Not Another Wedding Thread

[feeb]

well, it is actually... but i didnt want to put people off!! basically i photographed my dads wedding yesterday, it was quite a laugh and nothing too intense is expected of me, but i will post some piccies up for comments nethertheless

anyhoo, so i get to the church, meet the Vicar (who is an incredibly uppity woman) who informs me, very brashly, that there will be no flash used within the church, and that i was not allowed, at any point to move behind her. Only to the side.

So there is a huge great window at the back of the church, meaning that most of the shots showing the couple havent come out all that well, but any shots i took of her were fantastic (she was to the left of the window, so she didnt get glared out by the light coming through)

Now i must ask, is it normal for Vicars or whoever is doing the service to be this fussy? because i am sure the bride and groom would have loved ONE decent shot of themselves getting married (which i think i managed to get) but she seemed far more interested in herself than what they might want from their own wedding!

this was the first wedding i have ever done, and i wondered if it was normal

ta very muchly

 

[WeddingHack]

No flash, quite normal, usually you have to stay in one spot as well. It's very rare for C of E vicars to allow photographers behind them. Catholic priests are much more photographer friendly.

Usually you are shooting from the back, which usually means shooting against the light of the huge window at the far end. Overexpose the shot to compensate.

You were lucky, 90% of woman vicars I've met don't usually allow any photography at all during the service.

 

[feeb]

Wow okay!! didnt realise the couples feelings would take such a back seat!! i'm glad i know what to expect next time!

 

[ranarama]

What WeddingHack said

What is it with C of E vicars though (women and men)? They really are the most pedantic nit pickers of all the wedding 'officials'. You'd think they'd be pleased just to get people through the doors these days.

 

[Janice]

That happened to me... and I was thinking.. "These people are paying for wedding shots" and I couldnt even get in front of them for the ring exchange etc.

I did one in a castle where the female registrar was great and let me use flash and stand next to her to get front shots... as long as i didnt dash about all over the place!

 

[purplepaul]

I have my first one in less than a month and have just got even more worried lol

 

[feeb]

That happened to me... and I was thinking.. "These people are paying for wedding shots" and I couldnt even get in front of them for the ring exchange etc.

I did one in a castle where the female registrar was great and let me use flash and stand next to her to get front shots... as long as i didnt dash about all over the place!

Thats it, being respectful is one thing! but these people were arses!! they were refusing people access to the loo without walking around the whole building (rather than through a door at the back) and really slowed up the service for everyone

infact, the vicar seemed to be doing her damnest to throw her weight around with everyone, and make everyones lives as difficult as possible.

I wasnt planning to run around manically, but i did have to run around a little bit, simply because it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a nice shot of the bride as she got married!!

vicar was in perfect light though... funny that!

 

[feeb]

I have my first one in less than a month and have jus got even more worried lol

Good luck...

is it a paid one or for a mate?

 

[purplepaul]

Good luck...

is it a paid one or for a mate?

As its my first i have said to them they can just pay for prints they want, which suited them and will make me work harder to get more creative shots.

Im just the second togger at the curch but i will be incharge of doing the wedding breakfast(which turns out to be a lunch:shrug:lol) and the reception.

 

[WeddingHack]

To be honest, I'm on the vicars side for the most part - the last thing you want in a solemn ceremony (church or civil) is a photographer running around distracting the official, guests or couple. Especially with flash - there's just no need for it. If you don't have the kit / skills to shoot without flash, that's your fault, not the vicars.

At a recent wedding I spoke with the vicar beforehand - usual rules, stay at the back, come up the sides for a few, no flash, be discreet.

He said 'I had some idiot in here last week, running around, flash all over the place, distracting everyone. The couple even apologised to me when the ceremony was finished.' After the service I asked him if everything I did was OK - 'didn't even know you were there, did you get what you wanted ?'

For the most part vicars are how they are because they have a long list of photographer nightmare stories to put them in that frame of mind.

 

[feeb]

fair enough, i suppose its 'one rule for everyone' but i certainly wouldnt have been running around using flash, i had already realised that would be disrespectful in the church, but to not allow me a decent spot at the back, to crouch and take photos during the ceremony, i felt was a little bit off tbh

 

[pxl8]

Yep, I agree with Duncan. As photographers we're there to record the event not become part of it.

 

[feeb]

but the photography is something so important to the couple!!

there should be rules but not to the extent that they hinder the ability to capture a special day for the people

my point is not that photographers should be allowed to run around flashy flashy... but that the personal requests of the couple should be taken into account

i'm sure catholic weddings dont allow a barage of flashy flashies... but i imagine if you wish to make any money from this, you would need to learn a bit of etiquette

 

[feeb]

also, it was quite clear from the layout of the ceremony, and the fact that the vicar hid the couple for three quarters of it whilst she ranted about god, that it was very little to do with the couple

i quite imagine the vicar thought it was just a prime opportunity to 'convert' people

 

[sportysnaps]

Is it a church - ie a place of worship or a photographic studio?

So there is a huge great window at the back of the church, meaning that most of the shots showing the couple havent come out all that well,.......

so you got the exposure wrong? Churches always have big window to let the light in- maybe use single or multiple spot readings(on the B+G), exposure compensation or exposure bracketing, and shoot in RAW

but any shots i took of her were fantastic (she was to the left of the window, so she didnt get glared out by the light coming through)

was she the main subject? will the B+G want photos of the Vicar?

Now i must ask, is it normal for Vicars or whoever is doing the service to be this fussy?

It's her "house" she can make the rules - did you speak to her first - at the wedding rehearsal ?

this was the first wedding i have ever done, and i wondered if it was normal

yes a lot of the time, but the church bit is short (time) most B+G think of it as a day so there are lots of times to take great photos


weddinghack - spot on...

 

[feeb]

Is it a church - ie a place of worship or a photographic studio?

its a building, that two people have paid alot of money to have a wedding in. whatever goes on on sundays is surely secondary to that

so you got the exposure wrong? Churches always have big window to let the light in- maybe use single or multiple spot readings(on the B+G), exposure compensation or exposure bracketing, and shoot in RAW

i did shoot in RAW, i always do and i did my best but i am new at this an i am sure my shots arent perfect. this however, is not a thread for you to judge me or my work without even seeing any of it. that would just be silly

was she the main subject? will the B+G want photos of the Vicar?

i took a photo of her, i thought they might want one of her, and its not impossible to see where the lighting is good, thats part of why we are photographers, surely

It's her "house" she can make the rules - did you speak to her first - at the wedding rehearsal ?

I thought it was Gods house, and i havent heard him discussing wedding photography at all, if shes that concerned about 'her' house, she shouldnt be renting it to people for large sums of money.

yes a lot of the time, but the church bit is short (time) most B+G think of it as a day so there are lots of times to take great photos

which i have done, thank you for your concern. i was however discussing the part of the day inside the church, and an important part of the day it is for many couples. a few nice shots of the rings being put on the fingers, or the kiss at the end would have been alot easier to get, had i been offered a more convienent place to take the photos. and i would not have disturbed anybody

 

[ranarama]

Yep, I agree with Duncan. As photographers we're there to record the event not become part of it.

Spot on, couldn't agree more and the same for WeddingHack's 2nd post.

C of E vicars seem to be a lot more aggressive about laying down their law though than other churches or civil ceremonies. Half the time I feel like I've been told off by them before I've even started. I quote exactly from a vicar at a wedding I did last year "You take one photo, I yellow card you. You take two and you'll never work in this church again." I was waiting for him to add "make my day, punk" at the end of it.

 

[pxl8]

its a building, that two people have paid alot of money to have a wedding in. whatever goes on on sundays is surely secondary to that

I highly doubt you'd find a member of the church that would agree with your opinion. A church wedding IS a relgious service and in the opinion of the church should be conducted with reverence and utmost respect. The service isn't simply a means to an end and your own views on religion don't change that fact.

Divorced people can still have trouble getting a church wedding because divorce is a legal matter not a religious one. It's possible to have a divorce anulled by the Roman Catholic church but it's not a simple process and takes time. For CoE it's down to the vicar to decide if the marriage is acceptable.

 

[feeb]

it wasnt catholic, they have both been married before for years.

my point is, that the vicar had no reason to be so off about the whole thing, to speak to me (and a few other people on the day) the way she did and make damn sure there were no decent images coming out of that church.

i guess we will have to agree to disagree because i see no reason why, someone who is paid for a service should have the right to ruin any one else experience or create unneccessary pressures, if anything they should be reducing the pressure. creating a situation where everyone is happy (including themselves) and in particular the bride and groom

 

[pxl8]

I think you're missing the point. Having a wedding in a church isn't the same as hiring the function room above a pub. The vicar's concern was to perform a religious service in the proper manner and everything else was secondary to that. The impression you're giving is that because the church was paid you can do what you like and religion be damned.

Consider is the church happy with the idea of people getting married in a church not because of belief or faith but simply because they think it would be a nice setting?

 

[feeb]

i think your missing the point. regardless of religion or faith, being polite and accomidating should be essencial if your job involves you working with other humans

 

[pxl8]

Of course being polite and accommodating cuts both ways. Or does paying for a service excuse you from that?

 

[feeb]

how can you possibly know wether i was being polite or not??? As it was i was completely polite and pleasant to her, because of the two of us, i was aware whose day it was

 

[Karen]

Generally I go along to the rehearsal where possible and that way you can meet with the official and suss out their views. It varies in Scotland, some are "do what you want" others are "Dont click too much, no flash and stay in the balcony" I think like everything else some spoil it for everyone else. Here I find registrars more challenging than vicars etc. Some are lovely and some full of their own importance. I am generally in agreement anyway with no flash in church as it can spoil the ambience sometimes and as has been said if you can't handle "no flash" then the jobs not for you.

 

[feeb]

yep, definatly agree with No flash. this isnt just about flash though, its about vicars and priest and whoever making allowances for our existance! even just a wee bit

rather than making life really difficult for everyone because of there own pre-tences

again, i found it very odd how much of the service was about the couple

i certainly wont be getting married in a church!

 

[santana007]

Hi

i did one last year at a registry office , i always go to the venue a week or two before .
i met the registrar and asked ! at what point could i take photo`s .
the reply was nothing during the ceremony as people don`t want click click at an important time,
there will be plenty of time after she said . i thought strange but ok ! i don`t want to upset anyone .
on the way out i went to reception to say thank you for letting me look around .
she wasn`t there, and a woman said are you all sorted ? yes i said ! i understand i can`t take photo`s during the ceremony . why ? she said!
i told her , and she said , forget that she isn`t doing it i am , take photo`s when you like it is the couples day not her`s . thank god i had her , it rained all day so gave little time for photo`s anyway .
now this Saturday at birkenhead registry office the woman there was great . she asked ! have you got any nice photo`s .

why though do some of these pompas nit pickers try and ruin somebody's day.
the couple have paid for the church , they have their own guests , and have paid for a photographer , maybe they see us all as daily spot photographers .

i will say it does help to try and get on there good side first though

rog

 

[pxl8]

why though do some of these pompas nit pickers try and ruin somebody's day.
the couple have paid for the church , they have their own guests , and have paid for a photographer , maybe they see us all as daily spot photographers .

Would you hire a chef and then tell them how to cook a meal and what ingredients to use?

Why is it so hard to accept that the vicar, registrar, etc. has a view on how relaxed or reverent the service should be. For a relgious service the couple are exchanging vows in front of God and the vicar might feel this should be done with respect and dignity. A civil service is a legal contract and again the registrar might feel respect and dignity are required. Their actions are to keep proceedings in line with what they believe is appropriate. To accuse them of deliberately spoiling the day is a little childish.

Those opinions can vary wildly but generally none will want the photographer or anyone else to be a distraction and weddings have been halted and photographers asked to leave when they've over stepped the mark.

If a couple is really that concerned about getting a good photo during the service they should be speaking to the vicar/registrar/etc before booking anything and making sure they've got one that will see things their way. It's certainly not the photographers job to argue the toss on the day of the wedding.

I would think that any couple who believe the photography is more important than the service probably have some questionable motives for getting married in the first place, especially in the eyes of the vicar or registrar.

 

[mikeyb]

Hi,

Their house, their rules

You have to respect the Vicar's wishes, it is after-all a religious ceremony which I think a lot of people forget, especially the bride and groom, I think the whole wedding business has become far too commercialised if you'll pardon the pun, it is hilarious and in my opinion sad to see weddings these days with an organiser, a couple of photographers, a couple of videographers and so on...and so on.

I bet there are few couples these days that would honestly admit to having really enjoyed the day as there is far too much pressure to 'perform' I also think a lot of it down to wanting to 'show off' to their friends with the photos and dvd's etc etc, there is a lot of oneupmanship involved I think.

If you were unhappy about the Vicar then tough, if you plan to make this a regular thing then you better get used to it, oh and remember the photographer gets blamed for everything

As for the no flash, well you have to live with that, I did a mate at work's wedding in May ( for free ) and was asked by the Minister for no flash in the chapel, it affected his eye-site and meant he wouldn't be able to read the sermon etc, not a problem I said at the rehearsal, it is after HIS service and having been at this venue before to help out with videoing someones wedding I knew what I was in for!

To give you an idea the Chapel is within the Castle walls and about 25ft square and lit by candles with only one small window , think handheld at 1/6th and slower with the F1.4 lens even bumping up to 1600 ISO didn't help, and what did I do..... I got on with it and did the best I could and told the couple beforehand that, I will do my best but if they don't come out then tough, pay a professional to do it

Mike.

 

[santana007]

Would you hire a chef and then tell them how to cook a meal and what ingredients to use?

Why is it so hard to accept that the vicar, registrar, etc. has a view on how relaxed or reverent the service should be. For a relgious service the couple are exchanging vows in front of God and the vicar might feel this should be done with respect and dignity. A civil service is a legal contract and again the registrar might feel respect and dignity are required. Their actions are to keep proceedings in line with what they believe is appropriate. To accuse them of deliberately spoiling the day is a little childish.

Those opinions can vary wildly but generally none will want the photographer or anyone else to be a distraction and weddings have been halted and photographers asked to leave when they've over stepped the mark.

If a couple is really that concerned about getting a good photo during the service they should be speaking to the vicar/registrar/etc before booking anything and making sure they've got one that will see things their way. It's certainly not the photographers job to argue the toss on the day of the wedding.

I would think that any couple who believe the photography is more important than the service probably have some questionable motives for getting married in the first place, especially in the eyes of the vicar or registrar.

I really do think you missed the point of what i was trying to say ,
i can`t see anywhere in my post where i said i would argue the toss , in fact i think you will find , i had said ok to the registrar on taking NO photos while in the Reg office . But she was saying NO PHOTO`S to a wedding she was not in charge of .

so when you order Gordon Ramsey to cook for you , you shouldn`t get Keith Floyd sticking his nose in should you .

i don`t take hundred`s in church or reg office , but one or two are nice to get , so why is it ok for the royals to have a bl**dy film crew and hundreds of photographers present . or are there questionable motives for getting them married.

or many sport or film star . as i stated i ask what i am allowed to do , so therefor why will a wedding be halted because i have over stepped the mark . if i`m told no flash then it is no flash , if i`m told no photo`s then it is no photo`s

so please don`t accuse me of being childish , i always go with what ever i am allowed to do It is the couples day not mine .

Rog

 

[pxl8]

I really do think you missed the point of what i was trying to say ,

So what were you trying to say:

why though do some of these pompas nit pickers try and ruin somebody's day. the couple have paid for the church

so when you order Gordon Ramsey to cook for you , you shouldn`t get Keith Floyd sticking his nose in should you

True, but during the service the photographer is Keith, not Gordon.

I didn't accuse you of arguing, the comment was a general statement about who should be responsible for what.

A royal wedding is televised for public interest. Celebs plan their wedding as I suggested and make sure the person conducting the service is happy with their plans.

 

[santana007]

So what were you trying to say:







True, but during the service the photographer is Keith, not Gordon.

My point there was the registrar , the one not involved in the wedding was saying what was allowed , the couple hired registrar Gordon , so only gordon should be involved .
as for pompas , what i should have said was the registrar did accuse her of being a nit picker .

I didn't accuse you of arguing, the comment was a general statement about who should be responsible for what.
yes the couple are , but i will always introduce myself to who ever is in charge , so they know who i am .

A royal wedding is televised for public interest. Celebs plan their wedding as I suggested and make sure the person conducting the service is happy with their plans.

yes but you were saying about it being all about vows and god etc , so why should it be any different because it is a member of the public.
i always ask a couple what shots they would like ,most want what ever i can get , so it is a shame when a vicar etc for what ever reason goes AGAINT the couples wishes . it is there day in front of god with there guests . so surly one or two photo`s can`t halm . flash photography is a different thing .

rog

 

[pxl8]

yes but you were saying about it being all about vows and god etc , so why should it be any different because it is a member of the public.

Because A Royal Wedding is public interest but even then I doubt TV director gets a say in what shots they can and can't get and you don't have camera crew wandering about.

Celebs don't just nip down the local registry office and book a date. They plan, plan and plan the wedding and make sure everything will be just how they want it to a much finer degree that the average couple and...

i always ask a couple what shots they would like ,most want what ever i can get , so it is a shame when a vicar etc for what ever reason goes AGAINT the couples wishes . it is there day in front of god with there guests . so surly one or two photo`s can`t halm . flash photography is a different thing .

...repeating what I said earlier, if the couple wish to have those photos then they need to arrange that with the vicar/registrar in advance and come to some agreement. If they don't then you can hardly accuse the vicar of going against their wishes.

When discussing shots I always ask they couple if they've spoken to the vicar/registrar about photography, especially if they are keen to get certain shots. I say I will adhere to the rules given without question or complaint. If they want to push for more it's up to them to get permission.

 

[santana007]

...repeating what I said earlier, if the couple wish to have those photos then they need to arrange that with the vicar/registrar in advance and come to some agreement. If they don't then you can hardly accuse the vicar of going against their wishes.

When discussing shots I always ask they couple if they've spoken to the vicar/registrar about photography, especially if they are keen to get certain shots. I say I will adhere to the rules given without question or complaint. If they want to push for more it's up to them to get permission.

Again all well and good , but i once read a post on here where the couple had asked the vicar before hand about photo`s and the vicar had said no problem .
one the day the vicar not only stopped the photographer taking photo`s in the church , but also anywhere inside the grounds . And yes i do ask the couple to ask before hand , but i will still ask permition to make sure all is ok .
you really do like to use things like childish and etc don`t you .
will the next ones be :bang::bonk::baby:

 

[pxl8]

Childish? Yes. Saying the Vicar is just trying to spoil the couple's day by stopping photos is about as good as "whaa whaa whaa, not fair" and a bit of foot stomping. It shows complete lack of thought and consideration as to what valid reasons they might have.

As for using the smiley's, I'm not sure what to say. They get used a lot here... :shrug:

 

[feeb]

Sorry but a vicar is just a person. not some demi god, therefore being polite and reasonable is expected, just as it was from me, the bride and groom and everyone else present.

if people cant be polite then they should not be working in the public eye

there should be a way everyone is happy, surely weddings happen all the time, it would not be difficult to find a space for a photographer to shoot, quietly at the back, getting lovely photos of the people whose special day it is (and who have paid money to be there, yes that is a factor - if it wasnt the buggers shouldnt charge for a service held in a church that has been their longer than the town it sits in)

That would stop people running around, as i have said ONE MILLION TIMES i was never going to use flash, thats clearly going to ruin the ceremony for everyone.

its just abit give abit and take a bit, not about throwing your weight around and creating problems for the people there

i couldnt have gone to the rehearsal, it wasnt possible, i went an hour beforehand, did some light metering and test shots, spoke to the vicar (got treated like a naughty child) and made the best i could of the situation

certainly didnt need to be that difficult though

and i hate this idea that it is 'their house' surely, its Gods house and everyone is welcome, so what right does some **** have to ruin that day for anyone

 

[santana007]

Childish? Yes. Saying the Vicar is just trying to spoil the couple's day by stopping photos is about as good as "whaa whaa whaa, not fair" and a bit of foot stomping. It shows complete lack of thought and consideration as to what valid reasons they might have.

As for using the smiley's, I'm not sure what to say. They get used a lot here... :shrug:

So what valid reason did the registrar have saying what i could and couln`t take , when she was not conducting proceedings , or maybe she wanted to stamp her feelings over what others thought . now that sounds familiar.
lucky i had a word with the one involved then

and why did the vicar say yes to the couple for photo`s only to say no when the photographer arrived , now who`s day did that have the chance to spoil.
as for smileys , did i see any or just sarcasm :shake:

 

[pxl8]

Each registrar and vicar has their own view on what they will allow so why would you ask one that isn't going to be there what's allowed?

As for the vicar saying no photos, can you link to the thread as I don't recall reading it.

Smiley's, emoticons, call them what you like. I used not out of sarcasm but because I believe the idea of a couple not properly arranging for shots they want to be cuckoo.

 

[feeb]

how many wedding have you done?? because most couples (who have church weddings) only have one. how the hell are they supposed to know exactely what they want?? surely a photography who has done many has a better idea.

or perhaps the whole world is just 'childish' and 'cuckoo' to you??

 

[santana007]

Each registrar and vicar has their own view on what they will allow so why would you ask one that isn't going to be there what's allowed?

As for the vicar saying no photos, can you link to the thread as I don't recall reading it.

Smiley's, emoticons, call them what you like. I used not out of sarcasm but because I believe the idea of a couple not properly arranging for shots they want to be cuckoo.

i asked the registrar about the photo`s because she came to the door , showed me to the room, she knew all about the wedding in question so i asked her .
she should have said i am not conducting that wedding .
as for the vicar , it is sometime ago now along time before i was registered on this site .
but someone may know of something similar .

remember not all vicars are upstanding pillars of our community

 

[pxl8]

how the hell are they supposed to know exactely what they want?? surely a photography who has done many has a better idea.

How does the photographer know what the couple want?

The photographer should go through a list of shots and discuss it with them. Then when the couple say we really want a shot of the rings, vows, kiss, whatever the photographer should be saying ok, have you asked the vicar about this? If not I suggest you do as some can have very strict rules about photography during the service. Make it clear these shots are important to you. It will sound a lot better coming from you and carry a lot more weight than if I just ask on the day. If we plan this properly then we can make it happen. I expect the vicar will have some questions or concerns and I'm happy to phone or meet with them prior to the wedding to work out a plan of action and put their mind at rest.

If the vicar still says no at least the couple are aware of it long before the wedding day and we have a chance to think of alternative ways of getting the shots. Stage them after the service, for example.

Just turning up and winging it will lead to disappointment.