something would happen - YouTube

What are your thoughts about this?

First, I can't tell you how many times I've looked at the photographers running around all over the place and I think "that's just obnoxious." Not all photogs - it's not fair to generalize just like you shouldn't generalize any group. But some are like a swarm and I often wonder how they get away with it. And if it's OK with the couple and the minster then it is OK I guess.

Second, the B&G paid for the photogs to get shots. So....can the photogs do whatever they want, or be anywhere they want during the ceremony?

It's a reminder to always check with the officiant for their rules before the ceremony.

Ha, came here to share the same video. I wonder just how close that videographer was. It doesn't feel like a zoom lens, so was he really right behind them? In everyone's sight line as a background to the B&G?

The pastor is right, of course, and of course the B&G's choice of this pastor reflects this - otherwise they could have chosen someone less religious.

I dealt with the before of this the past few weeks and worked within the rules, of course: 1) "I don't mind during the processional and recessional, but during the ceremony, your cameras can be up front, but you can't.' and at wedding #2, the photographer wasn't allowed in the front half of the church at all because the pastor didn't want the shutter noise being a distraction. We were not allowed to move during the ceremony and were to stay back far enough we weren't in people's sight lines.

Ha! I was JUST about to post this.

I generally chat with the priest before hand. If I find his instructions too restrictive, I remind him that the bride is paying me and that I will have to tell her that my filming capability was limited at his instruction.

Tempted sometime to tell them to go and tell the bride why i couldnt get a shot of both their faces from the best angle. It hasnt come to that though.

i have to say though, the shot it the video is one that I would only do with an unmanned static camera.

Most photogs and videographer know that the middle of the front should only be three people. Nobody wants to be looking at a video guy standing alongside the priest.

I was shooting video at a wedding last year when the vicar stopped the ceremony & banished the photographer to the back of the church. She had been walking up & down the aisle bobbing around in his line of sight clicking away & it clearly put him off. I included the exchange in the edit but the couple requested that I remove it so now I only bring it out to show other videographers what dickheads some photographers can be.:-)

Most photogs and videographer know that the middle of the front should only be three people. Nobody wants to be looking at a video guy standing alongside the priest.

In Belgium it's common practise to stand right behind the priest when they do the vows and ring exchange, only during the rest of the ceremony the priests prefer if we (photog and videoguy) don't move around too much. If it's a ceremony at a venue it's a different case, these priests are getting paid more then enough for a 1 hour service and they are very easy to work with, if I want the sound to be good and mic the priest, they are always ok with that but not if it's in a church.

Yeah, I can say uncomfortable.

About 4 years ago we did a 12 noon catholic ceremony (and all day through to first dance). We went to the rehearsal a couple of days before, as we always do, and agreed the camera positions with the couple and the priest and all seemed well. We even walked to the agreed positions, sat a camera down there to make sure and everything was OK'd.

One of the camera positions was just inside the church door, right at the back of the isle, looking towards the couple and the priest. All UK shooters will be familiar with this. It's a pretty standard place to be, and often the place a grumpy vicar will tell you is the "only" place you can even be in a relatively small church.

We'd been severely restricted on the placement of other cameras, ether because the Priest declined the position or there simply were no suitable places to go given the size of the church and the number of guest, so this was going to be our "main camera" for the entire ceremony. All agreed, all happy.

So, on the day the bride arrives, walks down the isle and the camera takes up position after the bride has passed. The bride arrives at the front, exchanges glances with the groom etc, then, before the ceremony gets under way the priest steps to the lectern microphone and announces that the ceremony cannot start until the camera has been removed from the isle for "health and safety reasons" and that the position was 'not' what agreed at the rehearsal!

At that point 120 people turned around and are now glaring at the camera as if we're now spoiling the B+G's special day by even being there.

The Bride did not speak to us all day. In fact she totally blanked us. So, can I say uncomfortable? Yup, sure can!

did a ceremony (a blessing not a marriage) last week and the priest requested that he not be filmed or photographed at all (apparently there were religious reasons) so as soon as the ceremony got under way, we had to put our cameras down, it felt weird but anyway what i ended up with was photographs/video of outside the church, the march up the aisle then a blank, after which photographs of the happy couple and their friends an relations (with the splendid church alter/apse in the background) and the recessional out to the waiting car! no priest in sight!

I've been a guest at my neice's wedding where the priest stopped the ceremony and read the 'Riot Act' to this misfortunate woman who stood out in the centre to take a photograph, there was no photographs after that!

I would agree with other posters here, you do need to consult as much as you can with the celebrant/officiant I always ask the couple to check with their priest etc. if theres any rules on photography/video

i've been training my partner to walk like a ninja, so as not to attract attention! :-)

Looks to me like there was the "video guy", directly behind the officiant, probably with the big (but silent) camera, and a guy with a loud SLR off to the left - who also was a bit verbal with the priest...

You hear a burst of mirror flapping/shutter going on while the priest is trying to do HIS job... I'd be irked too, shooting with a SLR shooter with a flapping mirror can definitely be VERY annoying, Yes, there is some shutter noise, but a "big" SLR can create quite a racket.

I'm thinking the priest was annoyed by being in a "photo studio", clickety clackety, clickety, click... the video guy just happened to have the "big camera", so he got "the look". The priest first turned to the left, likely as that was the source of his annoyance, then gave the "big camera" (he probably didn't even know was there) the glare TOO...

It's one thing to discretely either move to or stay in one position with a noiseless camera, it's an entirely different thing to move into position and unleash a burst of NOISE - most people are VERY annoyed by noise that "isn't supposed to be there".

The problem is that after ONE incident like this, the truly discrete and professional shooter will be relegated to "the doghouse"... Having been specifically complemented for how "nearly invisible" we were while shooting both photos and video, I'm quite sure there were prior "less than discrete" situations with OTHER photogs/videogs...

There is a vast difference between a professional and some guy with a camera... part of "professional respect" is respect for all the other participants/vendors and for the nature of the occasion...

I am happy to say that in 30 years I have never had cross words or disapproving looks from an officiant during a ceremony, butt have experienced a number of occasions where a photographer has. Usually through moving about or being too close to the officiant with a noisy camera.

The most embarrassing situation I have seen was at a very expensive wedding about 8 years ago in a private chapel on a private estate. The officiant was a Canon someone or other, who made it absolutely clear that myself and the photographer could take shots of the Bride entering the chapel and walking down the aisle, then we must wait outside the building. he would accept no compromise whatsoever. The photographer, clothed in dress suit and tails said to me quietly 'Just watch me'. He crept back into the chapel with a large telephoto lens to sneak some shots from the back. I waited outside as instructed and about 30 seconds later the first hymn suddenly stopped, followed after about another 15 seconds by the photographer being bodily guided out of the chapel door by the canon, who had a firm grasp on the collar of the photographer's jacket and the seat of his pants. He was deposited unceremoniously on the ground, with the words 'My service my rules'.

Roger

All UK shooters will be familiar with this. It's a pretty standard place to be, and often the place a grumpy vicar will tell you is the "only" place you can even be in a relatively small church.

We'd been severely restricted on the placement of other cameras, ether because the Priest declined the position or there simply were no suitable places to go given the size of the church and the number of guest, so this was going to be our "main camera" for the entire ceremony. All agreed, all happy.

At that point 120 people turned around and are now glaring at the camera as if we're now spoiling the B+G's special day by even being there.

The Bride did not speak to us all day. In fact she totally blanked us. So, can I say uncomfortable? Yup, sure can![/QUOTE]
Yep just sums UK up Dave hahaha. been there lad...

C'mon everyone.

If it were truly a "solemn assembly", the wedding would not be on the verdant lawns of whatever country club that is -- it would be in a church.

In my opinion, the Priest is "all about himself" -- not G-d in this case.

Granted, I would not have a camera on a tripod or monopod so close/directly behind them either, but, on the other hand, given the setting of the ceremony (a *relatively* secular setting for a Priest), he must understand that the B&G have something slightly different in mind than he's officiating here.

Or maybe I've completely misread the scene.

We have an Anglican Cathedral here with a Canon (a lady) affectionately known for her tough rules!
One position only, no flash in the Church ..no-one allowed in the aisle at any time and also NO guests are allowed any cameras or video whatsoever.

One poor photog (his own fault) flaunted the rules and she stopped the service, evicted him from the Church (physically! he had to stand outside and wait for the bride to exit) She is one tough cookie but very sweet as long as you stick to her rules!

I haven't yet had the embarrassment of being thrown out of any Church as yet but when I was filming the register signing she did once motion to me to move back and to the side.

I have had two photogs at an outdoor ceremony that were intent on taking about 500 frames a minute each and getting as close to the couple as they possibly can. One even stuck his head in between the priest and couple so he could do a ring closeup with the lens only inches from her hand. At that stage the priest had had enough and moved them away with some stern words. They reminded me of the flies we get here in Summer they get in everywhere and just keep coming back!!

Chris

Well tell the bride & groom that. They're the ones that have paid me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did the bride make that face like the photog did something bad ... or the fact her photos will now potentially be ruined?

I will reiterate my comment (maybe you both posted before seeing?):

This isn't a church. It's outdoors on some verdant lawn. And there's a spectator in the back with sunglasses on! (Do you wear sunglasses to a solemn assembly?)

Here in America, this does not spell out as "solemn" a ceremony as that Priest describes. To me, this is a Priest not only thinking he's in the sanctity of his own church, but going far beyond any Godly intentions and making the ceremony be about his own misappropriated power.

Ah, I see ... I just rushed in to commenting!

That priest is an absolute IDIOT then and i'm not surprised the bride made the WTF face ...

We have an Anglican Cathedral here with a Canon (a lady) affectionately known for her tough rules!
One position only, no flash in the Church ..no-one allowed in the aisle at any time and also NO guests are allowed any cameras or video whatsoever.

One poor photog (his own fault) flaunted the rules and she stopped the service, evicted him from the Church (physically! he had to stand outside and wait for the bride to exit) She is one tough cookie but very sweet as long as you stick to her rules!

I haven't yet had the embarrassment of being thrown out of any Church as yet but when I was filming the register signing she did once motion to me to move back and to the side.

I have had two photogs at an outdoor ceremony that were intent on taking about 500 frames a minute each and getting as close to the couple as they possibly can. One even stuck his head in between the priest and couple so he could do a ring closeup with the lens only inches from her hand. At that stage the priest had had enough and moved them away with some stern words. They reminded me of the flies we get here in Summer they get in everywhere and just keep coming back!!

Chris

Here in the UK, i've also been told to switch of the camera or not to record the signing on the register.

We do get the chance to do a 'fake' signing for photographic purposes a bit later on though.

I've had that too James. Theres a law about making a record of an official document. Videoing/photography basically is grouped in with photocopying. Stupid, but I think thats where it comes from.

A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws.

The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information.

Roger

If you are coming into the game then be prepared for a rough time with most church's, the wardens are the worst, some priests you can get around, but its hard work.... For all of us trading for ages, argue at your peril, I did and can no longer film at one church in Liverpool, now I keep my gob shut. But last week I did St Chads again and I had to say something. I was at the church at midday for a 1pm wedding. Doors locks and chains, groom arrives gets some footage of him, none in church, cant do my usual slides and racks in church, bride arrives, doors still shut. 12.50 two wardens turn up, I politely said can you please tell me why you are opening so late, there reply! not you again!!! Jeeez I might go back to ranting and raving as the quiet nice approach sometimes don't work. Week previous, small hotel, registrar, "I stand here you cannot go there" she said to me!! ok I said where do you want me to go? At the back she says. But I will not be able to see the bride and grooms face as they are facing you I said and the bride has paid for a wedding film? Ok when the bride comes I will stop the isle entrance and go up to her and say you wont let me film her coming down the isle? Nooooo stay there then, lets not upset the bride!! Works every time....

[QUOTE=Roger Gunkel;1813891]A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws.

The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information.


(Roger, when that's happening I film the lot, but I keep turning my head away as if it looks like I am not filming...Works every time...)

A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws.

The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information.

Roger
I have heard a whole bunch of different arguments as to why filming/photographing the register signing is forbidden e.g.
1) The register is Crown Copyright
2) There are the names of other couples visible on the adjacent page
3) The B&G signing with a fountain pen my mess up & blot the register while being distracted by posing the cameras

However as Roger points out they are all completely bogus as it is a document open to public inspection.

The key is not to be polite.

Your instant reflex should be.

Well, the bride has paid me to film her. Should I tell her YOU specifically told me not stand here/film here/stay here etc before she arrives?

As soon as you drop a line like that, just watch them change their attitude.

People just make up their own rules to feel like they have responsibility!

+1 James, spot on friend

I wonder if a line like
"well you should have discussed this with my employer before now, but it's too late, she expects footage from here and you never told her that her photographer and videographer wouldn't be allowed to"
would work?

I filmed a wedding in Kings Lynn UK early last year, where the photographer Tom Clegg, a very well respected and long established photographer, was told what he could and couldn't do. He tried to discuss politely with the lady vicar and was told 'in my church you do as I say'. His response was an interesting one, he replied 'It's God's house madam not yours, and when I spoke to Him last night he was very happy about it, are you appointing yourself above Him?' The vicar stomped off and just gave him black looks every time he took a picture. I wouldn't have had the balls to say that, but he was semi retired and was fed up with BS.

Roger

We had one pastor, at an outdoor ceremony, tell us we weren't allowed to put a mic on the groom because, I wish I were joking, "their vows are between them and god." me:"so what are all the people here for?" She did not care for that.

We have a couple of Gorillapods for tricky setups, if anyone ever gives us grief like you British guys apparently get all the time. I'm considering getting a lighting stand that could hold a camera but instead of a tripod, it's got a base plate, like microphone stands do, so it's footprint is tiny.

All this reminded me to read it over, but you better believe our contract has a line about 'shall not be held responsible if subjects are not made available to film...'

Turn up the volume and listen to the footage again. It seems like the still photographer was shooting everything at 5fps, which is what may have irritated the priest. Poor video guy was kicked out just because he happened to be next to the photographer. 5fps throughout the entire ceremony might be a little excessive...don't you think?

I completely agree that shutter noise is a constant distraction. I'm glad video is silent.

Yeah. Never forget the the first time I shot from the back of a church with a 100mm F2.0 on a GH2 set to crop mode. It allowed a little tighter than head to toe shot. To keep a constantly rolling shot I started with a Rokinon 8mm Canon mount for the entrance and then went to the 100 and then back to the 8mm for the exit. Because the lens mount was passive I didn't have to worry about electronics or the start stop being triggered by taking the lens off. I know, plural eyes for syncing things, but back then I wanted the shots as long as possible.

When I got married in Church, the photorgrapher took pictures going in, when requested at the 'pretend' register signing done for photographic reasons, and not the real signing - and then as we were leaving, shot from the far end, so we were walking towards the exit down the aisle.

We got married in Church because we wanted to, and knew the Church had rules we had to follow. Not just on photography but cine, and the new fangled video gizmos just appearing (U-matic).

The vicar was in charge, what we did, said and where we stood was set by him. We chose a religious ceremony where you make promises in front of the congregation, and the big man upstairs. Over the years, I've lapsed, but I still believe in God. Nowadays people who don't believe in God want to get married in church, because they get to wear nice dresses, and the photos look better. They make meaningless promises, and most of the congregation don't even know the Lords Prayer anymore. The priest has to conduct a legal and religeous ceremony with an audience more suitable for Jeremy Kyle, who cannot understand what the problem is - and trot out the old line that 'they paid for it'. If they really wish to put visuals in front of religion, then hire a deconsecrated church, pay to have it made nice to look at, and have it done by a registrar you have engaged who doesn't mind it being made into a meaningless circus.

I've no problem with weddings that need endless video and photographic interference, if that's what the couple want, but the photography rules will have been detailed in advance, they won't be a shock - and the couple just disregard common courtesy, and sanctity - and expect the priest (who's entire career is built on religion) to set aside his beliefs and views to allow Spielberg-esque behaviour.

If you got permission to hold a wedding at a Freemason's Lodge, would it be ok to poke fun at their beliefs, or if you work in Northern Ireland, would you do a wedding in a Catholic area and expect your protestant views as photographer to be accepted?
[quote]That priest is an absolute IDIOT then and i'm not surprised the bride made the WTF face .{/quote]
They didn't have to select that priest, and obviously didn't spend any time talking to him before the ceremony. Why is he an idiot for wanting everyone to behave appropriately for what he was doing? When guests at a reception want the DJ or band to play inappropriate music, they won't do it. If you book a country band for your wedding, are they idiots for not playing Death Metal. If you engage an 'art' photographer do you complain when you get all the odd angles and weirdly composed shots with photoshop treatment?

If you want a fully documented wedding, with moving video and stills people shooting every little thing - then the choice of venue, officiant and other details need some consideration.

The vicars know that they have a fair number of non-believers getting married by them, and a small number may at some point become more involved with religion. They know the vast majority won't, and the next time they'll see them is baptism. Would you, as a person of strong belief be happy to let them hijack your service?


You do not need to agree with what they do to derail the video, but as the entire service needs them more than it needs anyone else apart from the B&G, then paying for the service is not an automatic right to take it over.

Sorry guys - but what these people did was disrespectful. The various excuses put forward are clever. The comment about having asked God yourself is amusing. Amusing because it undermines the authority of the priest, who obviously cannot prove the existence of God anyway, and shows that the root of the problem is not understood by the photographers, who believe legal contracts and payment overturn the rights of the priest contracted in law and belief to carry out the process. I am not against persuasion and promises to not intrude - they are in my view the only tools at the photographers disposal. Threats to tell the Bishop, or put the blame on the priest are underhand, and really not serious threats, because the church are fully aware of these issues, and have endless discussion about how to deal with it. Stuff like this just adds a name to the priests unofficial list of firms not to suggest to B&Gs who ask for advice. Priests forever fall out with the powers that be, and appealing to the highest authority in their disciplinary actions doesn't work.

Guests, participants and contracted people need to conduct themselves with dignity, respect and professionalism - and if the vicar says NO - then respect it. They are in charge, and have the power to stop a ceremony if they wish - and the best you can do is complain afterwards. At the time of the dispute - they are the boss, live with it.Do they care about the video or photographs? Nope - nothing to do with the success or failure of their contribution - which is simply the ceremony.

I'm so blunt with my views because i'm agnostic.

You obviously believe in the priests views and look up to a priest as some one higher than you, hence why you feel the need to defend him.

In my opinion he could have just tolerated the clicking sounds from the SLRs and got on with it without ruining the whole ceremony with that interruption and may be said something in private afterwards.

Fact is, he thought he's better than everybody else. And he's not. Just another attention hungry individual masking his nature behind religion.

While the priest had a very valid complaint he took a bad situation and made it way worse. The photographer and videographer may have been very annoying to him and somewhat of a distraction to the people in the audience but what that priest did pretty much destroyed the entire ceremony. His sour face and threat to stop the ceremony took a joyus occasion and made it very awkward.

They are in charge, and have the power to stop a ceremony if they wish

They are being paid to perform a service, just like all other vendors during the wedding, imagine a caterer threatening to take away the food because he is annoyed by a photog flashing away, or a limo driver threatening to go home, or a dj threatening to stop playing, well, you get the point I guess. That's just not done, the priest could have made a friendly comment that the clicking of the photocamera was too distracting, the photog would surely take a step back or take 1 photo at a time and not just fire away. The priest clearly has no understanding of how to communicate and he has no respect at all for any other people that are being hired as well to perform a service, he is also very disrespectful towards the couple and guests. If I was the groom, I would really be annoyed with the matter and probably wouldn't pay the priest his asking prize.

The trouble is that in the UK, civil ceremonies are pretty straightforward, and rarely present any problems to videographers or photographers, but Churches are a completely different matter. CofE churches have clear guidelines issued for the organisation of weddings and these include video in church.

Most churches charge the couple extra if a video is being taken and the guidelines recommend that only extra costs incurred by the church are charged plus an extra fee for the organist to cover performing rights. Sometimes though, totally outrageous charges are laid on the couple if they want a video. At a wedding show that I was at last weekend, one couple that I spoke to loved my prices, but couldn't also afford to pay the extra £450 that the church demanded for allowing video. That amounts to about £800 per hour and generates little respect for the solemnity and religious significance of the ceremony.

In my experience, there are frequent and unnecessary displays of lack of respect for the officiant by photographers, taking pictures from too close and using burst shooting with very noisy cameras as well as constantly changing position. I find that very annoying and can sympathise with the officiant getting irate, as I feel the same way.

There really needs to be a balance between the religious aspects of a wedding ceremony and the wishes of the couple to have their once in a lifetime experience recorded for them. Perhaps a code of conduct could be agreed between the churches and videographers and photographers that all could follow to everyone's benefit. I am actively involved in trying to do this in my own area and maybe others could also look at something similar.

Roger

Same here Roger, I contacted the Liverpool arch diocese and wanted a meet with them to organise a conduct for the wedding days around Merseyside, there are old fashioned priests vicars clergy then there are decent young ones but not many. The diocese told me they would not have a meet because each church has their own rules? But maybe that was a get out clause for hassle free...Best way I found after 7 years is to turn up on the day go straight to him her and explain what I do and this is the position I would like, if he is awkward just get around him saying well the bride and groom are lovely people and paid me to film there wedding and I need the best footage I can get so when they arrive lets all get together for a meet and sort it out!! Then they do not want to know! And I get my way. The awkward ones that dig their feet in, well, its hard work but in the end we all get a decent position. Last week I got on with a guy never seen before, we agreed on a position for me and the photog. But in all honesty the photog was a pain, I had my camera set up tripod and my shoulder rig for b-roll, the photog came near me knocked the flowers over trying to get under, walking about getting in the way, the priest gave him some right looks and I could see later he would get a blast from him. The photog was out of order, why don't they just stay pretty still like us and move slowly and discreetly. You cant get every shot, but this guy was a pain. He was putting his camera up in the air getting stupid shots that I never see any photog doing in church,.

The clergy can quite easily tell you that each church has it's own rules, but there are very clear and precise guidelines and advice regarding weddings laid out in the C of E website for vicars, which a number choose to ignore. The are also some charges that are made that are actually illegal, again on the same website with warnings about it. Unfortunately a Christian attitude is tailored to suit on occasion.

The trouble is Steve that you and I who remain in one discrete position negotiated politely with the Vicar, still get tarred with the same brush when you are working with an inconsiderate and disrespectful photographer.

I did have one pleasant surprise in my local church recently when the photographer went against the vicar's request and walked about taking very intrusive pics. At the end, the vicar came over to the two of us, shook my hand and said 'A great pleasure working with you Roger, as discrete as always, (turning to the photographer) as for you young man, you won't be taking pictures in my church again!'

So it does pay to be polite and respectful, attempt to negotiate carefully, but sometimes have to put up with sanctimonious BS!

Roger

Unfortunately I find that officiants lump us together - so if they've been p****ed off with togs in the past then we just look like potential trouble to them - I back this up by pointing out how many guests stop what they're doing and smile for my video camera and wait for the flash - they can't tell the difference.

Regarding registrars - I once had a registrar take off the groom's lav mic, remove my zoom from behind the flower arrangement and place them at the very back of the room - afterwards she told me it was because I was not allowed to record the groom's pre-ceremony interview - note that I said 'afterwards' had I not noticed the mics had gone i'd have been in trouble!!!!

Where churches are concerned I used to fret over not getting the very best for my couples but now i don't sweat it - the venue is their choice and if there are restrictions then the consequence is also theirs! I point out in my meeting with them that the priest may have filming restrictions - I also try to go to every rehearsal (at a cost to myself so mainly only relatively local ones) and I cover it in my terms and conditions.

If there was a last minute restriction imposed on me by the priest I certainly would not start a debate with the bride as she stepped out of the bridal car - I simply do what I'm told. If then (and this has never happened) the bride was unhappy with the ceremony coverage because of the restrictions then I'd point her politely but firmly back in the direction of the priest - not my battle.

Let's not forget though the good priests (who's numbers far outweigh the arsey ones) who are really accommodating - here is a still from a wedding a few months back - the priest would not allow me or the tog anywhere near the front (he allowed 2 locked off cameras though) but did let us stand in the aisle at the back and occasionally turned the couple round to smile for the cameras - he was a nice guy.

Peter,
+1
While it sounds on the surface that officiants in your country are really tough to deal with, it also seems like they are the same everywhere. I've had the ones who think they are God and make life sucky for everyone trying to do their jobs but the majority of them are just doing their jobs as well. I always go with my rule of "it's their house, their rules" and I'm the kind of guy that prefers to ask permission than forgiveness later.
It's may just be me but I have found the best place to shoot the actual ceremony, not all the stuff before and the communion later (Catholic) is center aisle. After all the B&G are facing each other and they are positioned in basically the center aisle so if I was relegated to that position I wouldn't care. Have 1 or 2 unmanned on the altar is a win for me. Some officiants won't allow that, some do.
As for telling the bride about how bad the conditions are before the wedding, not a chance. She's already nervous, possibly upset and maybe even 1 or 2 sheets to the wind. I don't need the grief and she can't change anything anyway. Later on after she's viewed the DVD, if she has a question as to why I did what I did THAT is the time for the conversation but honestly, I can not think of 1 time that's happened. I don't tickle sleeping bears!

Wow! It matters not if you are agnostic, atheist or a believer, your rights are protected in most territories in the world. Agreeing with them isn't important. I'm a bit shocked that equal rights don't seem to apply. Join a club, but don't follow the rules? As most of my work is in theatre, I often have to shoot shows that as a customer, I'd have avoided because I find the content unacceptable - but my job requires me to be professional, and follow their rules. When I work for the Magic Circle, I follow their rules on secrecy, even though I'm not a member, and don't place my cameras in the wrong places. When I shoot a religious convention for a less than mainstream one, I don't do certain things at certain times because it's inappropriate. If I'm shooting football or sport where they hold a minutes silence for somebody I don't know, do I choose this time to move my noise and clatter about? Of course not.

Frankly, the attitude of some people makes me wonder if getting a wedding contract makes you feel you have some elevated status, making your part of the service the most important. I use the word 'service' on purpose. The entire point of a wedding, legal, or religious, is to make a statement, heard in public and having legal status for the future. When I went to California, I discovered the civil wedding to be a sit down, repeat after me, you're married kind of event, in a waiting room, surrounded by people asking for their drains to be unblocked, or their vehicles to be re-registered. The other option of a religious ceremony is miles apart, so they have a mid ground one, where somebody gets officiant status for a day. A great idea, which I assume is all across the states? My friend who is British, had to become a US citizen (almost) by swearing to uphold your constitution etc etc. Then he conducted the ceremony, inserting at the end of his own 'special non-religious service the words required by the State to make it legal. If somebody had disrupted his carefully put together special occasion, would he not have the moral right to stop people spoiling it - even when he gave his time and effort for free.

I can't see why wedding people (not all, of course) believe they have some kind of high status in the pecking order? The caterers who made the cake, the dressmakers all take pride in their elements of the happy day, all being contracted by the couple. If the dress maker got in the way of all the shots keeping their element of the day pristine would they have a lesser or greater status in the heirachy?


You never see this kind of outrageous behaviour on a film set when the photographers are working - they know their contribution, while important, isn't the most important.

I do know, that if I saw a particular firm of photographers treat the wedding as a whole like this, I'd recommend anyone that would listen to find another one, more sympathetic to the occasion.

Wedding contributors all have a part to play - but all are servicing the event in their own way, but I'd suggest the person conducting the service has a damn sight more clout than somebody taking the pictures.

I can remember the person's name who married me 33 years ago, who the photographer was, I have no idea!

I think the problem was that there have not been made any agreements whatsoever about expectations on the priests side which for me is poor communication, obviously he didn't expect this kind of disturbing "behavior" but what is worst is the way he reacted to it which was totally uncalled for. Like I said earlier a friendly comment that the camera clicking was disturbing should have done the trick. The wedding was also at a public place, not in a church as far as I can see so his "status" was just a s high as the video or photoguy performing a service at that same moment, they only should have talked to eachother before the ceremony started.

I don't tickle sleeping bears!

Don - I hear you. You are a seasoned guru and I'm normally with you 100% on this forum.

I would only reiterate, though, that the *setting* of this wedding is what, to me, puts this Priest in the "meddlesome monk" category, that is, way over the top.

It's one thing if the wedding is in the sanctity of his holy nave, however, this wedding is clearly on the verdant lawns of some other venue. Maybe a country club. Maybe a venue ostensibly known as "Manor Meadows" or "Highland Hills" or "Indian Creek Country Club" or something of that ilk. But we are not at Holy Cross Cathedral. Granted, it still might be a ceremony "under God" -- but to think that the Bride and Groom were planning on a full mass (and all the things which would correspond to such) in this setting is, with the Priest in mind, laughable.

I don't think the venue should come into it. This man is just totally disconnected from the real world. As a christian myself, I can tell you that generally speaking, couples that are really 'into' their faith don't even want the pomp and ceremony, but rather opt for a more 'real' and less traditional expression with elements like worship bands etc…

Here in northern ireland, the church thing is very traditional. Probably 80% of my church weddings are couples who don't go to church.

But thats another story.

Point is, this minister is more demanding that it is 'solemn' than claiming it IS. He ignores completely whether or not the couple believe it to be. If he thinks cameras are the only potential issue interfering with the couple's spiritual state, he is living in a fairy tale land.

If the couple is truly, spiritually, making these vows, then nothing will distract them. If the couple are saying the vows (to God) simply out of tradition, then they won't give two hoots how 'solemn' it is.

The priest has a hunger for power, and perhaps confrontation issues. Simple as that.

P.S. I know what he was getting at, but the adjective 'solemn' i don't think is correct anyway. I think God is happy when people say vows.

sol·emn *(slm)
adj.
1. Deeply earnest, serious, and sober.
2. Somberly or gravely impressive. See Synonyms at serious.
3. Performed with full ceremony: a solemn High Mass.
4. Invoking the force of religion; sacred: a solemn vow.
5. Gloomy; somber.

I live in probably one of the most catholic of countries in the world (Brazil) where religion is extremely important and present in the lives of nearly all. Compared to most though it seems, videographer and photographers get the run of the church.

It is normal to stand next to the priest, behind him, walk behind the altar to change sides \ angles etc. Very rarely to do they refuse to be lav'ed up. It really does make for a more varied edit for the ceremony, which usually go on for about 40 minutes or so.

If anyone's interested they can see one here:

https://vimeo.com/74528783/settings

password: ceremony

Slightly off topic ... but that's a nice clean video Dan, what was your lenses / setup / equipment if you don't mind me asking?

Bit more background to it here:

Minister stops wedding ceremony to shout at photographers | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426602/Minister-stops-wedding-ceremony-shout-photographers.html)

The establishing shots supplied to the newspaper by the photographer show just what a messy scenario it was in which to shoot. There are no real vantage points other than from the back of the ceremony. There is hardly any space between the celebrant and the lake and what there is is partially limited by two mature tree trunks. Then there's that arch. No higher ground vantage points. Then there's that stupid stupid stupid American habit of the wedding party filing off to either side of the couple forming a crescent and blocking any chance of front-side aspect shots. And why do the fellas always assume that pose with their hands clasped in front of the family jewels? We call that the penalty shoot-out pose in the UK (from what professional footballers do when defending against a penalty kick in a game of real football).

This was a circus waiting to happen. There were two photographers and at least one videographer. Why? What was the point of that? And why did the videographer think it was a good idea to plonk himself and all his paraphernalia behind the arch in direct sight of everyone. maybe thats why the photographers were reluctant to shoot from the rear. A GoPro or two disguised on the arch or in the static flower arrangements could have worked wonders for both stills and video.

I've had my fair share of run-ins with crazed clergy and civil celebrants but I feel some sympathy for this priest. I got the feeling from his words and demeanour that his aim was to get the ceremony "back on course" as he would see it as absolutely quickly as possible; he didn't think it desirable to go into a lengthy discourse but when the shooters started questioning him that aim unravelled.

And no amount of pre-wedding planning, discussions, written contracts, attending rehearsals etc will guarantee a problem free ceremony. There are just too many differences in what the various players regard as normal or acceptable. I have the scars to prove it :- )

Not sure if this vimeo link will play - I'm part way through resurrecting my old Vimeo pro account. I think the reference number is 75159647. It illustrates that priests can also be very accommodating:

camera-rules-03 on Vimeo

Pete

Actually there looks to be a fair amount of room behind the arch - likely drops off towards the lake, making it a bit treacherous, like many outdoor venues. Not ideal, but doable if you have a "normal" wide lens (video cam)and want to get good closeups during the ceremony (and a mild tele for the stills). The deep DoF makes it look like there is less room than there probably was...

Since this article adds quite a bit to the scenario, I think it substantiates much of what has been said here - the priest's "collar was a little too tight", and the clicking got to him.... I doubt he got a "tip", and maybe he'll be the one not hired in the future? If he was trying to help the B&G not be "distracted" or "nervous", I believe the term is EPIC FAIL.

I still say that the clatter of mirror flap and shutter CAN be pretty annoying/distracting, especially if the 'tog is firing off burst after burst, so I sympathize in that sense, but losing your cool and making up a silly story to explain it later when you look like a buffoon is not terribly "professional" either...

I suspect the now "viral" nature of this clip is more embarrassing to the priest than he would have ever expected...

Thanks James - 2xC100s with 24-105 IS and 17-55 IS on monopods, plus a 60D with tokina 11-16 for the static guests shot. Priest and groom mike'd with Irivers.

I believe this train wreck has two components that pretty much define what went on. The catalyst that caused the priest's melt-down was the incessant swack!, swack!, swack! of the photographer's DSLR mirror. Don't photographers realize how loud and irritating that is!? And to position himself five feet away and pull that stunt is way over the top!

As for the focal length debate regarding the videographer's lens, take another look at the video. The curtains block the videographer from being seen by the guests. If he had been farther back, more guests would have seen him. Were it not for the photographer's machine gun imitation, no one would have even noticed the videographer.

The final point is the priest was way out of line. That outburst was juvenile and totally uncalled for.

Another interesting angle for discussion on this is - Is it right for a videographer to release a clip like this to go viral? (although I'm sure they didnt know it would?)

I mean if this was your wedding, it would be bad enough if this happened, but to find that you videographer is sharing the clip simply to badmouth the incident and the priest. Would that not be something you would be annoyed by?

In fairness, there are people out their who would pay money to feature in a viral video about ANYTHING.

In the article posted above, the bride is actually interviewed.

So for the rest of their lives, what stands out for them from their wedding day!

"It was such a lovely day, the priest was an arse, the video went viral, the media even interviewed me!"

Just like every young girl dreams of...


QUESTION

If there was anything 'bad' that you filmed at a wedding, would you ever release it online??