A Rant from the Clergy... Photos During Ceremony

[ifti]

Solution is to Communicate well but then be tolerant as a fraction of them will be 'sinners' knowingly or innocently.

[bill_keane2]

Thank you Nadine!

[Not Here]

Good Luck Bill... you're fighting a collective generation of rude and crude, and it's ok because they think it's their right to do whatever they want. Somehow I don't think "Let there be light" extended to a point/shoot flash at three times it's effective range... the pros - no excuse for breaking rules, but several here have noted and are correct, the general public has absolutely no idea what that camera is doing when they hold it up above their head, with one hand no less, and fire it off in the ceremony.

[jack_welsh]

My whole point was that the church belong to the people. But, the minister is the one who is in charge, "of the flock",

so, to speak. That person is like the boss of a company. the wishes of that individual is what counts. I know some of

the guests, could probably do the wrong thing and take flash photos at the wrong time.But, the pro photogs are just

that, pros. And, like any pro in any profession, have to act as such. And, as pros, they need to respect the wishes of

who is in charge of the church.

Do I do weddings, no. But,I did learn to give respect when it was due. Such, as to a minister,etc.

[vrankin]

As a minister of thirty years and with forty plus as a serious amateur photographer, I feel for all of you. When working with

couples I make my request for "no flash". But once the ceremony starts I'm so into it that I don't notice, neither do I let the

behaviors of others in the room distract me form the one role I have, assisting the bride, groom, wedding party, family and

guests to participate in a most sacred and joyous moment in life. Ten years from now, who cares whether they followed

my requests, or not?

[gpjoell3]

Bill, please read my post again. The Executive Minister did not preside over the wedding. He was merely an invited guest. He received an invitation from the B/G and attended the wedding. This was a very large wedding at a very prestigious Church. The expectations for great photographs were high. I did everything I could to ensure that I complied with the church and my client. This letter came out of left field. Actually, when I received the mail, I thought it was an AT-A-BOY.

 

I did not mean to take away from your post. It was just so ironic that this post was at the top of my email after returning from my studio. I had just finish talking to the MOB about the letter when I clicked on this post. I always try to comply with the rules and feel that any discrepancies between my clients wants and the wants of the establishment is between them. If they can not agree, then I have to error on the side of my client.

 

Here is another story and then I will quit. The FOB was the officiant and stated that no flash photographer was allowed during the ceremony. I complied and everyone was happy. The expectations were not high and neither was the stress...

 

I do this every week and I try to get it right most of the time.

[billfoster]

Hi Bill. I think you hit on a problem that is happening throughout society. I travel a lot and I mean A LOT, 250 + days a year to every continent except Antartica and everywhere I go, I see this. Whenever I am in a location that groups people together, whether a church or palace that can only be seen on guided tour or a ceremony or a concert or whatever, it seems as if the ubiquity of technology has led to there being ten times as many photographers in any given group as there used to be and - yes - most of them don't have a clue what they are doing. They are popping off flashes to take pictures of people 500 yards away and stepping in front of each other and etc, etc. This is, I think, leading to a crackdown on all photography, especially in Europe.

 

Cheap point and shoots and camera phones are a real revolution and we are only seeing the beginning of it. Unfortunately, I think you are noticing that there are also some serious downsides.

[bill_keane2]

Yes, Bill. I think you're spot on. How about having to ask people to turn off their cell phones before a tragic funeral, and a few still don't. Add to that a person who actually takes a call, goes into the hallway of the funeral home and loudly continues a conversation of absoutely no import?

 

And I say this as someone who loves technology -- photo, audio, astronomical...

[jimstrutz]

I am another minister that both performs and shoots weddings. -- I guess some of us just like parties.

 

I have been allowed to use flash during the ceremony at some churches (and other venues), but I don't do it, for the same reason that I ask photographers and attenders not to use flash at the weddings I perform -- I think it's rude and annoying to the rest of us during a romantic and solemn occasion. However, if the happy couple ever asked me to allow flash, I would comply. If they don't mind, I can get over it. I doubt God is offended either way.

 

But I agree with you Bill, the populace at large seems to be getting more self serving every year, and those irritating little point & shoots are getting more annoying and confusing all the time. I have seen a minister stop a wedding to address the issue once, but he had warned people before hand that he would if he saw a flash.

 

I attended one wedding where the non-professional-but-official-photographer walked all over the place, both in front of and behind the minister, getting in close for the ring exchange, and using flash all the time. I was truly shocked and can't imagine why the minister didn't excommunicate him on the spot. But alas, the couple is still happily married, so perhaps the major damage was only done to my sensibilities.

[brad_hutcheson]

I try to avoid photographing weddings as much as possible since I mostly do landscape photography. Even so, I

get talked into it once in a while. The last wedding I did was a Coptic wedding a couple of years ago. I didn't

know what to expect since I had never even been in an orthodox church of any kind before, much less one where the

ceremony would be in Arabic. As it turned out, everyone was very nice, which I expected, but what I didn't

expect was how much help I got from the priest and a couple of the guests. There were virtually no restrictions

on what I could do, and I used flash through the entire ceremony. At certain points the priest would motion for

me to come up on the altar to get some close ups, and the only restriction was that I had to take my shoes off.

I was even led behind the altar at one point to get shots from behind. No one seemed to notice me, and even

though I was being as discrete as possible I wasn't exactly invisible. I was able to get many shots that I never

would have been able to get if I had been stuck in the back of the church on a tripod with not flash.

 

I can understand not wanting to be blinded by flashes going off in your face, but at most of the weddings I've

attended the pastor spends most of his time looking at the couple or his Bible, not staring into the

photographer's flash to get blinded.

 

The bottom line is that if I was told no flash I would try to negotiate with the presiding minister, but if that

didn't work I would explain the limitations to the couple and do my best. I don't rely on wedding photography

for any of my income, and even I wouldn't try to pull the "it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission"

routine. Most guests are using tiny cameras with tiny flashes that aren't really very noticeable compared to a

Metz or Lumedyne or even a Canon 580EX or Nikon SB800, so I can't agree with the sentiment I've seen before that

if the guests start using flash I'm going to ignore the rules too. I personally feel the wedding should be

photographed the way the bride and groom want it, but of course there are limits to that. If there are limits we

have to live with them. As for what the minister should do, I'm afraid I don't have much advice, but stopping

the ceremony to complain or throw out a photographer would be horrifying to the wedding party, so I'd say deal

with the flash and ban the photographer for a period of time afterward, and permanently if they can't follow the

rules after that. There really isn't anything at all you can do about the guests.

[john schroeder]

During the few weddings I have shot I have always tried to be respectful to the "Rules of the house". In my opinion a "Pro" wedding photographer should have the skills and equipment to capture the day with or without flash, from the balcony or from the floor. As a the photographer shooting the wedding I have a responsibility to my client to preform. There are no excuses! The church weddings I have shot: I've contacted the church before hand to verify the rules. I show up early to get the lay of the land and choose the best locations to shoot from. I decide what equipment I will need. Ultimately I work for my client and not the Church. I have a responsibility to them to record the day. If that means asking the church to maintain a lighting level so I don't have to use a flash then so be it. If that means setting up a few tripods to shoot from ahead of time then so be it. Every church I have shot in has been willing to make compromises for the couple getting married. After all, it's the couple's day, and the church understands that. As a professional it's up to ME to explain my needs and reach a compromise that will allow the everyone to be happy. I don't consider myself to be a "Wedding Photographer", but I am a professional and I act accordingly.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

This thread makes me wonder why more people don't just elope.

[William Michael]

I am not going to enter the wider debate.

 

I think one main reason for the amount of `flash` photography happening, when specifically it is asked not to happen, is exactly what Bill Keane wrote:

 

`My sense is that people simply don't know how to operate their equipment.`

 

With P&S or DSLR it is just that in many cases people have `Auto Everything` Mode selected and the Flash simply fires . . . I doubt if the Flash is actually conciously noticed by the `Photographer` it just doesn`t register in their brain what is happening because they just `point and shoot`, even though they see other Flashes around them: it still doesn`t register that they too are the other people flashing away.

 

I do some work at Swimming Meets: Flash photography is (supposedly) Prohibited, especially at the Start.

 

At a recent State Meet, I was facing the Starter, standing just next to the front seats of the Grand Stand and had a spread of the Starting Blocks with a 16 to 35 on a 5D. . .

 

The very race previous (1 minute earlier) the Referee had dropped the False Start Rope and a Public Announcement was made Stressing that Flash Photography was PROHIBITED at the start of the race as it can distract the swimmers. (there are always two start signals: one a visual, usually a strobe, the other audio, usually an horn).

 

Just as the Referee whistled the swimmers to the Blocks, I heard the little `click - POP` in my left ear . . . it was a 400D with a 70 to 300 and the POP UP Flash ready to go.

 

I said, `Your Flash is up, you can`t use Flash` . . .

 

The owner of the 400D had no idea what was happening and why I was even talking about the Pop Up Flash being up . . . I said: `you cant use Flash`

 

She said: `I am not using my Flash, I heard the announcement and I have kept my Flash gun in my camera bag!`

 

WW

[john schroeder]

As far as the people in the pews using flash. They just don't have a clue how to use there cameras. Thirty plus years ago a family would have ONE camera. It belong to either mom or dad and they knew how to use it. Today everyone has their own camera. A red one for Bobby, a pink one for Suzie, a silver one for Mom, and a black one for Dad. Nobody has a clue how to use them properly. Thirty plus years ago an SLR cost a months pay and there was considerable responsibility take in learning how to use it properly. Today you can buy a point and shoot for a hundred buck or a SLR kit for less than a weeks pay and very few people bother to read the owners manual. The average consumer expects the camera to do everything for them. I deal with these people every day at my store. They just want/expect to press the button and somehow, magically get a beautiful photo. When they don't it's somehow the camera's fault. Automatic does not mean perfect! If you don't want flash used during the ceremony then politely tell everyone that if they don't know how to turn off their flashes then turn off their cameras. They can get photos from another guest or buy them from the photographer. As far as the photographer who uses flash after being told not to... He answers to his client not you. You could ask that his soul burn in a fiery, everlasting hell for using a flash (tongue-in-cheek sarcasm), or, you could just warn him sternly and then forgive him. Anger is a burning ember. It only burns the one who holds on to it.

[john schroeder]

That should read "He answers to his client AND TO YOU." It would be nice if I could copy/cut past correctly. I don't want to anger the clergy. Their boss can have a temper and my house is on low ground.

[photo_dark]

I'm with Robert Budding... thanks for the laugh!

 

Maybe i'm lucky in that I don't rely on wedding photography as a primary source of income so I can be picky but....

 

...What ever happened to photography (especially wedding photography) being exciting, fun and rewarding? Some people on here seem to have this notion that since "in the old days" cameras were expensive and difficult to use that only professional photographers and rich uncle bob's should have access to them today.

 

I shot a wedding last weekend where EVERYONE in the audience had a point and shoot and was taking pictures. Afterwards I was talking with the bride and groom and the minister, and they said that they didn't even notice... and really, I didn't even notice... well, except for the one Uncle snapping away with a D50 and a Vivitar on FULL BLAST. Now that was annoying, although it was likely he had at least some clue how to use the thing.

 

So what then, the bride and groom get all my professional work in an album to hold on to, while the rest of the image show up on facebook that evening drawing a flurry of comments, congratulations and excitement. Is that really so bad?

 

My outlook is that photography as a whole is constantly changing and evolving... Maybe for the worse, but probably for the better. The less willing you are to accept this change, the more likely you are to become a shriveled up cranky old dog and live your life out without any friends aside from other cranky old dogs on P.net (end sarcasm).

 

On a serious note, maybe the ugly fact that some of you older guys aren't willing to accept is that the role of the professional photographer may someday change to a point where that specific title is no longer relevant. You are right Bill, modern cameras are fantastic tools. Perhaps it is about time that the creativity and fun of photography begins to take more of an equal playing field with pure technical prowess.

[iconometry.net]

I am a photographer who sometimes shoots weddings and who for a time worked as director of publications and media for a church. Ours was a historic church with lots of nice architectural features, and as a result a lot of couples who were not members would request to be married there. Some couples sadly saw the church (the building) as just a backdrop and failed to understand that the church saw the ceremony as entering into a faith relationship as well as everything else it is. I knew couples to move their ceremonies to commercial venues to get the background and decorations they wished. That sometimes is the best path. There is a wide latitude in what is allowed, and I respect the wishes of each church. I am prepared to take photographs with or without flash. (Besides a few wide aperture lens, a monopod also helps on those occasions. I have one with those nice little feet at the bottom.) For the guests, I've seen some churches with notices about camera or flash restrictions printed in the bulletins or placed on discrete signs near the entrances.

[deanfryda]

Hello Bill. Like yourself my wife is also a minister. What it boils down to is respect. The Pastor should have the final say in the matter. So many people have this attitude that you can't tell them what to do.

 

I've done plenty of weddings and several of them the Priest or Pastor has requested no flash photography. When that happens I use the 1.4 or 2.8 on a higher ISO setting. Like several others have already stated, if you're a good photographer you'll get the important shots. I have to admit however, when I have missed a shot, I've been able to explain to the minister that because of not being able to use a flash I missed a shot that I thought was really important. I've never had a problem with a minister not letting me recreate that shot, and in one occasion the Priest told me he was letting me recreate the shot just because I respected his wishes and didn't use a flash. As far as my wife goes, she does allow flash photography during her weddings. She knows just by working with her mother and trying to show her how to use a digital camera, there is no way to teach them how to turn off that auto flash.

 

Once again, it boils down to respect for the person officiating the ceremony. I almost always stop by the rehearsals the day before to check out what the shooting conditions are going to be like, and I always talk with pastor in front of the bride and groom so that everyone is clear on what the rules are.

[brad_hutcheson]

David Bowens made me think back to my own wedding. The photographer my mother in law hired was using a Mamiya RZ 67 with a Lumedyne flash. My brother was using his Mamiya 645 and Metz 45 flash set to expose Kodak VPS as if it were 80 ISO. The interior of the church was dark, but well lit. We didn't notice the sound of either noisy camera or either of the powerful flashes in use. I really think we all notice the things we are looking for a lot more than if we weren't worried about it. In other words, you notice the flashes going off because you said not to use them, so you kind of look for them. Out of the hundreds of weddings my brother did I never heard him say that the minister had to stop because his big flash blinded him. As I said before, I'd obey whatever rules the church had, but if you are getting blinded by a guest taking pictures I'd have to wonder if you are too concerned with what the guests are doing rather than the ceremony itself. I wasn't there, so maybe the guest was right in your face, but if they were 10-20 feet or more back like most weddings I've been to, I can't imagine you having to stop because of a purple glare on your retina unless you kept looking toward the flash. Just a thought really.

[William Michael]

WOOF! WOOF! (end counter sarcasm)

 

It is not that the role of Professional Photography (ers) is changing, it is that media & reportage and the conduits they travel and the outputs they maintain are all being redefined.

 

All actions and modes of the recording and display of the still image, is only a small portion of this evolution.

 

One of the real difficulties, (whether it is acknowledge or not), of any evolution is the redefining of the rules and expectations.

 

It is quite apparent that what used to be defined as accurate and stable reportage is not necessarily consistent with what might be viewed on U tube, for example.

 

Noted that fun is good, fun is really good and very necessary . . . but so is the pursuit and survival of excellence, all areas.

 

It is excellence and the pursuit of it and the acknowledgment of it and the desire to learn it that is portion of what makes us what we are, as a whole and growing society.

 

Baseball is fun too, and so is Swimming and so is playing the Piano, but I still think we need Little League, Learn to Swim Schools and Basic Music taught just as much as we need Our Sporting Champions and Maestros . . . and, importantly everything else in between.

 

We all can enjoy swinging a bat or paddling in a pool, playing a tune, and taking photos.

 

But do not let us redefine ourselves such that mediocrity is the only survivor in all or any areas of this massive Media and Reportage Evolution.

 

WW

[john fleshin]

Sounds as if we have all had similar situations.

 

The guest flashes when you are trying to be subtle, well I shot a wedding in France, and members of the wedding

party took P&S camera out of their Tuxes and shot during the mass and wedding ceremony. No one seemed to

mind, but I had to watch getting photos of the Best Man with a camera in one hand. I would have shot the Priest

with a camera if someone had handed the camera to him, if only to post here.

 

I used to always try to chat with the guy doing the marrying, before the service, and there was a wide variety of what

they wanted, the younger ones were more open, but I still try to remain out of the line of sight whenever I could, and

take a reasonable number of photos, many without flash. One told me not to ask him to hold the flash, another

wanted to buy a print.

 

I do know, generally, the key moments, when you have to make a dynamic good shot, and the client is relying on

me to get the money shots, not the guests.

 

IMO, many people are not very selective at what they shoot, especially in a digital era, and I wonder about people

shooting hundreds and hundreds of images. The first studio I worked for had me shoot a hundred photos at a two

hour event, and when you do the math, you should not be shooting every few seconds, and yes I thought if I did this

it was a photo event, not a ceremony, just my opinion. I shot 72.

 

I hear some people shooting 500 or more images, and some burn a CD at the reception, hand it to the B&G and are

done. The phrase, less is more comes to mind. I do not think that many photos makes the day better for the B&G

or their family.

 

Very hard to control guests, and yes I am annoyed when 50 people are firing flashes when I have been directed not

to use flash. I have worked from the side, out of sight, with available light, and one guy stopped the service and

announced via the microphone that I was making too much noise adjusting my finder. Old generation, then he

lectured me afterwards about the videographer, who I did not even know.

 

The role of guests, if they want to really help, is to get the people I do not know, and personal shots of their group.

There will be family members, important ones, I can miss as they do not present themselves nor are wearing a

flower. Same for friends, guests really can contribute here.

 

It happens, you have to deal with people.

 

If I like the people hanging around when I am shooting formals, I either let them shoot after me, or if they are

interfering, after I shoot, I step into the shot to move people around. Nothing like making a 30 minute shoot last an

hour and having to rush. I have used people's cameras for them. And I know someone firing a P&S in lower light with

flash at 20 feet may not get the shot they think they will get.

 

Far cry from the days I had to go home between the wedding and reception to change the film holders, because I

only had ten, and five were borrowed.

 

I only photographed one Briss, and yes, the official insisted on no flash during the cutting.

 

I agreed, and the young man today probably agrees.

[bjscharp]

Hold a short speech at the start of the ceremony, mention the `no flash' rule, and explain:

 

"To turn off flash, press the button with the lightning bolt until a crossed-out lightning bolt appears in the screen. For the people with (D)SLR's, turn the wheel from the green square to the square with the crossed-out lightning bolt. Thank you for your cooperation."

[fotografz]

No one HAS to get married in a church ... they choose to. When they make that choice they don't suddenly become the "head of that

household" and make the rules. For those that

believe, it's God's house and the clergy makes the rules.

 

And, clients did not make that choice to facillitate better photography, but to be joined in marriage according to their religious beliefs.

 

Heck, if photography were the primary objective, it would be much easier if clients would just get married in my studio : -)

 

IMO, if a photographer takes money for this type work, they had better be prepared to shoot in any circumstances: lots of light, very little

light, short or long distances. It's a matter of

the right equipment, skill and experience.

 

Controlling the guests is another matter.

 

Maybe a simple sign like at concerts ... Please. No Flash Photograpy.

[manuel barrera houston,]

In my home town we have speed limit signs on the freeways, no one seems to pay heed to them. Good luck, keep telling people no flash allowed and praying that people will heed your words.

[laverephoto]

Ultimately, the use of flash and its un-sacredness are a matter of opinion, not theology. I shoot hundreds of weddings and I have

noticed a huge difference in expectations regarding flash during the ceremony from one minister to the next. While I always follow the

rules, I think it is curious that Orthodox ceremonies usually require me to be very obtrusive to the point that it disturbs my comfort level.

But, I realized I had to get over it when the priest at an orthodox church sternly suggested that I take a position right in the middle of the

action because the bride and groom would be very disappointed if I didn't get the shot. Funny thing is, even though flash is quite heavily

used by guests and photographers at Orthodox weddings, the priest has never lost his place in the reading of the liturgy. Flashes of

righteous indignation are perhaps more distracting than strobe flashes?

 

As for cheapening the moment, what about the value of these pictures as a reminder and keepsake of the sacred part of the wedding?

20 years from now when the marriage is less fresh and exciting what keepsakes of the ceremony will this couple have to remind and

inspire them? Even if as you suggest, the pictures aren't that good anyway they are still a valuable reminder of the significance of the

day. I take time and attention to get good pictures in the church because I care about that aspect of the wedding day.

 

Getting good pictures in churches is a technical challenge in many locations because churches are often very dark. It is impossible to

get sharp pictures in some churches because you often are at a shutter speed that can't freeze the motion of the subject. For that a

tripod is of no use. The only alternative is flash. While I always follow the rules, I can site many occasions where restrictions on the

use of flash made good results impossible to achieve.

 

It is possible that the photographer's don't care about your instructions because they are more focused on the wishes of their clients.

While I always follow the rules, I have sensed that my clients are often very unhappy about photography restrictions and nervous that

the restrictions will negatively effect the outcome of the investment they have made in recording their big day. So who do I really need

to please? I always follow the rules because I know I will be in that church again some day, but I regret being put in a position where my

clients expectations will not be met due to restrictions that are not a priority for them in the first place.