We have been booked for a wedding in September but the vicar has decided no cameras are allowed in church. I am going to record the service on mini disk and then try and put something together with the shots before and after. Anyone else had this problem, and what did you use to "fill the gaps"?

Do the bride and groom know this? Can they help? What about their guests - what if they bring cameras in? Would he allow it if you sit in a pew? Is the rule also for still cameras?

Yes the bride & groom are aware. No cameras full stop in church!
I have thought about taking some stills (we are photographers also) and laying some of these to music and the audio track but it would need to be a hell of a lot of stills to cover the service, the only other option would be to just put the vows on. Not ideal.

I don't get this! Why?! What's their explanation?! If I were the one in front of the camcorder (G/B) I'd change the church! I want to have that memory!

Here it's all very different: I had them say to the B/G: "stop! wait for the BBC guy to get his spot!" I can go about everywere I get in a church. Even in the room at the back of the altar (women are forbiden, though...) if I kindly ask! They make room for the camera guy and make sure he's getting the best chance to tape nice memories for the B/G.

I have already had the discussion with the B & G about changing venues. The church apparently had some bad dealings a couple of years ago with some dodgy video company and since that time has ruled no more. Talking nicely does not work with this church. Luckily it is a one off and the majority are more than accomodating. The las two weekends the churches would have let me say the vows if i'd had wanted they were that good. As in most things, one bad company/outfit can spoil it for every one else.

is the church and B&G amenable to some staged still shots after the ceremony? You could actually make a much nicer video of the ceremony using staged shots panned and scanned in the video, with the actual sound track.

I'm sure the B & G would be, but still the church may be a problem but we can run it past them. We are not the official photographers on this one so would also have to get their cooperation, but it's a thought. I'll put it to the B & G. Thanks

How about using a courtroom sketch artist? Having a videographer when the church won't allow it, is kind of pointless... The whole point, is to be able to watch the wedding vows, not the reception.

These two need to go elsewhere to marry.

I appreciate what you are saying about the wedding vows not being recorded but we do a good job (even though I say so myself) of producing a full record of the whole occasion, starting with photos of growing up, interviews prior to the event with B & G, a "walk in the park" (like a mini love story), getting ready etc, the arrivals at church, main service! (usually), the photo sessions, reception and party, and interviews with guests, finished off with highlights of the day. A lot of the weddings we sell are because of the work we put in both before and after the main event to make the video different from the run of the mill. In the UK not many companies include everything we do so we do get a lot of work because the couple want a bit more than just "the vows".
Please don't think i'm trying to sound off, but we have seen competitors work and some of it is poor to say the least. I like to think that even if we can't include the main part of the service on this particular wedding, we can still produce an excellent finished product. The b& G won't change venues because of reasons I won't go into in this forum, so changing the church is not an option, unfortunately.

I appologise for being harsh. I just can't believe how the Vicar is taking the most important moment away from you, and the bride. If you had a full crew with lights and gear, I could understand it. But I have watched a few good wedding people at work. Most of the time, they blend in with the guests.

this is becoming increasing more common and not because of prior issues with contractors. Many churches feels the sanctity of the service is being violated by the commercialization of the event.

I don't personally do weddings. But I have seen what you guys do, and have a great respect and admiration for the final presentation.

If this is a growing trend among churches, it is going to cause a radical change in the way traditional wedding videos are done. Either that, or cause couples to wed outdoors more often.

Actually I am finding the trend the other way (apart from this one event). I have found more and more churches giving a free reign over where we position ourselves, moving around etc. Most vicars want the best for the couple and have given in to the requirements of the film crews. Maybe because in the Uk you can now marry in most places as long as a licence to conduct a service is obtained. The churches are realising that people want memories of the day preserved and if they don't oblige then people will go elsewhere (in the majority of cases). I had one last week where the vicar invited me to walk down the aisle in front of the bride so I could get the best shot possible of her, although i resisted because she is the centre of the show, not the cameraman. Overall in the UK we've got it more or less sorted. It's just what do you do when you get the one where you can't record in church?

We've come across this strange attitude by several vicars over the last few years. It doesn't do much for the good of the church, especially with new laws about to come into force soon.
Unfortunately there's very little you can do about except turn down the booking if you feel you can't do a proper job. (We've done this twice this year).
Another option is to complain strongly in writing to the local arch deacon he can sometimes get the vicars decission overturned.

I hesitate to be crass about this, but, have you tried making a donation to the vicar's favorite charity?

It worked for me on one occasion.

If cameras are perceived to be less intrusive, just use the movie mode on some Point & Shoot cameras. I've used my little Canon S40 in events/ where video cameras have been prohibited.
The new Sony 828 Nikon 8700 do a good job on movie files, but they approach the size of a small camcorder.

Earlier this year, I grabbed a few movies in the church. Three videographers were all over the place and really perturbed the event. The tripods, gear, lights, and crew were all over
the place trying to get placement for the best shot. In my mind,
they dragged the event, because that's pretty much all I remember.

I just sat in row2 with my S40 and recorded the musical soloists.
I wish I had a slightly better angle, but oh well. The image quality was noisy and sub-DVD rez. It would have been nice to have better audio, so in the future, I'll use a portable mp3 recorder with external microphone.

Just catch the important stuff: the ring exchange and the musical soloists. It sounds like you have the rest covered
in a situation in which you are unable to use your best equipment.
Just my two cents. I am not a pro-anything videographer, just an enthusiast.

>I just can't believe how the Vicar is taking the most important >moment away from you, and the bride.

How did we ever get by before video?

hmmmm.. interesting.. ive had a vicar say no to cameras.. reason being for the lights and flashes used..
THis one church in particular was vry dark, and he was about to say no to me (he saw the light on the cam) and i told him i wouldnt use it..
He was ok after that coz he saw wher i positioned myself (groom had a lav mic so audio wasnt an issue).. be clear and there shoudl be no reason to say no..

Jsut coz theyve had a bad experience, you shoudlnt have to bear the brunt of it..


see alot of the times, if the priest says no fotos, most couples go elsewhere..

one major way to get rid of weddings is to say no fotos.. alot of them use this tactic..

either way, the bride and groom are payin fo the servise.. but if i was to have someone so linear as to continue to say no even after my assurances, i would tell teh bride and groom to look elsewhere.. if they didnt want to, id record audio, then for teh video, create a photoslideshow using pics taken from the fotoshoot..

its more work on ur part.. so charge them accordingly..

"How did we ever get by before video"

I don't know... That was what? 100 years ago? You would have to ask someone who was around back then... Ken Tanaka maybe?

Photographers are much more intrusive today, than they were 60 years ago. I've looked through my parents wedding album (all B&W) and it its much less commercialized and gaudy than todays photography. It was a simpler time.

"Photographers are much more intrusive today"

yup.. they pretty much run thhe show here, theyre much like makeshift choreographers for the day.. which is why i dont get involved in their politics.. i jsut follow the B&G

We've also been subjected to some very cranky priests but so far no show stoppers. Just about 50% of our weddings have been outdoors or at non-religious facilities. I would bet that there is a trend away from church weddings for the very reasons originally posted here.

But if true, that would be a loss since some of the churches we've taped in were very impressive structures. I'm sure you folks across the pond have a few classic cathedrals also.
Bob

Wear a nice suit and sit in the aisle like a guest.
Hopefully you have a small camera like a vx2000
or a GL2 and then just do your best from the pew.
You'll be surprised at how good it can come out.

I did one this way once the shakes weren't that
bad.

Again sit as close as possible.

I think i may have a solution. The vicar has said we cannot film during the actual ceremony but he will now let us film after the event, so we will be restaging walking down the aisle, ECU so you dont notice there are no other people sitting in church. Same with the vows and the ring exchange. And walking back up the aisle. I will be recording theaudio on mini disk so will have to overlay the shots to this track and then do a montage to fillm the gaps. I'm quite looking forward to this one now as it will be a bit of a challenge and different from the norm.

Carl, id say organise a hidden cam somewhere.. and taht couple must be pretty despereat to accep these kind of conditions which the preist has put onto them . ie no filming..

i mean did he say why he doesnt want it to be filmed?? is he jst a lil nervous?? if he is he shouldnt be in the robe, but im harsh when it comes to this sort of thing.. IMO its not about the priest or teh "church rules" coz there are actually no rules pertaining to cameras and its up to the priest to decide.. i still think its bizarre an di honestly would be trin o convince the couple to either choose a differnt prist or go to another church.

you DO realise that their whole day is now dictated by a selfish idiot, and your workload for this element of the wedding has just increased..

one thing abotu restaging the event.. persoanlly, it jstu doesnt catch the stunned BANG WOW factor a bride gives when she comes down the aisle.. its just not natual and i personally wouldnt consider doing this as its fake. Id stage it as a dream ssquence more than an actual "pretend" scen

If your gonna do this, you may as well be dynamic with it.. get the church empty and have the groom sit in a pew.. with some soft elegant music (inserted in post), have the groom read his vows (either via radio mic, or minidisc...) or better yet, u can even set this up before hand.. ie i would suggest would be to mic up the groom and get it LIVE as hes sayin the ORIGINAL vow.. then use that as the voiceover.. far more authentic really...

Now as we hear the groom say his vows.. we see a series of differnt angles and cuts of one man alone in a church... (wide, near, heavy DOF shots showing the location and windows..
And if theres a tower in the church take the bride up there, do afew shots, nice close ups.. some scenery and make sure u get a nice DOF shot.. then have her walk down thru the staircase as cutaway dream sequences as his vows are still being read...

Now have the bride walk in through a glowing white (entrance) have her walk down the aisle to him as his head is bowed down in his Vows..
As she reaches him.. have her touch his shoulder, he looks up with tears in his eyes (use glycerin if he isnt crying) and then have her say her vows directly to him..

The shot changes to wide centre aisle with just the 2 of them with the altar and main window behind them.. or something..
then cut to extreme closeup..

They swap rings and kiss and there u have it.. at least if it IS staged, your doing someting DIFFERENT with it.. dont pretend to reenact coz itll look silly and half cocked as you will be wasting time (and light).. by attemtpting to re-enact the scene.

fake, cheap and very boring as the adrenaline is gone. the mystery is gone and the emotion of the original spoken elemets will no longer hold any weight..
I really mean that.. they wont want to do this, and the amount of thoughts goin on thru their minds re-enacting something so seriosuly as to trying to act out their own wedding is just something they wont want to do.....

Now, not only will styalising offer a dynamic way to present the vows to the viewers, but as a styalised piece, it can be used as future promotional work.

If u have to stage it, make it deliberatly staged.. and make it classy.. dont ask people to act things out.. it just doesnt work, especially considering what theyre acting and the time/light restrictions which are invloved.. not to mention the distractions and self concious mindset they will have in knowing that theyre doing something JUST for it to be filmed..

The above idea wont take more than 10 minutes and may be a better solution. Its intense, very dramatic (if dome properly) and its original..

Peter,

Thanks for the lengthy reply, it's aprreciated.
My thoughts were on the lines of a dreamy recreation as opposed to a straight re-inactment, having said that you have given me some really good ideas, i'll let you know how I pull it off.
I've printed off your post and will put it to the B & G to seek their views.

Thanks again. Carl

OK here's couple of interesting experiences I have had in the past month.

Church A - The wedding coordinator tells us that the videographers must remain stationary over in the corner once the service begins. However the 2 photographers and 2 assistants are free to roam wherever they want, whenever they want. I POLITELY question this and she pulls out the church's rulebook and, sure enough, there it is in black and white. The bride and her father both object when they find out, but rules are rules and I have to stand in the corner.

Church B - I have a wedding coming up in a few weeks, but I will film the pre-ceremony, post ceremony and reception. Why not the ceremony you ask. Good question. The bride and groom are told by the church's wedding coordinator that their rules are so restrictive that there is no good way to film the service. BUT - here's the "good news" - the church has a built in video system (too bad it's just VHS and not digital) and for just $300 the church will provide them with a video of the service (but only the service)

As a strong Christian this really bothers me, but I am not sure what to do about it. Fortunately these situations are rare, but sad none the less.

As far as problems with videographers causing these types of rules, I don't buy it. I've actually seen more rude and inappropriate photographers than videographers. I don't see these types of rules applying to them.

Tony,
You just never know what church rule curveball they'll throw at you sometimes. Went to a rehearsal earlier this year and the priest gruffly tells me: "You stand in the corner under the Blessed Mary statue and you can't move but the photographer can roam." This position he assigned me was behind the podium so when the B&G were at the altar and kneeled, just their heads would be visible to the camera. How rediculous would that look?

This circumstance nearly kept me up all night and the next day I pleaded my case with the priest again. He came to his senses a little and let us position the camera so we could get a left side frontal. Not what we wanted but better than taping the podium.

What really ticks me off is that we are silent and almost invisible during ceremonies while photogs are firing off flashes with audible camera noises. Go figure.
Bob

yeah well, that why its best to do some reseach..

pu tit this way, if there are "rules" my contract CLEARLY STATES thats permission to film is on the heads of the Bride and groom..
on top of that, its a REQUIREMENT that they "shooting safe" and provide "tripd safe" areas for us to place our gear or fo ran area where we can roam.

If these arent followed, i clearly advise the client that if we dont get what WE NEED as a producer, we cant produce to the best of our ability and were ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for it..

remember guys, this is business.. how are u expected to paint a prtrait if theyre taking away the paint.. ??

I posted to this question some time ago. Let's lay it on the LINE!

A DONATION TO THE RESPECTIVE RELIGOUS SERVICE, JUST, MIGHT, GET WHAT YOU WANT.

Sorry to be so blunt!

<<< A DONATION TO THE RESPECTIVE RELIGOUS SERVICE, JUST, MIGHT, GET WHAT YOU WANT. >>>

What you suggest Robert may work, but why should we have to even consider doing that. I don't know about in the states but in England, all churches charge the bride & groom for the privelidge of being allowed to have a video in church anyway, so a donation is normally out of the question. We are shooting a wedding next month and the b & G have been charged £500.00, yes five hundred UK pounds ! just to shoot the video. The bride has special connections with the church and will not marry anywhere else. The church have them over a barrel. The b & g have to pay the fee, we do not involve ourselves with that.

Carl,

You have answered my point. You, (ney, the B&G), have paided off the piper.

As far as I know, many of the religious institutions here, have a "resident" photo/video maker, that does all of the inside work. If the B&G, over on this side of the pond, gave the religious institurion 500 quid, (or it's equivalent), they would get the bishop or whomsoever, to do the service.

This is no worst than doing a newsy, and paying off the security guard, to get to the event. That's what the term "miscelaneous expenses" is for on your voucher.

It works the world over. Bribe, payola, donation, etc. What ever you choose to call it.

All I am suggesting is that everyone get on with it: Pay the Piper!

Enought said by me.

People didn't need video of weddings before it was invented, because they tended to stay married back then and could look at each other every day, for life.

Obviously, the couple to be married in this case, doesn't care much about having video of the event-----why should you bother yourself about it? It seems that you would reject the job and find another where the clients arrange for active cooperation.

I remember one exasperating incident where some friends and their families had pleaded with me, until I agreed to do their wedding (for free). When I arrived, the priest banned me from bringing in a camcorder. The couple hadn't even talked to him about it and blamed me, saying I should have been the one to make arrangements with him. The bride got the marriage anulled after a few weeks, anyway.

Members of this same large family got me to video the funeral of their mother and the get-together afterwards. However, several others of the family rudely insulted me and ordered me to leave. They seemed to think I was invading their privacy for my own benefit. Needless to say, I never took a camera near that bunch again.

I imagine that it's often a hassle for outsiders to video private family events, as some of them may not want cameras around. Now, when I video any sort of family activity, commercially or without a fee for friends, I require that someone in charge explain my presence in advance and assure that I won't be harassed.

Steve McDonald

<<< Obviously, the couple to be married in this case, doesn't care much about having video of the event-->>>

They very much care about. However for reasons i won't go into here, the bride really wants to get married at that church. We include a love story and other parts to a completed wedding production. The service is just part of it.


<<<---why should you bother yourself about it?--- >>>>

Quite simply...because I am a professional! I don't know if you're a pro wedding videographer or not, but, and I don't mean to sound to harsh, with that kind of attitude in the UK, you wouldn't be for long. I pride myself and my company and the people who work for me, on producing a quality product, and a professional service from beginning to end. You can do 60 good weddings in a year, and maybe get 60 good reports. You do one bad wedding and you will get 600 bad reports!

Secondly, the bride & groom are friends of my wife. And as far as i'm concerned a friend is worth bothering about.

<<<--- It seems that you would reject the job and find another where the clients arrange for active cooperation.--->>>

For reasons as stated, easier said than done. They are fully co-operative, it's the church where the problem lies.

The wedding is next saturday and I have planned to create a dream shoot, after the main service as suggested earlier in the thread.


Funerals are a touchy subject. The filming of them has not "took off" in the UK, although a few people do ask for it. Not something ive covered as yet.
Carl

I'm with Gints. Canon makes a fairly small digital camera with a 10x zoom, IS, and it shoots 30fps 640x480 video. It looks like a normal little camera, and is reasonably priced. Get a good seat, prop it up, and stick a hat over it.

You are a trooper! I have to admit, I can’t believe that the bride & groom are actually going to re-do the ceremony just for the sake of video. I hope they are very very good friends of yours!

I almost feel bad reading this thread, but for some reason a satisfied smugness keeps washing over me...

I just shot a wedding a few weeks ago over on Maui where I used a stabilized monopod and my B-cam was on a CRANE NEXT TO THE ALTAR! There is only one church in Hawaii, to my knowledge, that has shooting restrictions so tight that it interferes with getting the job done. Things are usually backwards here, so it is good to know we are progressive on at least one thing.

Okay, the smugness went away. I don't often have such good karma on video jobs and it felt good to gloat a bit.

By definition, churches exist for God and his/her people. The church is not supposed to exist for the edification of the clergy. Any church that can't get that is going to fade away rapidly. I feel sad for the people of those churches and I'm not even religious.

I don't think I could take a job with such restrictions. I don't feel I could put together a product in a situation like this worth their money or my time. I just wouldn't feel right taking their money, except possibly for doing the reception. I think I would rather the video just start at a party instead of being brought down by a crippled ceremony.

This has been very interesting. I am just starting out doing weddings and did my first wedding last weekend.

Since you redoing the vows, maybe try filming in front of a green screen and lay in a picture of the inside of the church behind them?

Can you get in and film some of the sanctuary before/after the event when it is empty? Maybe some shots of the point of view from the bride/groom walking up the aisle would be nice to include.

Call me crazy, and many people do, but what about a reinactment. As long as it's not a 3 hour Catholic wedding, and more of something like 30 minutes or so, what about just having the service, let the guests go, then do a reinactment. Since they will already be married, the reinactment could be structured as to be just that, a restaging of events.

You might not have to reinact all of it either.