And then the clergy said: "This is a holy event-no photos."

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Kelly, I don't attend rehearsals unless the B/G are willing to pay extra for it. There's nothing wrong with "some" paperwork,.... typically a one page contract is all that is needed. A sheet of paper is not a substitute for a professional decorum and the people skills needed to charm dolts and gremlins. It's a wedding, no 2nd chances and no excuses.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The matter of having the contract neat and tidy has come up several times before<strong><em>. And so as how valuable - or practically useless - is having that contract or referring to it – on site / in situ - if something unexpected happens.</em></strong></p>

<p>The last time I remember we were discussing the Photographer sticking by the words of his (actually I think it was her) contract and walking out because the Clients were not honouring their end of the deal . . . there were a lot of theories exchanged then, too</p>

<p>The bottom line is: in the real world when you are in the slot and the Priest, Rabbi, Head Honcho, whomever that might be, is in full flight at <strong>The Beginning of the Ceremony</strong> and makes a call "NO PHOTOS" then as the Professional Photographer, you only have three choices:</p>

<p>> Conform<br />> Ignore<br />> Argue</p>

<p>Now without details in minutia from the OP describing the exact predicament and layout of the venue (E.G. could I retreat un-noticed to a loft . . . etc) <strong>it would be my general advice to "Conform"</strong> as that action has the Most Leverage and Fewest and Least Severe Repercussions.<br />I have seen the wrath of a Priest enflamed, not at a Wedding, but at a citizen who did not (in his opinion) respect the Rules of his Church - (BTW an Anglican Priest – was he.)</p>

<p>Now, we can wax lyrical about who has what rights and authorities . . . and setting rules in place before hand is great . . . and having a copy of those intensions on paper (a contract) is a great idea also – but in the Church, during the Ceremony, it’s not cool to argue the point with the Guy (or Woman) up the front – and it is less cool to do exactly what he has decreed a no-no.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>While having forms and plans is a very good thing, I personally don't ask the officiant to sign a form before the ceremony, because I also think it is unnecessary, and sometimes, futile. I find that asking the actual officiant before the ceremony is enough. It is even enough to negotiate with the officiant if one can. So far, so good.</p>

<p>As for an officiant confronting the official photographer during the ceremony, as I said above, I would cease to photograph, sit down and observe, to ask the officiant for restaged images right after the ceremony is over. I have been asked to leave by an officiant once before (not my fault), and it is not pleasant. As William W. says, you either conform, ignore or argue. The latter two are not options. Ignoring would bring an even stronger reaction by the officiant, and one cannot argue (or produce forms to review) while the ceremony is going on.</p>

[jc5066]

<p>Get rid of hours. I do full day packages. I try to keep it under 10 hours though. It eliminates those awkard moments where things don't go as planed and run late.</p>

<p>With that said; I do have 4 hour package, and it's 4 hours PERIOD! If they want to be budget contious then I am more then happy to work with them. They will not take me for a ride and sign up for 4 hours then the day of think they can get 6.<br>

There's always the fine line of providing good customer service and getting taken advantage of. There is no one right answer. It really depends on the circumstance and the client. You really need to take each and every situation separately. Was it poor planing? Clients that just don't seem to care/respect their vendors? Or was it just one of those things where things ran late? The first two I'm less apt to help.<br>

You also need to learn how to use the DJ to get things moving. They can really help you out a lot of the time in these situations.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>David S;<br>

A piece of paper gives one title that one can shoot during the ceremony; thus if a substitute cocky bully clergy shows up; you could just knuckle under and be steamrolled into no images; or have some raw guts to stand up to a bully; ie hold ground. If another intervenes; a written permission form has value.</p>

<p>> Conform<br />> Ignore<br />> Argue<br /> You are free to stick you nose up and ignore a permission form; and be sued to the hilt by B&G for failing to deliver images during the ceremony when the bully does not want to back down; ie your people skills do not work.</p>

<p>Then during a lawsuit; a lawyer could find your name on this thread and ask you in court why where you not prepared? ie another mentions the problem with a wedding and "This is a holy event-no photos."; and your stance is a permission form has no value. You have broadcast to the internet that a written form saying photos are ok at event has little worth. A savy lawyer could have a field day with that in court.,</p>

<p>It seems to me your stance is one of assuming (amateur) ; you assume that your people skills will always make a bully back down; thus paperwork giving permission to shoot images is useless; ie you will charm your way through a quagmire.</p>

<p>If an event has a dicey group of mixed clergy; why not actually be a professional and have some written backups; ie paperwork to force a bully clergy to allow images? One has a reputation of being asked to shoot a ceremony; and doing what is required to shoot these images.</p>

<p>The event/example I mentioned had 3 rehearsals; and both religious factions wanted the ceremony to be be at their church. Finally it was at a neutral church of neither spouses religion; but still both clergy sides were hell bent on not having it there either. Thus the whole situation was a big powder keg of bickering; ie a circus. The reason the Phototog went to the rehearsals was it was a mixed non standard religous ceremony; of two different languages. He wanted to know before hand what the lighting and what was going to happen; ie *no surprises.* Wedding Photographers use to go to rehearsals at an unknown church as a dry run; today maybe being prepared does not matter.</p>

<p>It is also not cool for churches and clergy to agree that photos are OK in 3 rehearsals; then be bullies with little morals and change their minds at the ceremony just as a power trip. It is immoral; ie lying. If the bully cannot be charmed; having written permission might help. It is lying of all places in a place of worship; by somebody who should understand basic morals.</p>

<p>At that event/example I mentioned; if photos were not allowed the B&G would have walked out; and probably had a justice of the peace driven in. At some point the wedding becomes a circus; non civil as a bully clergy creates havoc. It was a WW3 event. The bully substitute clergy chap who was not any any of the 3 rehearsals was a total jerk; he was asked to leave if he would not back down by the MOB. Maybe that was his plan; to be a bull in a China shop to get the couple not to wed; by creating a huckus.</p>

<p>In weird wedding situations; better wedding photographers have always been more prepared. You want to make good images; and reduce the number of surprises that might halt all our image taking</p>

[stephen_kinosh]

<p>When we got married a LONG time ago, our photographer and i taloke to the priest before the ceremony, and it was stated that he could shoot were ever he needed to get the shots we wanted. (WIfes church, I did NOT like this priest) During the vows, the photographer was directly behind my wife and I getting a shot of the priest doing a blessing. At that point, the priest was so busy smiling for rhe crowd, he lost hi place and then took off on the photographer...."This is a religious ceremony, and you are being a distraction, then asked him to leave the church. All at the top of his lungs. My wife and I were so embarrased. Afterwards, we had the photographer come back in and stage the shots we misses. We filed a complaint with the bishops office and we were assured that we and the photographer would get a written apology. Guess what. We never did.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Kelly--you are mixing up two different situations. The situation in which William W. describes three choices--comply, ignore, argue--is one in which the photographer was taken by surprise <strong>during the ceremony</strong>. As previously stated, whipping out paperwork during the ceremony would not be an option. The situation you describe is one in which the photographer arranged, ahead of time, permission to photograph the ceremony, and was taken by surprise at the last minute by a third officiant's rules. Last minute, but still <strong>before the ceremony, where taking out a previously obtained permission form could still work. </strong> The latter would not work in the first situation.</p>

<p>So yes, obtaining such a form beforehand would be a good idea in the situation you describe. However, not having such a form in your situation, does not automatically mean disaster. People skills can still work to at least reach an agreement (if uneasy) between the concerned parties--officiant(s), couple, couple's families, and photographer--as to what gets photographed, or not photographed during the ceremony, <strong>before</strong> the ceremony begins. Calling the lack of previously obtained permission amateurish is stretching it.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Kelly - your response is totally confused:<br>

You quoted me and addressed it to David S; and in fact, as Nadine has already mentioned, you quoted me, completely out of context.<br>

In the case of <strong>"I photograph the wedding processional, the bride being given away, etc.. All of a sudden the clergy man stops and says, "This is a holy event. Due to that there will be no photography."</strong><br>

I would NOT advise the photographer whip out a piece of paper and argue the toss with the <em>"cocky bully clergy"</em><br>

That's my opinion.<br>

It is not based upon any amateur standing, but around 1500+ Weddings over 30+ years of doing it . . .<br>

Your mileage and experiences might vary.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[fotografz]

<p>I think it is interesting how much stuff we are supposed to do in advance to be perfect and correct ... stuff often suggested in these discussions. I think you could end up earning $2.00 an hour if you did it all ... LOL!</p>

<p>I've never had the Priest, Rabbi, Pastor or Church Lady unavailable prior to one single wedding ever. It's a 30 second conversation. I do have a provision in my contract that requires the client to ask about Photography rules. It's a provision client's like to ignore most of the time.</p>

<p>I'm prepared to do as the official says since I'd like to shoot at that location again : -)</p>

<p>Wriiten Schmitten ... half the time it's at the whim of whoever performs the ceremony no matter WHAT piece of paper I may have obtained from "official" sources. Maybe I need one signed "God" to have it be bullet-proof. In fact, it's at their whim more often than not.</p>

<p>Official depicted as "bully"? Hmmm, it's their house not mine nor even necessarily the client's. I'm there at their pleasure. However, a respectful demeanor and seeking a compromise has worked for hundreds and hundreds of weddings ... plus I'm prepared for just about anything gear wise.</p>

<p>Hours or open ended? If I left it up to a client to schedule my time I'd be working from noon to midnight at every wedding. Time limits help keep it tight and clean ... and most every Bride will make an effort to fit it so they get the photos they want. I'm with Mary Ball back when she said 8 hours was the top limit. IMO, if you are doing your job you should be out of gas in 8 to 9 hours max ... you start making mistakes once fatigue sets in. </p>

<p> </p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Marc:</p>

<p>That's what I was wondering. I don't attend rehearsal dinners in any of my packages. I've never been asked. Not sure why I'd want to. My job the night before the wedding is to check my list twice, relax, and get ready to be creative, which means being well rested.</p>

<p>I'm in flyover country. Maybe we're just more relaxed here. I've only had one official totally ban photography. That was several months in advance and the bride told me about it. She was bummed, but said we'd just make do. I asked if I could speak to the officiant. She did so on my behalf, and I was allowed to take non-flash photography during the ceremony as long as I remained in the back of the church. That's all I wanted, anyway. Score! :)</p>

<p>Most of the time, I don't talk to the officiants ahead of time. I simply plan on being quiet and discreet. I use the quietest mode available on my camera and never shoot a burst then. I've had several talk with me afterwards and thank me for my behavior. I figure the ceremony is their place and I'm to remain out of sight and out of hearing as much as possible while still capturing key moments. Getting ready and dancing at the reception are my times to play paparazzi. :)</p>

<p>I find the whole idea of having a contract signed by the officiant to be overkill. Again, maybe it's just my part of the country. If I ever do run into somebody who wants to limit photography of the ceremony, I will respect his wishes. I don't feel I have a right to disrespect somebody else's place of worship.</p>

<p>At the point where I have clients that sue me over not having ceremony pictures because their chosen officiant wouldn't let me *and* when a judge agrees is the day I stop offering my services to the public. I don't think the odds are good that will happen.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I wouldn't assume that it's our job to get photos of the ceremony no matter what. For one thing - sometimes it's the couple who don't want photography at the ceremony.</p>

<p>Out of the last five weddings - two of the celebrants banned photography during the ceremony, and one where the couple wanted no more than one or two photos max - the mother of the bride was pressing for none at all.</p>

<p>At my own wedding, the vicar banned photography during the ceremony, and I'm quite happy about that. If a photographer had gone ahead and taken some anyway, I'd have been upset about it.</p>

 

[neilambrose]

<p>Yes, I was also wondering about the assumption underlying the thread that the photographer is there to make pictures happen during the ceremony, and use whatever influence they have to that end. I don't personally subscribe to that view.</p>

<p>I'm quite happy not to take pictures during the ceremony. I've had a few this year where there has been a blanket ban on photography during the service. I've found it pleasantly refreshing - nice in fact to see the sanctity of the occasion winning out over the opportunity for a photo shoot.</p>

<p>If the officiant says no photography (and confirms that includes me) I'm happy to take them at their word and put my camera away. No staging of events afterward either.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>"The proof is in the tasting of the pudding" ... ironically, this just happened to me at yesterday's 10/16/10 wedding.</p>

<p>We arrived early, was met by the "Church Lady" who gave us the churches printed "photographic rules and regulations," then specifically walked us through where we could go and not go. </p>

<p>The officiant (Priest) arrived late, so all I could do was introduce myself and respectfully confirm that we had been instructed and had the photographic rules.</p>

<p>Sure enough, he stopped the ceremony twice to specifically berate us in a demeaning and harsh manner, and tell us to move from our shooting positions which were well with-in the rules and the specific instructions given to us. Not border-line mind you ... well with-in the rules, and being done very discreetly.</p>

<p>Later on, a number of guests came up to me and expressed their shock at his actions and demeanor.</p>

<p>Trust me, had I known before hand, I would have just sat out the ceremony. This specific priest wasn't at the rehearsal BTW, so that wouldn't have helped. </p>

<p> </p>

[gregory_c]

<p>If clergy said no photos, it usually no flash, sometimes it is "no photos" but don't push the "maybe-baby" You need to have asked this in advance EVERY WEDDING !<br /><em>"disregarded their time line and everything was done at their convenience"</em>. It is their wedding.<br /><em>"The bride talked me into staying another hour and a half"</em> Talked you ? When the time is getting close, you "ask" the bride if she wants you to stay longer. This should be part of you contract<br /><em>"I had a right to leave" </em>right to leave ? Remember, future weddings come from the one you are photographing. When you start throwing the timeline, contract, clergy stuff around at a wedding, wanting to leave, not giving the bride any free time, referrals are very slim. People will remember this.</p>

<p>gee William W. I agree with you on this one !</p>

[William Michael]

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>gee . . . I agree with you on this one !</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If we have disagreed greatly (violently) in the past I cannot remember any specific instance or details - I forget the details of any "clashes" within hours - "that was then this is now" attitude . . . and if we have disagreed just as a matter of different opinions - then I do read all the opinions and sometimes change my mind - I actually read here, much more than I write. <br>

<br>

But when we did or do disagree, you were / will be . . . wrong, of course ! <br>

<br>

:)<br>

<br>

Have a great day . . . and thanks for the nice comment.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

[emma_lillypad]

<p>contract for us states they are responsible for talking withthe minister regarding Photography during the ceremony, they then have a sub section where they must sign and their minister to allow or not allow Photography, on the odd occassion that I have arrived at the churchand the Minister has back tracked and said 'actually no you can't' I then have to manage my clients expectations and I HAVE demanded that the minister go immediately to the Bride and tell her himself, that he has actually changed his mind. Cover yourselves, you just have to.</p>