Vicars - ever wondered why.......

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

09/02/2007 12:44:11 PM · #26

Originally posted by Atropos:

This belongs in the rant section...

I think you're right.

Jedusi

09/02/2007 12:48:35 PM · #27

I think this should be in 'Rant' rather than 'General Discussion'.

With the best will in the world I'm not sure that this is a serious attempt at a general discussion, and little clues like

'seriously, f'king annoyed '

and, out of fairness to Simms,

'Rant over.....for now.'

Give the game away :- )

Chinarosepetal

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

09/02/2007 12:49:34 PM · #28

Originally posted by Atropos:

This belongs in the rant section...

I see no ranting :)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/02/2007 01:04:57 PM · #29

Maybe just a little bit from me.

:-)

BeeCee

Nikon D40

09/02/2007 01:22:33 PM · #30

I've seen weddings where, as a guest, it was impossible to concentrate on the ceremony because of the distractions of the photographer, scooting around in a half-crouch right beside the couple, placing his tripod behind them, blocking the view of the congregation,digging through his monster-bag for new lenses and moving to various locations along the aisle.
Why bother even inviting your family and friends to share in your special day if all you're worried about is making sure there's a record of every moment of it?

Churches can, though, help to find a compromise. The one we were married in has a glassed-in balcony creche at the back, where the window can be opened and video cameras set up. A screen can also be placed at one side of the front, giving the photographer a good angle and light without his movement distracting. The minister will also take time afterwards to help recreate shots if wanted. But no, flash is NOT allowed during the ceremony. Period. And that is announced beforehand for Auntie Mabel and Uncle Bob.

The cost; $50 to the organist and $50 to the janitor, if you're a member. The minister is already getting paid to do her ministering.
Non-members pay $100 for the minister.

(eta; these are the current costs, not what we paid)

Message edited by author 2007-09-02 13:26:09.

09/02/2007 01:48:31 PM · #31

THats the thing, I made it clear from the outset that I wouldnt move once in place, we never ever move during the ceremony, but he said, and I am quoting him here

"Sorry, but I am not prepared to talk about this in anyway, no photography"..

Still,just sent the couple the shots of them with the kiss and they are well happy I took the chance.

Job done.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/02/2007 10:07:53 PM · #32

Originally posted by Simms:

That was what I meant by photographers like you... those that are told no photography and you do it anyway... and then laugh at how you are thumbing your noses at them and their rules. You aren't doing it because you are family, you are doing it for money, with no regard for the meaning of being in a church. Just because the couple are happy does not excuse going against the church rules. The sad thing is that you don't even see it as doing anything wrong or even care if you do.

Mike

_eug

Nikon D50

09/02/2007 11:56:10 PM · #33

Originally posted by MikeJ:

So what is your reaction to the vast number of video cameras present for the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana? That was HOURS AND HOURS. It's still the Church of England, but is it suddenly okay since it's a Prince even though the camera operators were getting paid?

09/03/2007 12:58:47 PM · #34

Originally posted by _eug:

Originally posted by MikeJ:
That was what I meant by photographers like you... those that are told no photography and you do it anyway... and then laugh at how you are thumbing your noses at them and their rules. You aren't doing it because you are family, you are doing it for money, with no regard for the meaning of being in a church. Just because the couple are happy does not excuse going against the church rules. The sad thing is that you don't even see it as doing anything wrong or even care if you do.

So what is your reaction to the vast number of video cameras present for the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana? That was HOURS AND HOURS. It's still the Church of England, but is it suddenly okay since it's a Prince even though the camera operators were getting paid?

It must have been ok for someone or they wouldn't have been there. Of course there was as much politics as religion involved in that case. But of course comparing a royal wedding to a commoners wedding is like comparing pebbles to dimonds... you get a pebble in your shoe you are going to take it out and throw it away. Get a dimond in your shoe and you will put up with the pain. ;)

Mike

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/03/2007 01:59:41 PM · #35

Originally posted by MikeJ:

Presumably Simms could have stuck by the rules and taken no pics during the service and still been paid. So surely money was not his motivation.

You seem to place great stock by "church rules" as if they are self-justifying regardless of their content. If your church said "despise 10% of the world's people for no reason other than their sexual orientation", would you obey? Oh, wait...

Message edited by author 2007-09-03 14:00:02.

09/03/2007 02:41:18 PM · #36

As Matthew hinted at there, it doesn't come down to money with me, more like "the money shot", I guess my professionalism is split towards "doing as I am told" and "trying to do the best by the couple", as a lot of people know on here (DPC) I don't always `toe the line` and always willing to push boundaries, I have a very forthright attitude, I call a spade a spade (whereas Alexsaberi would probably call it "a big tool")..

Basically I understand where you are coming from, but you need to understand my motivation for doing what I did. And yes, I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Kudos to you though MikeJ for a well thought out argument, very valid points were raised.

But I'll never change >:)

09/03/2007 06:13:59 PM · #37

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by MikeJ:
That was what I meant by photographers like you... those that are told no photography and you do it anyway... and then laugh at how you are thumbing your noses at them and their rules. You aren't doing it because you are family, you are doing it for money, with no regard for the meaning of being in a church. Just because the couple are happy does not excuse going against the church rules. The sad thing is that you don't even see it as doing anything wrong or even care if you do.

Mike

Presumably Simms could have stuck by the rules and taken no pics during the service and still been paid. So surely money was not his motivation.

You seem to place great stock by "church rules" as if they are self-justifying regardless of their content. If your church said "despise 10% of the world's people for no reason other than their sexual orientation", would you obey? Oh, wait...

Actually, it's not just about church rules. It has to do with those photographers that also don't believe in "No Trespassing" signs or priveate property (although I feel a lot stronger about that then someone taking a picture in church when they shouldn't... God can take care of his own ;D). I've known a number of photographers that feel the picture is worth what ever it takes to get it... even if that means hoping a posted fence or going into a empty building or stucture to get the pictures they want. Then when something happens or they get caught, it ruins it for those that will search for the owner to ask permission. I've wanted to shoot out in the country places that were off limits to all photographers because of those that wouldn't be bothered to go ask permission first. Then there are those that will put themselves at risk and those that have to come rescue them just so they can get a picture. A lot of times they can get away with it, sometimes they can't and property gets damage, equipment gets lost, someone gets hurt or worse case someone gets killed.

And it seems to be getting worse with the younger generation getting into photography now. Part of it, I believe, is forums like this on the internet showing images that most would not have seen a dozen years ago. Rarely do you see any of the photo forums discuss the ethics, moral and legal aspects of taking pictures. It's a subject that is ignored by most... kind of like "if I don't hear it, I don't have to practice it".

So it's not just really about wedding photography that I'm talking about.

Mike

09/03/2007 06:17:43 PM · #38

Originally posted by Simms:

Never say never, ;D But I know I'm in a distinct minority in my feelings about this... at least in the minority that practices what I say and also am willing to speak out about it. But then I've never let my being the only one in the prarade that was in step stop me from voicing my opinion either. And something that isn't said, is something that isn't known.

Mike

jonnienye

Canon EOS-40D

09/04/2007 08:58:33 AM · #39

all churches should be turned into garden clubs.....

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D