Officiant ruins wedding.

Oh dear- and NOT even in a Church :bang:

Les :shrug:
 
I'm with the officiant. Photographer hammering away with 3 frame bursts at point blank range got what he deserved. its probably a pity the video guy got the boot as well but it is a marriage ceremony & not a photoshoot.
 
to be fair the photographer / videographer isnt helping himself there - he's far too close andf clearly hasnt spoken to the celebrant first.

Also its an editted clip we don't know what happened before hand to agravate the official.

(we've all heard the story about the photographer who interupted the service to ask "can you just do that bit again, i missed it" )

Allthough the celebrant should have dealt with this before - not during the service - and also discussed with the couple what they want (before hand obviously)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
to be fair the photographer / videographer isnt helping himself there - he's far too close andf clearly hasnt spoken to the celebrant first.

Also its an editted clip we don't know what happened before hand to agravate the official.

(we've all heard the story about the photographer who interupted the service to ask "can you just do that bit again, i missed it" )
Click to expand...

Exactly :(


As an aside note Jebus how many bridesmaids :eek:
 
I have to agree, standing right behind the celebrant and machine gunning is not the way to do this. I can't blame him for getting angry
 
murricans - they've got to do it bigger ;)
 
boyfalldown said:
I have to agree, standing right behind the celebrant and machine gunning is not the way to do this. I can't blame him for getting angry
Click to expand...

Yep with you,to me it sounded more like a press call than an wedding shoot,i think i would have been angry.
 
I didn't even know there was such a word as 'officiant' until I read this.

Kind of suits....sounds like official but more pompous
 
Photographer ruined wedding not officiant.

1. Talk to them first
2. Don't act like a dick (really, that's a nothing moment and they are still at 5 fps - apparently there are 2 of them too)
3. If that happens then don't stop and argue, you aren't going to win. Apologise and move quickly.

Next wedding I have Mr James Brown officiating. He's cool - he stops stuff and poses B&G nicely for the photographers.
 
The comments mainly side with the photographer and say how badly the officiant (how I hate that word! : one who officiates at a ceremony) handled the situation.

I see that SLR Lounge is over the pond. Is this a cultural thing?

I would side with him, personally, as I reckon the photographer was out of line. What was stopping the photographer from using a longer lens and location?
 
Steve said:
I didn't even know there was such a word as 'officiant' until I read this.

Kind of suits....sounds like official but more pompous
Click to expand...

More a North American thing I believe :) Not widely used here.
 
Actually years ago I had one wedding that came close to getting stopped.

Small register office (maybe Chelsea - they are funny there) and the celebrant read me the riot act before the ceremony. NO photos at all until "husband and wife".

Bride walks in, motor drive goes off. Celebrant looked at me. I had my camera on the floor at the time (just to make the point because I'd guessed what was going to happen.) Guest got a final warning :D
 
Whilst I think the photographer was a numpty and deserved a word or two, I think the officiant handled it dreadfully - both were as bad as each other imo. The real losers in this were the bride and groom.
 
One of the tips in my thread in the business section on my first wedding was make sure you know your boundaries with the couple and the people marrying the couple. Once that is out of the way it takes a huge amount of worry off the mind. It's obvious that these photographers either didn't do that, or really didn't care in which case I'd say they were as unprofessional as the officiant. Definitely not a nice situation either way.
 
I think the officiant needs to remember exactly whose wedding it is. It's not theirs. It's the couples. Acting like that on their wedding day is rude and selfish. So what if the photographer makes a noise. Be a professional and ignore them and carry on with your job. If you're going to be distracted by a camera shutter then what are you doing to do to a crying child? Shoot it in the head?!

I thought the officiant was entirely the problem.

I fear I'm in a minority of one with this view :)
 
A Bad reaction for sure, but it boils down to a lack of communication between all parties to some degree.
 
srichards said:
I think the officiant needs to remember exactly whose wedding it is. It's not theirs. It's the couples. Acting like that on their wedding day is rude and selfish. So what if the photographer makes a noise. Be a professional and ignore them and carry on with your job. If you're going to be distracted by a camera shutter then what are you doing to do to a crying child? Shoot it in the head?!

I thought the officiant was entirely the problem.

I fear I'm in a minority of one with this view :)
Click to expand...

A crying child can't be helped, an over enthused photographer can just stop pushing the button for a minute. It's the unnecessary noise that's the problem.

If you're being married in a religious ceremony then the officiant wants to make sure that you are taking it all in and fully aware of what is being asked instead of being distracted by the photographers. That's what might have been going through the officiants thought process. As I said though, both groups have egg on their faces.
 
kendo1 said:
The comments mainly side with the photographer and say how badly the officiant (how I hate that word! : one who officiates at a ceremony) handled the situation.

I see that SLR Lounge is over the pond. Is this a cultural thing?

I would side with him, personally, as I reckon the photographer was out of line. What was stopping the photographer from using a longer lens and location?
Click to expand...

Interestingly, both on that comments page and here, the pro photographers seem to be taking the side of the minister, with the non pros taking the photographers' side. I haven't watched the video (I have little interest in seeing anyone making a Richard of themselves, justified or not) but I'm guessing that there was a certain amount of overreaction to what the minister saw as invasive photography. Hopefully the couple got a decent album from their day, even if a couple of shots did get missed.
 
srichards said:
I think the officiant needs to remember exactly whose wedding it is. It's not theirs. It's the couples.
Click to expand...

It's their wedding day, but the ceremony "belongs" to the state if anyone. For all the touchy-feely "it's their day" stuff, the ceremony itself is a licensed, solemn, and legally binding exchanging of contracts conducted by an agent of the state. I'm guessing the idea that it's all about the bride is a recent development.
 
abdoujaparov said:
It's their wedding day, but the ceremony "belongs" to the state if anyone. For all the touchy-feely "it's their day" stuff, the ceremony itself is a licensed, solemn, and legally binding exchanging of contracts conducted by an agent of the state. I'm guessing the idea that it's all about the bride is a recent development.
Click to expand...

Nope. The idea that its all about the State is the recent part.
 
With the possible exception of Cleopatra, Helen of Troy et al.
 
Just posted this in Business section as I couldn't find anything. I blame the word officiant. lol

I have to agree with many that the paparazzi style wedding photography just doesn't work when your that close in a religious service. I'm not surprised the the officiant had words with the photographers. This should have all been discussed prior to the wedding ceremony.

If I was at the alter with my bride, I would have my own words to say but I'm biased from a photographer's pov.

Over reaction and over intrusive by the photographer. There should have been a middle ground somewhere discussed before hand.
 
We all noticed the other camera, right? The photographers were in their own shot.
 
Is this at all surprising we see posts on here from would be wedding photographers jabbering on about all the great kit they have and absolutely no idea about how to work with the other wedding professionals on the day,this pillock got what he deserved and its him the couple should be ****ed with not the officiant
 
oh dear... that's a bit of situation he got it...

Liked the faces of B&G :)
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Is this at all surprising we see posts on here from would be wedding photographers jabbering on about all the great kit they have and absolutely no idea about how to work with the other wedding professionals on the day,this pillock got what he deserved and its him the couple should be ****ed with not the officiant
Click to expand...

I disagree to an extent Nigel, in that the couple should be pee'd off with both of them.

It's the photographer's job to get the photos, it's the prelate's job to marry the couple. They are a team and they should be working together.

At the very least they should have been communicating the boundaries that each other expected before the service.

Wedding service providers are there to serve the couple - not play to their own egos.
 
The photographers ruined the wedding not the priest.

Photographers should be neither seen nor heard during the service.

Every professional knows to talk to the person officiating preferably in advance to see what is permitted.
also to talk to the banqueting manager if it is being held in a private venue
 
Last edited:
Very badly handled by the officiant, although its hard to tell if anything had happened before the incident because the clip is so short. He could quite well have asked them nicely to move or stop making a noise half a dozen times before this but that clip would never get released because the Video guy and Photographer would look bad then :)

Did you notice how the photographer was dressed right at the end ? Dress like a kid/unprofessionally and you shouldn't be surprised to be treated in that manner. I aren't saying it wouldn't have happened if he had been dressed in a suit but I can also imagine the officiant looking at him and having a first impression of someone that is unprofessional.

If the guy who posted the video on YouTube is the same guy that shot the video then it looks like an uncle bob or friend shooting the wedding video.
 
DemiLion said:
I disagree to an extent Nigel, in that the couple should be pee'd off with both of them.

It's the photographer's job to get the photos, it's the prelate's job to marry the couple. They are a team and they should be working together.

At the very least they should have been communicating the boundaries that each other expected before the service.

Wedding service providers are there to serve the couple - not play to their own egos.
Click to expand...


I know where you are coming from Mark but remember the officiant is carrying out a legal duty and has to get it right otherwise the wedding could in theory be null and void,the photographer.Videographer and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all should respect that as they go about their work
 
To stop the wedding would be right out of order, the couple (who have paid) have done nothing wrong, why spoil their day? it should have been handled much better, a quiet word would have done the trick I suspect
 
Wedding-Photos said:
Did you notice how the photographer was dressed right at the end ? Dress like a kid/unprofessionally and you shouldn't be surprised to be treated in that manner. I aren't saying it wouldn't have happened if he had been dressed in a suit but I can also imagine the officiant looking at him and having a first impression of someone that is unprofessional.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure that that is a second photographer Nick. He's only got one camera and that's got 70-200 on it. Plus the location is wrong if he'd been the one that was originally to the video jock's right.

It does however give you some kind of indication of what they were both likely to be dressed in! :D
 
I wouldn't imagine this officiant gets asked to do many more weddings.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm pretty sure that that is a second photographer Nick. He's only got one camera and that's got 70-200 on it. Plus the location is wrong if he'd been the one that was originally to the video jock's right.

It does however give you some kind of indication of what they were both likely to be dressed in! :D
Click to expand...

That's the point though, it doesn't really matter if he is the primary or second shooter, the way he is dressed its easy to imagine that the primary would be dressed similar if that wasn't him.

Would be really great to hear the full story behind this but I doubt it will ever come out.
 
just a thought but are we sure the video tog in this is actually the official tog not an over enthusiastic uncle bob ?
 
abdoujaparov said:
The church and the state have been the same thing since at least Henry VIII.
Click to expand...

We've been a democracy for a few hundred years now, there's definitely separation of church and state, with a monarch who holds sway over both and a church that gets automatic seats at the table of power (Bishops in the 2nd house).

But Church and State are definitely separate, ad whilst a marriage 'can' be a religious ceremony, it is always a legal one.
 
Anybody read the thread under the video? According to someone who claims to be the photographer,

KAMRUL HASAN said:
I did speak with him before the ceremony, he told me “do not come in the aisle"
Click to expand...

KAMRUL HASAN said:
I wasn’t in his way. I was at least 6 feet away from him. I was using 70-200mm lens.
Click to expand...

KAMRUL HASAN said:
I am well aware of what to wear as a professional wedding photographer. I have been shooting wedding for many years. Not that I give a damn to clarify myself what I was wearing but I will tell you anyway. I was wearing a black pants and black shirt and black shoes. Ceremony was held few feet away from the lake – while shooting first look and formal I freeze up my butt. I wasn’t taking tequila shot. So I ran into my car and found a brown hoody. So I put that on for five min to warm myself up.
Click to expand...

He also goes on to call the priest an "asshole" and says he gave him a piece of his mind after the ceremony.

But, yeah, badly handled by all involved.
 
6' away with a 70-200? What was he after? A macro shot of the rings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top