No photos in the church

[dave_wilson1]

<p>A good bottle of scotch works good sometimes too :)</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Rapport . . . is made easier by leveraging what is at hand at the time . . . meeting at a bar or a club, I would be the first to buy the drinks - absolutely, Dave W</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks David S, I really appreciate the comment, but really, it isn't that much effort, or "class".</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I just see that most options in business are really simple if it is all boiled down to the main pieces – </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In this case either sit and get grumpy and stew on it or do something with a big smile and a positive attitude - what's the worst that can happen - the Priest could say "no way": in that case I would have defaulted to the other option and outlined to the B&G what I did and what the outcome was and I would add: "I will be waiting for you outside the Church" </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It was a bit of Poker Bluff with the law bit - but I think I indeed correct I do believe that one does have the right to document a Public Event (where I live) - but for a Wedding that would be the wrong time to play that hand all the way . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >[Aside: the “law” was better held in check and used for the Municipal Council who did not allow Parents to take Photos of their Kids at a School Swimming Carnival, at a Public Pool - funny how when Four Dad's were escorted by Council Security from the Pool, there were TV News crews filming the whole event. . . and three of the four Dads just happened to be Barristers . . . the Council By-law was repealed that evening and the legal cases for Damages and Losses; Assault; and False Arrest are still going on . . . three years later.] </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >The way it worked out - the B&G thought I worked magic for them - as I had the meeting with the Priest without their knowledge - they wanted that Church specifically for their own personal reasons - they got more from me than they expected and at no extra cost (that's Customer Satisfaction 101) – for the extra couple of hours work . . . I got massive Word of Mouth Advertising (Advertising 101) . . .</p>

<p >I booked the three Bridesmaids . . . I think I got one or two Guests’ Weddings, too. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And Word of Mouth advertising is basically a confirmed booking at the first Phone call - one doesn’t get many of those by getting “angry” – IMO.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Merry Christmas guys, best for 2010 – the economy is on the way up . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[rafael_s]

<p>Get the longest zoom lens you can find and setup from right outside the church entrance doors (so that you have a clear view down the aisle and to the altar) then have an assistant leave prop the door open so you can zoom in to take your shots. This technically makes it not in the church. </p>

[savagesax]

I dropped a lens shade during a ceremony more than once, sorry to say. Tiled floors one time! The dang thing bounced all over the place! Bang, bang, bang, I thought the thing would never stop bouncing! It's probably photographers like me that wrecked it for all photographers!

[Jerry_]

<p>"Feel good about that do you? Was the video not for your clients, the B/G?"</p>

<p><em>No</em> . But since I followed the <strong>no camera rule</strong> , I did manage to sleep that night without heartburn...</p>

[rayt]

<blockquote>

<p>Bob Bernardo: It's probably photographers like me that wrecked it for all photographers!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't hold yourself in such high regard :-)). Seriously though you probably have a point that it is incidents such as what happened to you that have contributed to the rules.<br>

<br />But I would wager that a more prevalent problem is the rash of P&S cameras with their flashes. You know the kind. They flash two, three or four times rapidly before taking the exposure. The cameras are usually so far away that their puny flashes do nothing but annoy.<br>

<br />I have photographed more than one wedding where flash photography was disallowed. Yet people in the audience flash away. One time I was admonished by the minister for breaking his rules. I showed him that my flash was not on the camera and it was other people.<br>

<br />I have a friend who had problems in a church because of no photography allowed issues. No photography at all, he complied but others did not and he was blamed. So he no longer photographs in that church by his own choice. He does not mind the rules, he does not like getting blamed for the violations of others.<br>

I have also photographed in a church where I was to remain at the back and not move during the entire ceremony. No flash period. Tripods not allowed. Image opportunities were extremely limited. Afterwards all the posed shots had to be completed in 15 minutes and only the wedding party was allowed on the platform and only so far back. It was impossible for my assistant to arrange the wedding dress as she could not get on the stage.<br>

<br />Rules are rules and you just have work within the rules. The B&G just have to understand and accept or find another venue.</p>

[hal_b]

<blockquote>

<p>Get the longest zoom lens you can find and setup from right outside the church entrance doors (so that you have a clear view down the aisle and to the altar) then have an assistant leave prop the door open so you can zoom in to take your shots. This technically makes it not in the church.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I shot an entire ceremony through the window once.......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's sad that wedding "photojournalism" has turned it into a paparazzi event for some people. The photographer is present under contract. Accomodations will be made for you to take the shots that are required. Cover your bases, and make the event as convenient as you can, but if you are excluded from the ceremony, then take a break and get a drink of water (or whatever you drink) while you wait.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>An English Photographer mentioned on a thread sometime last week that there, (in England), the Wedding Service is a Public Event - by law – anyone can enter the place of Worship.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am so grateful that as an American there is still some semblance of privacy from the government. You can still have a ceremony on private property with the Justice of the Peace and two witnesses present, and exclude the public. This is guaranteed by our freedom of religion. As some religions require privacy during the ceremony, that privacy is protected by law. As my religion is one of these, I'm glad I'm not an Englishman.</p>

[tobycline]

<p>There will be many who disagree with me, however, I feel that the no-photography rules inside churches place the emphasis on "Holiness" in the wrong place. We are to honor God above all else. Placing restrictions on photography in churches, in my own simple mind, places too much honor on brick and mortar, and not enough on the One the brick and mortar was built to honor. Sharing photos of the inside of majestic cathedrals, especially in Europe, might actually have a positive impact on the those needing a Savior, instead of keeping the beauty of the inside a secret except for those lucky enough to visit in person.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>My guess is that the "no - camera" rules come from personal experience or tradition that is passed down from teacher to student. </p>

<p>I make a point to chat with the officiant well before the wedding to address any concerns / rules / expectations that they have of me, as the photographer.</p>

<p>The closest I came to being told - "No Photography" was a priest who said I could do the walk down the asile, and the marriage, but not the mass itself as that was sacred and he would not allow that to be photographed. Keep in mind that this was a very traditional and old church - where the women (regardless of demonination had to wear veils for the mass.</p>

<p>On the point of the beauty of churches - I have no doubt that many of the churches which do not allow photography or cameras during the ceremony will have no problems at all if you ask to come in off hours and shoot some interiors of them for "art". In my experience it's the ceremony that they consider sacred.</p>

<p>As for sabatoging other vendors (such as the video person) - that's not in my playbook - nor will it ever be. If they choose not to follow the rules - it's not up to me to enforce them - just double checked my contract and it's not in there... Also - imagine what the bride and groom probably told their friends - "Yes - our photographer actually blocked the video right at kiss - so now we don't that on tape!" </p>

<p>Dave</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Rules are rules ..... we have two venues with that policy. Less work for us ... we shoot a shot outside the main doors and nothing until they walk backout ---- </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I agree with many above. It isn't up to the bride and groom or the photographer. I know several local churches that don't allow any photography during the ceremony, including processional and recessional. One lets you photograph through the windows in the doors to the sanctuary (you need a really, really, long tele and a tripod). The other doesn't let you photograph at all. It normally isn't due to sound issues--the ceremony is considered sacred.</p>

<p>Since in my experience, church 'rules' vary considerably, I ask the officiant or church coordinator what the rules are, and I follow them. If the coordinator or officiant says that I should shoot anything and everything with flash--doesn't matter where I stand, I sometimes do, although my inclination is to be low key. If they say no photos, I don't shoot, although I will ask to sit (sans gear) in the back and observe, so I can plan my re-creations. I also make sure that the officiant will remain for a session after the ceremony. Many take their robes off an disappear immediately after.</p>

<p>I also recommend negotiation, as William W. suggested. Many times, if the reason isn't due to the sacredness of the ceremony, it works very well. All the officiant needs is to be able to verify that you aren't some flake who will run amuck with the camera. A phone conversation, or best, a face to face meeting can do wonders for this, even if the meeting is just before the ceremony.</p>

<p>As for re-creations, the only reason they might look fakey is because you didn't do them well. In my experience, if you plan them, know exactly what you want to do, light them so they are similar to the actual events, and direct well, the re-creations can look as if they weren't. The emotion is still there.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Aside: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Hal, If the ceremony is conducted by a Justice of the Peace, then it is not a Church Wedding . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >it is NOT the "Government" invading one’s Privacy </p>

<p > </p>

<p >and there is NO restriction on Freedom of Religion - People can choose any Religion they like.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If they choose a Christian Religion (for example) then they choose a typical Christian Place of Worship and Rites of Marriage - then it IS a Public Ceremony - specifically during that Ceremony the Priest / Minister asks something like: "If anyone has cause that these two should not be Joined in Holy Matrimony then let them speak now or forever be silent" - Specifically that invitation is Public and therefore the Church - by Church Canon - must be open to all persons.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Perhaps I did not make clear enough that I was referring the Churches and typically the mainstream Christian Establishments with their roots in (ancient) Roman Catholicism.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[hal_b]

<p>William: I understand what you are saying. Maybe I hastily used the term "Justice of the Peace" to mean any court appointed official. Where I am from, a Priest or Minister from any denomination may perform weddings, as well as other public officials, but only after they have registered with the courts. e.g. I can't just say one day "I'm a minister of my own new religion established today, and I hereby can marry whoever I want." I would have to first establish the proper documentation for my ceremonies to go on public record. At least, this is how it was explained to me.</p>

<p>Now, without getting into any more comparison/contrast between cultural differences, it should be acknowledged that churches lie on private property, not public. As private property, it should be the right of the property owner to deny admittance to any person at his sole discretion, including photographers.</p>

<p>Finally, to the best of my knowledge, the custom that you reference whereby the congregation is asked to "speak now or forever hold your peace" is not a legal requirement, but a religious custom. If this is not the case in your area, forgive me the indiscretion, but these words were not uttered at my wedding, nor were they implied. While a wedding may go on public record, it is not subject to public approval, and certainly not to a vote. A wedding may go forward regardless of whether anyone in the world objects. It may be the case that certain churches require parental approval for a marriage, but the state does not. The state only requires a recorder and witnesses. The witnesses are required specifically because it is <strong><em>not</em></strong> a public ceremony. If all weddings were performed in the public's eye, then there wouldn't be any need to designate witnesses. So witnesses are required to facilitate weddings behind closed doors. Two people will swear to the validity of the marriage, so anybody who was not permitted can go hang.</p>

<p>I'm not a lawyer, historian, or international scholar, so please don't take offense if any of this seems inaccurate. But if the law permits any person to be present at a private ceremony on private property, which is required by a religion to be maintained private, then the government which upholds that law is guilty of oppressing that religion. To draw an admittedly extreme comparison, it reminds me of the custom of "Primae Noctis" as used in the movie "Braveheart", which is inarguably an invasion of human rights.</p>

[sunnyography]

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't matter one way or the other if you agree with the priest or not. It's a sacrament and not a photo-op. They chose the church and the preist, it's not up to the B/G or to you to pass judgement on how the priest performs his calling/duties.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <em>marriage</em> is sacred between the B&G and GOD (if thats what they believe); the <em>ceremony</em> is HUMAN tradition- no matter who's getting married or where they're getting married. IF the parishoner doesn't allow respectful, professional photography during the ceremony he is simply dampening the GOD given talents the photographer was hired to use to produce timeless memories of this special moment between the B&G and GOD. AND- IF the parishoner doesnt allow photos to capture the beauty of this God given moment, he/she should consider that it could be a bad witness for people of (that type of) faith. Parishoners, <em>in my opinion (as a person of faith first)</em>, should be focused on helping the B&G set a good foundation for their future instead of hindering a few minutes of precious photography (an art based on LIGHT- the first creation in the Bible).</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p><em>It isn't up to the bride and groom or the photographer.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

It IS up to the B&G because they choose, for whatever reason, to have a ceremony where photography won't be allowed..</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Hal, I also understand what you are saying. Also, I cannot see why I would take offense at anything you wrote. I enjoyed our discourse, although it went slightly off topic. And yes it is Church Canon (Custom) to ask that question - and when it is asked the Doors of the Church are open (actually physically open). </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >But returning to the topic: </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >The point of me making the comment in the first place was that I used this Church Canon (custom) to make an argument to get me into the Church to take the pictures I wanted. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I made an effort to speak to the Priest and the result was I was good to get a few images in the Church, which otherwise I would not have obtained, if I had just gone along with the “Rules” as they were posted on the sign.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I mentioned - it was a bit of a Poker Bluff on my behalf and I don't for one minute think the Priest was a silly man - so I guess he kind of liked my sensibilities more than the strength of my argument: personality rather than brains, probably one the day for me. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As JH states, it is the B&G's business to choose the venue for their Wedding – my point is that, as their Photographer, I have two choices about any “Local Rules” – either accept them and go along as per the rules; or negotiate. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In all cases (after about three or so years in the business) my first choice has to have a chat with the head guy – and in nearly all situations I have been able to get some latitude - that’s really my point, in a nutshell.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Aside / Post Script:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Below is the thread where Alec Myers (Dec 01, 2009; 09:24 p.m.), mentions the Church and its Church Law (or Canon). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Note that a “Public Place” is different to “Public Owned Property” and in Common Law there is no expectation of Privacy in a “Public Place”. As I understand it that is so where I work, too.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I understand – the Laws apropos Privacy are / might be different in the USA. And I mentioned that point earlier.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, out of interest, the negotiation I cited was with a Church of England Priest – the Rector of a large City “High” Church – which is more similar in Tradition and Ceremony to Roman Catholic Rites than the Anglican Church. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I work in Australia.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00V8JN">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00V8JN</a></p>

<p > <br>

 

<p >I also liked Braveheart very much, and I have studied the life and times of William Wallace to understand him and the situation in those times better - if I had Highschool over again, I would have studied more History.</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Merry Christmas,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>OK John. Then I'll change my statement to say, "It isn't <strong>ultimately</strong> up to the bride and groom, or up to the photographer".</p>

[cjogo]

<p>I know all the rules of the local churches --- when a B&G contact me with a venue of the "no photo" policy ......we both know they receive nothing of a image ~ during the governed rules of that preist/pastor. Case closed --- they made their selection :: We are absolved from are duties.....</p>

[dogunter]

<p>I haven't had a celebrant tell me "no photography" yet but I did have a priest limit me to a small area off to the side of the groom throughout the whole ceremony. That is, no moving around with the exception of a few as the bride came down the aisle. The wedding shots during the ceremony were sub-par in my opinion but since everything was explained to the bride & groom beforehand and they understood who's decision it was, they were pleased overall. Besides, it was a traditional Hispanic New Mexican wedding. Most of the excitement and memorable photos came from the reception.</p>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Is it any wonder that people are leaving churches and christianity in droves ? These supposed ambassadors of the church deny the couple and their families of the peak, and most important moment , in their lives. A visual memory of a momentous occasion in any familyis lost forever. I have found that most ministers and priests are great but there are a few bullies around - its all about them and not the wedding.<br>

I can understand if they have had a photographer running amok on the altar and getting in the way in the past but surely there is common ground ? If I were the minister, I would allow photographs to be taken during the ceremony but with instructions. How easy is that ?</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I can understand if they have had a photographer running amok on the altar and getting in the way in the past but surely there is common ground ? If I were the minister, I would allow photographs to be taken during the ceremony but with instructions. How easy is that ?" </em></strong><br>

<br>

. . . well, to be even handed with the debate I think many are becoming fed up with a squillion P&S Flashes, DSLR on AUTO with Pop Up Flash and Camera Phones and also incompetent "Professional" Photographers and Video Lights detracting from the Ceremony, that a blanket No Cameras Allowed is becoming the easier option.<br>

<br>

That's the sense of it I got, speaking to some of the Clergy.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Hi William for sure I agree with you. There is a a literal army of cameras at every wedding nowadays compared to 4 or 5, 10 years ago. I remember a minister telling me personally and then addressing the congregation that there were no photos during the service until the signing and then only me. So I sat down and put the camera next to me and waited for the cue from him.<br>

The public didnt care and proceeded to start taking images. When the minister had a spare second, just after a flash went off, he looked straight at me with a glare. So I moved further from the camera and folded my arms. More flashes went off and he looked straight at me ready to glare but realised it couldnt have been me. Anyway the offenders kept flashing but he didnt say a word.<br>

Its much much easier to control a photographer than a congregation after all the photographer might have to come back one day and God help you if you misbehaved previously. There certainly is security in numbers.These ministers have veeerrrry long memories so be warned.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Our priest simply makes a announcement to the congregation -- prior to the ceremony. "All cell phones/ cameras are to be turned -off .... in infraction on this rule and I will stop the ceremony --and you will be singled-out as the individual > ruining this beatiful wedding procession" ........ Pretty cut & dry ... its his church .....</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>I'll change my statement to say, "It isn't <strong>ultimately</strong> up to the bride and groom, or up to the photographer".</em><br>

<em></em><br>

It IS ultimately up to the B&G because they choose, for whatever reason, to have a ceremony where photography won't be allowed.</p>

[joe_taylor5]

<p>Photography is not allowed in the church I attend for any reason. I don't know why other than a bunch of flashes going off and shutters slamming and so on is a disturbance. No one seems to have a problem with the policy.<br>

Joe</p>