minister, priest, rabbi, etc.

 

They are making a compromise and so must we. Getting the shot at all costs is

not the mark of a pro. It is a sign that we value our egos and/or our wallets before

respect and dignity.

 

Papparazzi are often accused of getting the shots no matter what. They make a

living by breaking rules. Fine for them, but as wedding photographers we need to

remember that we may have to work in the same place more than once. If you are

going to risk being blackballed at a venue you are shooting yourself in the foot,

and risking the financial well being of yourself and your family. not to mention,

setting the bar low for all of the photographers who do obey the rules.

 

I have had many church officials tell me horror stories about photographers and

videographers. Every one of those people makes me look suspect when I walk into

a new church or temple. One video guy even told a minister to move out of the way

during a ceremony because he was blocking a shot!

 

Do not presume you were hired by the bride and groom with the expectation that

you would break the rules of their church just to shoot a particular picture. That is

a foolish notion. When you are going to shoot in a church or temple, find out as

early as possible what your boundaries are and plan a strategy to work with that.

That is what a professional would do.

 

Lou

[lou korell]

Just realized Bob that you were actually making the same point as I was. Sorry if I came off attacking your statement. I took it to mean "do whatever you need to to get the shot...rules or not" Profound apologies.

 

Lou

[edward_brewington]

Well it seems that I've set off a firestorm. Frank,you have a varied assortment of sentiments about your question. I have shot "recreatements" that never look as good nor the same as the actual moment. There are some who always do what they are told to do no matter what. The point being you will have to make your own desscion based on you judgement. There are very few rules that are set in stone. It's your call.

[jiayao_zhao]

Bring zoom as more as possible with you,as 16-35;24-70;70-200.Then at one position you can deal them all.

[picturesque]

Edward--I don't think you've set off more of a firestorm than normal. This discussion gets repeated from time to time. Over time, I notice there are more photographers who are willing to bend/break the rules, probably due to the current drive for totally PJ coverage, and the increasing sense of entitlement wedding photographers seem to have regarding their abilty to get the images they want.

 

I sense a bit of a put down in your statement regarding 'some who always do what they are told to do no matter what'. In reality the only 'call' a wedding photographer makes is whether to go against the 'rules' or not. The only judgement is whether one is willing to accept the consequences. If, after you have tried to negotiate, clarify, and suggest to the officiant/church coordinator, you are still told to do this or that, and you find it restrictive, I cannot think of any other gray areas one can exploit that can be considered using one's judgement.

 

Perhaps you would be interested in the technique of a fellow wedding photographer. He aggressively makes no attempt to find out the rules. Then, on the wedding day, he does what he wants to and backs down meekly only if and when the church coordinator or officiant runs him off. He would say, "Oh, I'm so SORRY, I didn't know...", all the while snapping. A while ago, there was a thread concerning a famous photographer who seemed to use this technique as well. Most of the time, my colleague gets away with this, partly because he is an attractive and very personable individual. There are risks, though, and I would never be able to get away with this, and besides, I wouldn't consider it ethical, but that's me.

 

Another sly thing you can do is plant an assistant among the guests. That assistant can use flash, move around, etc., because he or she is supposedly a guest. Again, there are risks.

 

As for recreations, of course they never look as good or are the same as the actual moment, most of the time. The point is, if you really can't get the actual moment, is no image better than an image which may not be as perfect but--it exists? And I will repeat--sometimes the recreation is better than the real moment because you can control angle. Sometimes I think the reason more recreations aren't done is because the photographer just doesn't want to bother.

[William Michael]

Sometimes . . . I think those that do not bother about the recreation, might also be those who finish reading this thread, and dismiss the idea of introducing themselves to the Officiant prior to each Wedding as being all too difficult, also.

 

WW

[peter_j2]

From my experience as an observer and a wedding photographer that some churches view the official photographer as a loser. In general, it is hard to please the church.

[William Michael]

Edward: There are NO rules set in stone.

 

There are rules: there are consequences of conforming: and consequences of not conforming.

 

As mentioned, good ploy is to never seek knowledge of the rules and to plead ignorance when caught breaking the rules: that works for some rule breakers (not often for laws passed by Governments, however).

 

IMO, the pleading ignorance ploy and similar ploys, such as puffing out the chest and being gung ho, all work better for businesses that source most of their clients from raw marketing and few from personal referral: though IMO are still detrimental to these types of businesses in the longer term

 

I have worked through three W&P studios over several years: each has spent very little $ on cold advertising, but each studio prospered on personal referral. Thus, the bias of my initial comment to Frank`s question

 

The issue of referral clients impacts in two ways on this question.

 

Firstly, for a business based upon referral, the photographer is always on display and is the living breathing advertising and marketing force, both overtly and covertly, with every interaction, conversation and gesture

 

Secondly, in a referral based business, the acceptance into a specific community subset is very important: we find many referral based businesses see their old clients over and over at future events; and those events are often in the same Church: that is the kicker.

 

I do not consider myself someone who does what he is told, no matter what, in fact I am quite the rule breaker, and a non conformist in many situations, but I am usually aware of consequences, whatever path I decide.

 

I think considering firstly what business one is actually in; and secondly the consequences of all actions is a good first premise for answering this, and similar questions posted on this forum.

 

WW

[sam_ellis]

Shawn said, "Many churches still believe ceremonies are sacred. "

 

Of course they are sacred! If a wedding is in a church and done by a real minister/pastor/priest, etc, it is a sacred event. Same for beach/garden/hotel weddings done by the same people. Granted I've seen weddings done by Internet ordained ministers and there's not much sacred in that, but a marriage is a sacred event, don't let the dollar signs cloud your judgment.

 

Remember, you are working for the couple BUT you must follow the rules of the person in charge of the church. This is people's culture, not just a dog and pony show. Would you go to church on Sunday and roam around the aisles and take photos?

 

As has been said, it's best to work with the church rather than be some cavalier renegade. Be respectful.

 

Sam

[edward_brewington]

The point that I am trying to get across is that I work for the couple,not the officiator. The officiator is not going buy anything. The couple expect you to get certain shots of their wedding. They hired us to photograph those moments. I always talk to the officiators first. I always try to comply with their whims. My first job is to the couple. I am going to leave it at that.People can generally do what ever it is that they want to do. As I said earlier it is ultimately the call of the photographer. I shoot to please my client. That is just me. It works for me. YMMV!