| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2007 06:57:56 AM · #1 |
...people are not getting married in churches anymore?
It's because you and your medieval religious beliefs need to move into the current day way of thinking. People are paying you good money to get married in your church and as a result want the whole thing recorded. They dont want a couple of shots of the register being signed and a few shots of them leaving, they want that image of the look in the grooms eyes when he first sees his bride in her gown, that longing stare as they both meet at the altar, that very first kiss as a married couple.
Before you ask Reverend, I dont need to use flash in 99% of locations these days, I would explain to you that ISO1600 on my 5D is perfectly usable in an album, so you can't use "the flash is distracting" argument.
You lot are bitching about no-one wanting to use churches for weddings, then start being a bit more flexible in terms of photographers and videographers... Oh, and when you notice me at the back of the church after sneaking my camera back out of its case (didnt see that coming did ya!), dont give me a dirty look like I am a difficult child, or those little remarks outside the church afterwards, then remember you are a christian, forgive me!!! lol
seriously, f'king annoyed this morning as the weddings I did these past two weekends were in churches (a rarity these days) and both times the vicar/priest were completely infelxible.. still, I got the shots and theres nothing they can do about it now hahahahahahah...
Not sure about the situation in other countries, I am primarily talking about CofE churches here (Church of England).
Rant over.....for now.
Converted directly from RAW - ISO1600, no noise reduction, just resized. See Vic, no flash needed.
Message edited by author 2007-09-02 06:58:42. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:08:26 AM · #2 |
| ah yes but they've got divine retribution and eternal damnation as threats so they win many arguments!! |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:10:23 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by cbonsall:
ah yes but they've got divine retribution and eternal damnation as threats so they win many arguments!! |
Atheist here, so their make believe friends can't touch me..
Message edited by author 2007-09-02 07:11:25. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:12:51 AM · #4 |
| The only church wedding I've been to since I became serious about my photography, I had a chat with the photographer and he tells me the vicar has banned flash photography, of course as guests no one told us not to use flash... so theres the guy whos paid to produce great shots limited but auntie mabel is happily flashing away. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:15:53 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by cbonsall:
The only church wedding I've been to since I became serious about my photography, I had a chat with the photographer and he tells me the vicar has banned flash photography, of course as guests no one told us not to use flash... so theres the guy whos paid to produce great shots limited but auntie mabel is happily flashing away. |
Dont even get me started on that one. :-) good call. (especially the people who use digital cameras that have the fake shutter sound switched on when they actually take the shots..... arrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhh)
Message edited by author 2007-09-02 07:17:25. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:19:14 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by cbonsall:
ah yes but they've got divine retribution and eternal damnation as threats so they win many arguments!! |
Atheist here, so their make believe friends can't touch me.. |
I have recently been converted - by believing in Thor, I found that all my flash needs are resolved.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:21:14 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by cbonsall:
ah yes but they've got divine retribution and eternal damnation as threats so they win many arguments!! |
Atheist here, so their make believe friends can't touch me.. |
I have recently been converted - by believing in Thor, I found that all my flash needs are resolved. |
hahahah, actually made me laugh out loud. Viking god worship is defintely becoming in vogue once again.
Thanks for the laugh man. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:28:28 AM · #8 |
maybe you should make a deal with the vicar,
"if your god is so great, get him to stream a bit of sunlight through the windows, otherwise I'll be calling on the speedlight deities" |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 07:31:06 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by cbonsall:
maybe you should make a deal with the vicar,
"if your god is so great, get him to stream a bit of sunlight through the windows, otherwise I'll be calling on the speedlight deities" |
Well, I am not known to be backwards in coming forwards, and I will admit on both occasions I even offered to put £20 in the collection pot on the way out.. The vicar yesterday actually looked quite offended, but saying that the one last week almost took the deal.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2007 08:09:59 AM · #10 |
| I guess the vicar is concentrating on the true meaning of the service, rather than seeing it as a photo oportunity and the church as some glorified studio ;) |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 08:53:43 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Marigold:
I guess the vicar is concentrating on the true meaning of the service, rather than seeing it as a photo oportunity and the church as some glorified studio ;) |
Why would it cheapen the affair or draw away from the religions aspects of the ceremony if I was standing to the side taking shots? Its not like I stop it halfway through and say "hang on, lets try this angle"..
If he was worried about the "true meaning of the affair", then maybe he shouldn't send the collection box round for his pound of flesh afterwards even though the B+G have paid upwards of £500 for a half hour service.
*CONTROVESY MODE ON*
Still, I guess they need the money so they can pay off all their victims
*CONTROVESY MODE OFF*
Cat - check
pigeons - check
Message edited by author 2007-09-02 09:00:56. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 09:20:42 AM · #12 |
| I agree, there are some individuals who are generally unhelpful, unpleasant, deliberately obstructive. They are found in all walks of life. I just found your remarks a bit too all encompassing, maybe your vicar had had some awful experiences with photographers somewhere along the line ;) |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 09:37:29 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Marigold:
I agree, there are some individuals who are generally unhelpful, unpleasant, deliberately obstructive. They are found in all walks of life. I just found your remarks a bit too all encompassing, maybe your vicar had had some awful experiences with photographers somewhere along the line ;) |
Nah, they are all pretty arrogant. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 09:42:51 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Marigold:
I agree, there are some individuals who are generally unhelpful, unpleasant, deliberately obstructive. They are found in all walks of life. I just found your remarks a bit too all encompassing, maybe your vicar had had some awful experiences with photographers somewhere along the line ;) |
Nah, they are all pretty arrogant. |
Nah ;) |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 10:13:55 AM · #15 |
While I haven't done a lot of weddings I have done and been to enough in a church to say I have never seen one where you couldn't take pictures at all. Is that what you were told, seems that way from your post, maybe I'm reading wrong.
At the ones I did photograph I made sure and asked the minister about it and one had no problems what so ever with it and the others told me I could use flash before "dearly beloved" and after "pronounce you man and wife". While I have never really agreed with it, especially since I don't have expensive low aperature equipment I do respect it just as I would respect the no photography or flashes in museums or a lot of other places.
I think they mainly do it to help cut down on the amount of it, and since it is hard to tell each person who can and cannot use a flash it is easier to say no one. If the minister could maybe limit the flash photography to just the people getting paid to be there then that might help, other wise you have everyone shooting and it starts to look like the knuckle heads shooting the kickoff of the super bowl from the 3rd deck, flashes blazen.
on a side note, generalizing that churches that take in money need it to pay off their victims is a very immature and down right wrong assumption (and yes, by not being specific you generalized them all). There are many people that have been hurt by these people but not all churchs or leaders of the churchs for that matter are the same and should not be generalized this way. Just because a few can't control themselves doesn't mean everyone of them is the same. Hell with that logic all men are pedafiles cause a few do it. Maybe your personal experiences (or lack there of) have something to do with all your feelings about how the church works or should work, too bad they can't be separated.
Message edited by author 2007-09-02 10:14:45.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2007 10:52:54 AM · #16 |
OK, by the way you use the word Ministers, one would assume that you didnt read the original posting where I said that it was generally "Church of England" churches.
And yes, I shoot a lot of weddings and talk to a alot of couples, most of them avoid the church these days because of the attitude of Vicars, those that do have church weddings, unless deeply religious, usually come away dissapointed that photos were not allowed to be taken, it is more often than not that photos are not allowed in CoE churches. So I wasn't generalising on that subject..
As to the other comment, I will put it a different way for the benefit of those priests who are not kiddie-fiddlers.
*CONTROVESY MODE ON*
Still, I guess they need the money so they can pay off the victims of the "holier than thou" paedophilic priests.
*CONTROVESY MODE OFF*
Originally posted by sabphoto:
While I haven't done a lot of weddings I have done and been to enough in a church to say I have never seen one where you couldn't take pictures at all. Is that what you were told, seems that way from your post, maybe I'm reading wrong.
At the ones I did photograph I made sure and asked the minister about it and one had no problems what so ever with it and the others told me I could use flash before "dearly beloved" and after "pronounce you man and wife". While I have never really agreed with it, especially since I don't have expensive low aperature equipment I do respect it just as I would respect the no photography or flashes in museums or a lot of other places.
I think they mainly do it to help cut down on the amount of it, and since it is hard to tell each person who can and cannot use a flash it is easier to say no one. If the minister could maybe limit the flash photography to just the people getting paid to be there then that might help, other wise you have everyone shooting and it starts to look like the knuckle heads shooting the kickoff of the super bowl from the 3rd deck, flashes blazen.
on a side note, generalizing that churches that take in money need it to pay off their victims is a very immature and down right wrong assumption (and yes, by not being specific you generalized them all). There are many people that have been hurt by these people but not all churchs or leaders of the churchs for that matter are the same and should not be generalized this way. Just because a few can't control themselves doesn't mean everyone of them is the same. Hell with that logic all men are pedafiles cause a few do it. Maybe your personal experiences (or lack there of) have something to do with all your feelings about how the church works or should work, too bad they can't be separated. |
|
|
|
|
09/02/2007 11:03:58 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Simms:
OK, by the way you use the word Ministers, one would assume that you didnt read the original posting where I said that it was generally "Church of England" churches. |
yeah I did read your original post and see where you mentioned you weren't sure about other countries...sounded like you were asking how it was away from CoE...if not I guess I misread it...my bad.
Originally posted by simms:
it is more often than not that photos are not allowed in CoE churches. So I wasn't generalising on that subject..
|
I know you weren't generalising on that part of it, it was about the money I said you were generalising about...it is however NOT part of your original post and shouldn't have anything to do with this so it is dropped. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 11:13:14 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Simms:
OK, by the way you use the word Ministers, one would assume that you didnt read the original posting where I said that it was generally "Church of England" churches.
And yes, I shoot a lot of weddings and talk to a alot of couples, most of them avoid the church these days because of the attitude of Vicars, those that do have church weddings, unless deeply religious, usually come away dissapointed that photos were not allowed to be taken, it is more often than not that photos are not allowed in CoE churches. So I wasn't generalising on that subject..
As to the other comment, I will put it a different way for the benefit of those priests who are not kiddie-fiddlers.
*CONTROVESY MODE ON*
Still, I guess they need the money so they can pay off the victims of the "holier than thou" paedophilic priests.
*CONTROVESY MODE OFF* |
So the same motivation to work for money must apply to some photographers then? :(
Message edited by author 2007-09-02 11:15:03. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 11:26:14 AM · #19 |
Boy this thread has gone down hill fast.
While I agree that in a time when the "Church" is having public relations issues, they could/should be a little more accommodating. I have a sister-in-law that is a Sister of Saint Joseph nun. Last year she got the highest position she can get to in the "Church" which is the administrator of a church. She aspires to be a Priest (two rungs above her current role), but she knows it's highly unlikely. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 11:31:26 AM · #20 |
When you take pictures at someone else's house, you go by their rules. It's not the bride and groom's house, it's not the guest's house and it's not your house. As a wedding photographer, if you can't abide by the rules that are placed on you, then maybe wedding photography (or at least weddings in the churches you have problems with) isn't the thing for you. At least they let you into the church. The Mormon church won't even let you in if you are not a member of the church. You have to take your pictures outside or at the reception.
With a lot of churches, it's because of photographers like you, that ignore any rules or restrictions that have caused many to get so restrictive. They don't know who will and won't follow the rules, so they just lay a blanket rule on all photographers. No, they can't stop guests from flashing away, but you aren't a guest. You are a paid worker that is there as a courtesy to the couple, not to the church.
I also believe that restriction on photography in churches has very little to do with the number of people getting married in them. Actually, when you look at how many people are getting married, it seems very few anymore even consider getting a professional photographer. Probably because most professionals are too expensive. Besides, Uncle Bob and do just as well. ;D
Mike
Message edited by author 2007-09-02 11:34:09.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2007 11:52:51 AM · #21 |
My brother got maried at an Anglican Church here in Canada several years ago (Anglican is Church of England). His photographer took tons of shots in the church, not just the register signing and the recession. She got everything. I guess it might depend on the individual church/priest/vicar.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2007 12:11:06 PM · #22 |
I didn't say it was because of photography restrictions people were not getting married in churches, I just said that couples are generally disappointed that 90% of the time they will not allow photographers. However the general attitude of the church needs to be slightly more flexible in its attitudes to weddings & the associated photography AND videography that modern weddings expect.
Attendances are falling rapidly in church and in some areas they are reaching a crisis point. The only time many many people go to church is for a wedding or a funeral, so surely, it is in the churches best interest to put themselves across as a welcoming bunch of people who are in touch with the world outside the walls of the church than people have them believe. Sadly they don't and a percentage of vicars run their church like some kind of medieval tyrant, I didnt say all, but I have seen & met my fair share of vicars to form that opinion.
As before, I admit I have no dealing with churches outside of this country and I am generally referring to Church of England vicars here.
As to the comment quoted below, not sure how you work that one out. You are basically saying that due to people like me, they have had to enforce rules and restrictions, but surely if the rules & restrictions were not there in the first place, then I wouldn't have to break them, the fact they are there shows that the church has no willingless to open its mind what the modern couple expect from their wedding photography.
Regardless, I much prefer to shoot a wedding at a Manor House or some other venue with modern attitudes, but I will still take the church weddings as at the end of the day they also pay the bills.
Originally posted by MikeJ:
With a lot of churches, it's because of photographers like you, that ignore any rules or restrictions that have caused many to get so restrictive. They don't know who will and won't follow the rules, so they just lay a blanket rule on all photographers. No, they can't stop guests from flashing away, but you aren't a guest. You are a paid worker that is there as a courtesy to the couple, not to the church.
I
Mike |
|
|
|
|
09/02/2007 12:33:03 PM · #23 |
| Marriage is one of the sacraments of the church, it will always be different to a secular wedding. The 'restrictions' you highlight just emphasise that. Yes, the church needs to be welcoming to all, for whatever reason they come to church, but that doesn't mean that compromises have to be made. If that's unacceptable to the couple they can choose to get married elsewhere. If getting married 'in church' is important to them , they will be prepared to sacrifice a few photo opportunities for what they believe. :) |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 12:37:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Marigold:
Marriage is one of the sacraments of the church, it will always be different to a secular wedding. The 'restrictions' you highlight just emphasise that. Yes, the church needs to be welcoming to all, for whatever reason they come to church, but that doesn't mean that compromises have to be made. If that's unacceptable to the couple they can choose to get married elsewhere. If getting married 'in church' is important to them , they will be prepared to sacrifice a few photo opportunities for what they believe. :) |
You'd think that wouldn't you. But again, thats just very `old fashioned` thinking. Why not get married in the `eyes of god` or whatever, AND capture the images of it as well to relive that magical religious moment in their lives. The church is its own worst enemy. |
|
|
|
09/02/2007 12:43:53 PM · #25 |
| This belongs in the rant section... |
|
