No photos in the church

[marc_fishman]

<p>Every venue has rules that we as photographers must obey if we wish to shoot there. Many of the rules seem unfair and restrictive but most have a reason behind them. Many of the restrictions come about after the venue has a bad experience with some photographer or wedding planner and many priests are tired of distractions during a sacred ceremony. The bottom line is if you play the game their way they can send much work your way, if you make them mad you may be banned from the venue for future jobs, and yes they can ban you.</p>

[rossb]

<p>If you are talking about the Catholic church then there are no set rules about photography. Generally the B&G decide what they want and that's it. The Priest's that I have met just figure the photographer has a job to do and they should just do it the best they can.</p>

[jriherd]

<p>I was photographing a wedding anniversary mass. One of the two priests in attendance, the older one, came to me just before the ceremony and said no photos during the mass. Immediately the younger priest came over and asked if the other had told me no photos. I told him yes. He said, "Well, he's older and kind of conservative. Feel free to take all the photos you want. I don't think he'll stop the ceremony." Thankfully, the more conservative priest did not stop the mass to chew me out for taking photos. </p>

[richard___7]

<p>Mark:</p>

<p>You shouldn't be angry; maybe a little disappointed. I can appreciate your wanting to capture the spontaneity of those singular moments, but the bride chose this church and should have been given instructions by the priest BEFORE the date and she should have communicated the "rules" to you.</p>

<p>Have you ever wondered why many ministers are so adamant about "no photographs?" I have asked and found "the enemy is us!" Photographers and guests have turned this sacred ceremony into a sideshow! One priest told me of a photographer actually jumping over the altar railing to "get a shot!" A rabbi lamented about a photographer intruding under the chuppah "for a closer look!" Often, we are our own worst enemy.</p>

<p>I always make a habit of informing the bride that "I respect and follow the photographic limitations of their officiant, whether I agree with them or not." My position is further confirmed in a letter I send to the minister, introducing myself as the "official photographer" for the couple. I reiterate this before the ceremony, if we have not met previously at the rehearsal, where I state, "What are your rules regarding photography? I follow them."</p>

<p>Has this approach proved beneficial? Without a doubt. One wedding coordinator commented to me, "I don't know who you are or what you said to our priest, but you are the first photographer he's allowed to photograph in the church in the years I've been here."</p>

<p>Some brides select "rent-a-churches", just for their opulence or lengthy center aisle. They may never return to that church and may have no meaningful relation with the minister. I, on the other hand, may be doing another wedding there next week! I want a "warm" reception by all concerned. I'd rather have the minister remember me fondly, than as "that jerk from last week's ceremony!"</p>

<p>Richard</p>

[picturesque]

<p>John--I give up. I would guess most people know what I meant with my two statements, so I'll decline to attempt to explain much further. I would guess you do, too.</p>

<p>Most people getting married in a church do so because they want to. Many times, the church is their church, their family's church or at least a church with which they have some connection that is much stronger than with, for instance, your local hotel or reception venue, where, if one doesn't like an aspect, it makes perfect sense to move on. That a couple would become angry and go to another church just because church rules prohibit photography during the ceremony is narcissistic and shows what such a couple really cares about, IMO. Particularly since in all cases that I know of, re-creations are allowed after.</p>

[jmichaelc]

<p>I know that there are many views here, so i'll share mine.<br>

I've had this happen before and i've spent a lot of time personally thinking this over. I've heard many respond by saying that you should respect the religious aspects and venue rules and that "IF' you want to continue shooting there, then you must obey. My thought is this - "If you proceed by not shooting any photos there, why would you ever have a need to attend again at this venue?"<br>

Respect can be defined on many levels, me personally i always shoot from the rear at ceremonies and i never use flash, so i'm automatically excluded from some levels of intrusion. So, i see respect as a two way street. A minister telling me the day of that i can't shoot any photos without first having the opportunity to explain the way in which i operate, or without any consideration for what the B&G wants, is IMO disrespectful. He has a job to do and I have a job to do. Ultimately, above anything else, I respect the wishes of my client and i will always and have always executed those wishes within a professional framework. Which means that you have to find ways to be creative as some have mentioned above. If this upsets the parties or venues invloved then so be it, my clients have thanked me in the past for my workarounds and that's the approval i'm after.</p>

[alin_daju]

<p>weird priest and rules, perhaps thats why many people fail to go to such places anymore, however I'd rejoice for having less hassle on the day. Charge the same as if you would photograph in curch.</p>

[ian_porter1]

<p>I am a clergyman and have also photographed many weddings before and after my ordination. I want the couple to have a record of their wedding that they will always treasure, and I seek to work with the photographer to ensure that he/she gets quality shots, but the congregation's primary attention should be on the bride and groom as they pledge their lives to each other. It should not be diverted by an intrusive photographer, some of whom seem to think that the wedding is taking place for their benefit. A photographer who has any degree of competence should be able to take quality shots without being intrusive. I am happy for the photographer to us flash when the bridal party are walking up and down the aisle, and when the official documents are being signed. At other times, flash is not necessary and usually detracts from the ambience of the building and lighting. A good photographer will be discreet and discerning, so that the congregation will hardly be aware of their presence.<br>

What I find most annoying is a photographer who, once the ceremony is underway, flaunts prior agreements in the assumption that I would not dare to stop the ceremony. Although a previous contributor mentioned the public nature of such occasions, he ought also to be aware that it is an offence to disrupt such a service. Obviously, no-one wants a wedding to be disrupted but a courteous, competent, photographer who works within the guidelines agreed to, will gain the respect and trust of all concerned.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

<p> </p>

[m_p2]

<p>Let everyone concentrate on the wedding ceremony itself. Be ready for the photos when they come out of the church. Set up the classic photo shot, bride and groom, in a studio. Take pictures of people at the reception, they'll remember no photos were taken at the church, and will be more relaxed.</p>

[jenny_jaques]

<p>"The expresions and emotions that make the moment so special are gone"</p>

<p>... maybe for you as a "photo moment". But never for the bride and groom, those to whom it matters most.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"Although a previous contributor mentioned the public nature of such occasions, he ought also to be aware that it is an offence to disrupt such a service. "</em></strong><br /><br />Whether or not it is an offense (in the legal sense) to disrupt such a service would be of no issue to this Previous Contributor in his dealings and actions; for he is all for working in harmony with the Clergy. <br /><br />This should have been apparent in most of the text, and if not, by the overall tone of This Contributor's commentary in this thread. <br /><br />Specifically please note: <br /><br /><em>"</em><strong><em>I am a big fan of “Rapport” and I do that best face to face . . .</em></strong><em> I made a formal appointment with the Priest to introduce myself . . . </em><br /><strong><em>On the day, I stuck to my end of the “deal” to the absolute letter:</em></strong><em> I worn soft shoes – I did not approach the Sanctuary or the Altar; I did not use Flash;. I did not move during any parts of the service which were Prayer – but only made one station change, during an Hymn – and that was from the side Aisle to the rear of the Church – where I remained until the final Blessing.</em><br /><em>At the end of the Service I ensured I thanked the Priest personally, and that evening a thank you note way sent in the mail, to him."</em><br /><br />WW</p>

 

[david johnson]

<p>My wife and I were wed in her family's living room because their family's church was booked. Luckily the minister was able to to officiate in her home and head back to the church for the other wedding that day.<br>

Our good friend was ready to take photos and was wedged discretely in a corner to the left of the minister and behind a lamp. We had not discussed photography with the minister in our 2 pre-nuptial meetings with him.<br>

Just before the ceremony he quietly said to our friend, "You are going to let me marry these nice children before you use that thing aren't you?"<br>

Our poor friend looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights and stood awkwardly in the corner until after the vows.<br>

All was fine - we got loads of shots after the vows and plenty of re-enacted shots. Of course we felt terrible for our friend being slightly embarrassed, but he was a big boy about it and after a few glasses of wine all was forgotten.<br>

And we have great memories and great photos of the day.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve george]

<p>Mark - sorry to hear your story. I'm also in England and every church wedding I've ever done has had a rehearsal so try and get along to them if you can. I'd be really surprised if a church wedding didn't have one. Registry offices don't in my experience but churches always have done. It may be the churches in your area call it something different?</p>

<p>I also make sure I have the phone number and name of the celebrant beforehand so I can ring them and get their "rules" first and then the couple know what is happening / can negotiate if necessary. I find just a friendly chat a few days beforehand with the celebrant goes a long way to setting their mind at ease. All that said however, I've had the priest say "no photographs" before - there's nothing you can do but make sure the couple are aware!</p>

<p>I think it's also down to all of us to make sure that however relaxed the celebrant is we never give them a reason to ban photography in the future. Many years ago as an altar boy I saw enough from photographers to understand why so many priests can object so strongly.</p>

[chetn]

<p>I have photographed so many church weddings where cameras and flash were allowed. Does this mean they were less sacred? Did God disapprove of their ceremony because of the less orthodox priest / minister? I do believe some officiants are a law unto themselves sometimes.</p>

[alec_myers]

<p>Hal:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While a wedding may go on public record, it is not subject to public approval... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the UK it is very much subject to public approval. It is the law in the UK that the public must be given the opportunity to object to any marriage. Check up on "Banns of Marriage" or "reading the banns". For civil ceremonies in this county the couple (each) need to give 16 days notice to their respective district register offices, and notices of forthcoming marriages are published for that reason. </p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>...it should be acknowledged that churches lie on private property, not public.(Hal)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends where you live. In the UK (and most commonwealth countries) the church is a public entity, owned by the parish. The church itself and the land on which it lies are public property by constitution. For the purposes of convenience and management, the daily running of the church falls to the parish - hence closed gates and doors and other measures to protect and maintain the building. But there is no basis for it being considered private in law.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A wedding may go forward regardless of whether anyone in the world objects. (Hal)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not usually. If there is even a single objection the marriage ceremony is prohibited from progressing, pending investigation of the objection. See Alec's comment above.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Ditto the expanded general content of Alec and Neil's comments . . . which was the thrust of my original posts which I think got this all started . . . <br>

<br>

And for a little note about the State “interfering” and how it cannot . . . "The sanctuary" of the Church - not the specific place but when one "claims it", as I understand it still cannot be interfered with by the State . . . <br>

<br>

I think an escaped convict (for example) still cannot be arrested whilst within and claiming the sanctuary of the Church . . . but I think many do not now claim it - though as I understand it, is still part of our Common Law, and I guess in Great Britain, too.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>I think an escaped convict (for example) still cannot be arrested whilst within and claiming the sanctuary of the Church</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure about Oz, but that went away in the UK some centuries ago. According to Wikipedia it was James the first that abolished it, in 1623. It definitely doesn't apply now, and the police will be only too happy to march in and arrest you in a church.</p>

<p>EDIT: In 1624, according to this article in the Independent: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/give-me-shelter-650500.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/give-me-shelter-650500.html</a></p>

[William Michael]

<p>That's becasue around that time you guys were having all that trouble with Robin Hood, we might be a bit slower here to repeal that stuff, being that we are all just your dodgy outcasts and convicts anyway . . .</p>

<p>Merry Christmas.</p>

[alec_myers]

<p>William, I prefer not to believe the popular wisdom about Australians - some of you are quite nice really! </p>