[monochrome]

Well, here's another take.

My son and D-i-L were married in the same Episcopal church my wife and I were married in 33 years ago (her parents, too). They had the same rules last summer that they had in 1980 and 1950 and 1930. The church is booked 8-10 months in advance, and has been for at least 50 years.

Cameras, recorders or devices of any kind shall not be used in the Nave (where people sit), the Sanctuary (inside the altar rail) or anywhere that is "church" while the service is underway. Very simple, very direct, very clearly stated and EVERYONE knows it. EVERYONE receives a little slip of paper with the program from an Usher, as well as a verbal reminder. NO CAMERAS - NO PHONECAMS - DON"T DO IT. None. Nada. ZIP. If the couple can't deal with that, get married elsewhere. If the guests can't deal with that, wait quietly in the Narthex (Lobby) until the ceremony is completed. This was just one of many elements of the prescribed service (Flowers, Organist, Choir, etc.) listed in a document initialed by the Bride's family during the Wedding Ceremony Consultation. One of the mandatory checkboxes was that the tog(s) at least phone the Wedding Coordinator for a discussion, and preferably have a visit for sight lines, Flash rules (shall not be used) and read through of the service, like a script, with suggested positioning for shots.

The actual use of the building was complimentary and the Priest(s) accepted only a Gratuity that was placed in a Poor Fund. Then again, they don't perform weddings for people who aren't members of the church (they'll stretch to grandparents, but no farther).

The tog(s) stood just outside the (several) doors of the Nave and got all the shots B&G wanted.

I know that's really different, but actually it is honest and freeing - if you are going to have rules, be clear and explicit about them and stick to them. I have attended many, many weddings in that church over the years and have actually seen an Altar Guild Lady quietly shame, then remove a guest from the Nave for taking a picture.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-20-2013 at 09:41 AM.

[LaurenOE]

I loved the expressions on the bride and groom. Priceless.

[mikeSF]

it was not one but two(at least) photographers, as the officiant is speaking to them in the plural. They are both apparently right up in his space and then at the end of the video there appears to be another photographer on the other side...

[jogiba]

The video is in 240p and most smartphones today have 1080p so I wonder what camera shot that.

[Sagitta]

If you read through the comments, it seems the photographers had been out in the aisle somewhere and the priest bitched at them to relocate, and apparently the only place left was behind him.

Then the priest bitched at them again.

I think its a case of the photographers not understanding the boundaries ahead of time and the priest being a bit of a jerk. It wasn't a black and white "He was right/He was wrong" situation.

[Lowell Goudge]

It wasn't a black and white "He was right/He was wrong" situation.

Lets back this one up a little.

A professional photographer would have gone over the rules before hand, with the priest or the wedding planner or what ever.

While you may to like it, or think that both sides are at fault think again. A professional would have known better. He would have set the rules before hand with the priest

[Sagitta]

Lets back this one up a little.

A professional photographer would have gone over the rules before hand, with the priest or the wedding planner or what ever.

While you may to like it, or think that both sides are at fault think again. A professional would have known better. He would have set the rules before hand with the priest

Correct, but the priest also should have made his rules known ahead of time. If the photographers didn't consult with him, he should have made sure to say "Hey, guys, here how its to be done." Not wait until mid-ceremony to berate the photographers and horrify the couple being married.

[LFLee]

Correct, but the priest also should have made his rules known ahead of time. If the photographers didn't consult with him, he should have made sure to say "Hey, guys, here how its to be done." Not wait until mid-ceremony to berate the photographers and horrify the couple being married.

agreed.

The photographers are prof, isn't the priest needs to be more "professional" as well??? I am sure if the priest is good at what he is doing, then this is NOT the first time he hold a wedding, and he should also let the photographer knows his rules (if any). What a self-centered priest, like the whole world needs to revolve around his religion and his world.

[Colbyt]

agreed.

What a self-centered priest, like the whole world needs to revolve around his religion and his world.

Can't really respond to that without crossing a line. Perhaps someday you will understand it.

[dtmateojr]

The priest had every right to reprimand the photographer. One of the reasons why I would probably never shoot a church wedding is that you can't get into a good position without going to the altar.

[dtmateojr]

agreed.

The photographers are prof, isn't the priest needs to be more "professional" as well??? I am sure if the priest is good at what he is doing, then this is NOT the first time he hold a wedding, and he should also let the photographer knows his rules (if any). What a self-centered priest, like the whole world needs to revolve around his religion and his world.

It's called common sense which obviously the photographer didn't have. Ignorance of the rule excuses no one.

[SpecialK]

I wonder how the rest of the day went, photographically, and who did and did not get paid.

[Venturi]

Correct, but the priest also should have made his rules known ahead of time. If the photographers didn't consult with him, he should have made sure to say "Hey, guys, here how its to be done." Not wait until mid-ceremony to berate the photographers and horrify the couple being married.

I'm sorry, but you cannot rationally push this off onto the officiant - priest or otherwise. Part of the photographer's job is to know the rules before the ceremony. The officiant's job is to conduct the ceremony, not manage the photographers. Change the scene; make this a football game and now you're a paid photographer covering the game. Go ahead and strut right out to the huddle to get some action shots. Who's fault will it be when the referee and/or umpire ejects you from the stadium for trespassing on the field of play?

The photographers are prof, isn't the priest needs to be more "professional" as well??? I am sure if the priest is good at what he is doing, then this is NOT the first time he hold a wedding, and he should also let the photographer knows his rules (if any). What a self-centered priest, like the whole world needs to revolve around his religion and his world.

What you don't understand is that the officiant (the priest here) of the wedding IS IN CHARGE. What s/he says goes, period. For the duration of that religious ceremony everything does revolve around his religion and his world. If the bride and groom didn't want a religious wedding then they hired the wrong officiant. And if the photographers can't respect the rules, no matter how vague, they need to look for other work.

It doesn't matter if the photographers misunderstood his instructions before the wedding, or if he changed his mind after the ceremony started. Whatever he says, when he says it, is the rule. Obey, or leave. And when he says "don't come into the aisle" before the ceremony, and then clarifies that later by telling them to retreat from their position at the rear of the seats, it should be absolutely crystal clear that standing directly behind him at the chancel is off limits.

If you read Hasan's comments it becomes very obvious he showed up without a plan and lacked the skill to craft one. Huge wedding party, at a lake, all attendees standing during the ceremony. Did he even speak with the couple about the layout of the ceremony before taking the gig?

[monochrome]

@Venturi (Quoting your entire excellent post serves no purpose here): You've nailed almost everything - when an ordained minister or priest is the Officiant, a church is NOT a building that people rent, it is a sacred and Holy space. That's the deal - at least in that church with that Priest.

In my earlier post HERE I describe how my church has responded to the collision between secularism and religiosity. There are clear, printed rules. There is an official member of the staff who counsels wedding parties before the event. ALL outside professionals are counseled. In return, the Wedding Consultant walks the photographers through the service, which is closely scripted, takes them to the best sight lines for the shots typically requested and actually goes so far as to suggest lens / zoom FL's that have worked well consistently and exposure settings that work in the fairly dark interior at various times of day (since flash is not permitted).

While the rules are strict and unusually rigid, most real pros in town enjoy shooting at our church because the church itself is as organized, practiced and professional about presenting the service as the outside professionals are recording it.

If you are going to have rules, make them clear, explicit, known to everyone and do you best to help people whose agendas are different from yours achieve their objectives within the limitations.

[gaweidert]

Priest is in the right. It is a religious ceremony. Not a photo op. Today, way to many people want the wedding and not the marriage. In Catholic beliefs, the marriage itself is a sacrament. Not just the wedding, but the whole married life together. It is a spiritual as well as a physical act. Sadly, not many people understand this. The Church does not marry the people. The people marry each other. The wedding is a formal ceremony meant to bless the marriage. That is why if you get married in a civil proceeding the Church will acknowledge your wedding and perform a formal ceremony at any time after that to bestow a blessing on your marriage if you so desire.

I went to a Mormon wedding once. There was some sort of public ceremony for non Mormons or Gentiles. Then we Gentiles were escorted to a room where we had to wait while the actual Sealing ceremony was performed. Only Mormons in good standing with the Church were allowed to attend.

Awesome analogy Venturi.