DebAnn Loc: Toronto

My sister and I recently shot a wedding in a small, darkish chapel. We approached the officiant before the wedding to come to a mutually acceptable plan for photography. He understood that the couple would want great photos of the ceremony so, before the bride entered the chapel, he spoke very nicely to the congregation explaining that they should please refrain from using their flash cameras and leave the photos to the official photographers. They all gracefully complied so that the only flashes going off were those of my sister and I. We weren't disruptive, placing ourselves in pre-arranged spots beforehand. Everyone was happy with the results. It's called cooperation!

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

You didn't. If that's how you took my comment, my apologies. I was simply making a statement with regards to using flash. Nothing was implied or otherwise. Maybe I shouldn't have responded using the quote reply function,,,and just made a blanket statement so no one can tell who or as to what it was in reference to. That way no feathers will get ruffled.

jazzplayer

rhyde - When reading through this thread, the bad lighting issue immediately came to mind. I recalled a church I used to attend where they had installed extra "wedding lights" above the ceremony area, expressly for the purpose of making better wedding photos possible. I don't think it ever bothered anybody that the room was (maybe appropriately?) a bit brighter for weddings, if anyone but photographers even noticed.
They had a fairly low ceiling and just used track lighting with a few wide-spectrum floods, so of course that type of lighting installation can be done rather inexpensively. I'm sure a higher ceiling would require somewhat larger but more "spottish" lights.
You may want to consider such an installation at your church, in the interest of making everybody's wedding pics a little better. And if you already have pretty good photo lighting in place, the "no flash" rule becomes quite easy to follow. :)

rts2568

******

To rhyde
From rts2568

There are competent and well practiced professional photographers and there are incompetent and clueless professional photographers and all grades in-between. Twenty years of being one of the former who has had a belly full of amateurs with a decent camera, intruding at a wedding, a camera which they consider is their right of passage - still sickens me.

A minister or celebrant should make contact with the photographer and offer the rules to be followed by the "official" photographer. The wedding couple too, need to be enlightened about this procedure as well and understand that there are competent and there are ‘otherwise’ photographers and that friends, albeit capable camera operators in some cases, perhaps when on a relaxing holiday and with their own equipment, are not competent.

The problem primarily lies in the costs. A competent photographer has to charge for the services they provide, while the flashy amateur camera owner, with their $2000 - $6000 dollar camera – or even cheaper, with their ‘best in the world zoom lens’, who doesn't need to charge, will offer a cheap price, which might appeal to the bride and groom, too often friends who have little or no real idea how to take photographs, let alone the very specialized photographs at a wedding, a set of wedding photographs that stand out and last the life of the marriage, rather than sit in a shoe box at the top of the wardrobe.

One of three weddings I attended within a few months of each other not so long ago, I will give as an example; all three were total failures from the point of view of the photographs taken by the "official" photographer. The one I give as an example, was a wedding of a work mate of my wife, whom I'd also met and me being someone with the experiences I have, expected to take shots of the wedding, even though I wasn’t asked to. I would never go to such a do without my camera, have it handy. I knew there was an 'official' photographer so I politely stayed in the background, taking some intended snaps. She was late, so that didn’t help. I quickly became aware of the incompetence of the 'official' photographer after that, a pretty young woman who was snapping away, but was clearly clueless when to shoot. I introduced myself and we chatted and I offered a couple of discrete suggestions which, fortunately she welcomed.

The real problems started when she was really disrespectful in the church, to such a degree that the minister actually told her go sit down or go outside. He came over to me and asked me to take shots during the ceremony. How he knew I'd been a wedding photographer before I never found out, though he did give me the freedom of the church and I took all the shots necessary.

After the ceremony, I backed off and let the 'official' photographer do her stuff, though she was clearly stuffing up further, missing essential shots, wrongly positioned, and failing to organize those she should have been shooting.

I think you get the picture? To cut a very long story short, this 'official' photographer couldn't provide the bride and groom any acceptable photographs at the end of the day. The groom, whom I'd only met at the wedding for the first time, was understandably furious. The photographs that I took, I delayed showing, until I'd heard that they'd received their photographers’ images. As it turned out, the groom contacted me and explained the disaster and pleaded that I had some at least that he could put in an album.

I'd only turned up at the wedding, taken some shots before, like the arrival of both bride and groom etc and those I took in the church and afterwards, outside in the park beside the church. Yes, I had in fact ended up taking over a hundred shots – we’d not been invited to the reception. The groom paid me for all of my shots, all of which were printable.

He showed me the 'official' photographer's shots, their were none, literally nothing printable. There were blank frames, missed compositions, blurred images, missed moments and etc, not to mention the embarrassment and disruption she caused in the church. Yes, if that had been my wedding photographer, I think I'd have sued her (or *&@$%>{+*&). Not easy though when she is a close friend of the bride.

Too many like this in my experience and although the other two I've mentioned resulted very much the same, both had different scenarios, one bloke actually used a Hasselblad, looked impressive but cocked up just about every shot.

Too little is thought about the professional photographer and too many corners being cut for the cost cutting. For a lot of years, good quality cameras have been around and too many owners who don't have a clue about photographing weddings especially, or too often too, simply don't know enough about the basic principles of taking quality photographs or preparing and presenting a wedding album or; and this last point demonstrates clearly enough, why problems occur, they too often don't know their own equipment.

That flashy new camera looks great hanging off the shoulder, but in the hands of someone who doesn't know enough about it, makes it just so much junk jewelry.

A wedding photographer should be involved from the beginning, should introduce themselves to the officiating ministers or etc and any competent wedding photographer won't need to be asked because it is part of their professional duty top know of any limitations and to understand the layout of any premises so that they know what accessories they will need and what special techniques will need to be brought out of the cupboard.

Any photographer being employed as a wedding photographer must be seen to be able to show some very good examples, long before they are employed and I have seen some pretty amateurish presentations, even from practicing professionals – so the professional is not immune from criticism either. Owning a camera, cheap or expensive, doesn't make a photographer - in any field of photography. Brides and grooms should be made aware of this, preferably by the minister concerned who, if they are sufficiently professional themselves, will always have a list of known, quality photographers' contact details.

This minister (rhyde) is right, he should be responsible enough to issue rules of procedure, they should also be aware that before hand, they need to manage all others involved so that when the event takes place, all the professionals involved know their place and that of others they have to work with on that most important day.

The photographer needs to know the minister and their demands, as must the minister in reverse rolls. The Bride and groom should too, understand themselves, whether they want a quality recording of their wedding, or just a mixed package of mediocre at best, amateurish snapshots.

One friend of ours decided for whatever reason, to have their wedding in Canada. They employed a purported professional photographer without knowing anything about him before they went overseas and came back with a couple of CDs full of crap photographs, most of which, the detail couldn't even be seen when projected. Their saving grace was that their photographer had used Nikon gear and had provided the RAW images on the CDs which I was able to work on for them, over a week’s work. I received many thanks from them and their relatives but none thought to compensate me for the time and effort and skill I was able to bring to bear for them, not even a bottle wine, though they still paid the incompetent Canadian Nikon user. I'm sure he looked the part and he certainly kept himself busy but not one photo he'd taken was correctly exposed, not one – how a digital photographer managed that I’ve no idea and if I hadn’t had such a close contact with same, I’d have argued that it was impossible. Too many impossibles surface in this game though. He clearly had no idea how to adequately use his camera gear. The only saving grace here was that it was all done in digital. If that wedding had been shot in film, they wouldn't have had any resulting photos because the few relatives who were able to attend the wedding, none of them took a camera to the wedding – strange, but true.


Wedding photography is a very specialized field of photography, though I doubt the message will ever come through, especially for those weddings where the funds are tight. $30,000 to $100,000 will be spent on the wedding and reception though; which is over in a few hours, but most will shirk at spending $10,000 on a competent photographer to deliver to them a set of photographic images that will last longer than they will live. Wrong priorities!

“rhyde”, I agree with everything you mention, but as far as I’m concerned, you don’t go far enough to ensure the best outcome either. Just remember that the bride and groom will only remember your face, if the photographs turn out.

A rather bitter and disappointed retiree.

rts2568

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

I also photograph the lighting of the unity candle, communion, blessing of the couple and the readers to name a few. Depending on the denomination there are probably more. I do them all from the back/balcony.

I will agree that taking an endless amount of the same shot and hopping all over the place is senseless and disruptive.

todd gieg

I'm at the vet as we speak. This guy's great with feathers.

rhyde Loc: Little Rock, AR

Glennola, thank you for your comment. In our specific situation, we have a traditional sanctuary with high ceilings (thus the reference to the balcony). We also have two chandeliers that can be dimmed. Usually, they are fairly low for a wedding, accompanied by candled sconces along the walls. However, once the ceremony is completed and the pictures are being taken (especially those that simulate what has already occurred in the ceremony), we are more than happy to place the chandeliers at any level the photographer requests.

One thing I should make clear is that we make every attempt to cooperate with the photographer(s). It seems to me that some of the elements of the ceremony, such as the vows, exchange of rings, the kiss, etc.) can be simulated later under a lighting condition that is suitable for excellent reproduction. In fact, before digital, when film was the sole order of the day, most of the photographers I worked with preferred to do it this way. It seems that digital has now encouraged many photographers to want to take their pictures when the actual ceremony is being conducted. The question is, why? Thus, the issues that I've witnessed just in the last few years with obtrusive photographers.

I'm really easy to get along with, and try to help in any way I can because I'm a photographer too. But frankly, I'd much rather officiate a wedding than photograph one!

todd gieg

Of course there's always the path of the Episcopalians which is to forbid the photographer from entering the church.

todd gieg

Of course there's always the path of the Episcopalians which is to forbid the photographer from entering the church.

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

The epi whats

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

That's a new one I haven't experienced.

rhyde Loc: Little Rock, AR

rts2568...

Wow! Fortunately, I haven't had the kind of experiences you mention.

I do talk about the photographer with the B&G... as well as the florist and everyone else who is assisting with the wedding. If possible, I encourage them to find the very best they can afford. From now on, when I meet with them prior to the wedding, I plan to give them the rules I have developed and ask them to provide the photographer with these in advance, along with my phone number so the photographer can call me with questions or comments.

I believe in intentionality, i.e., dealing with issues up front. I would hate to think that any bride or groom would be "furious" on their wedding day.

I debated about starting this thread, but am glad I did, if for no other reason than I think the air has been cleared and perhaps a number of folk have gotten the message, whether they agree with it or not.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Rhyde, thank you for poting this thread. This issue of using flash during the wedding ceremony has been discussed in other threads on UHH. I have made comments stating no flash at inside weddings that I have been asked to officiate. Then, just as in thread, comments are made about how this day is all about the bride and groom. This is true and all my work stresses that. Not allowing flash during the ceremony is not about me or you wanting to use our authority or position to rule the wedding, rather it is about keeping contollable distractions from not allowing the people to enjoy the ceremony.

I have worked with the couple for at least 6 months to make this day special for them. Every element of the ceremony has purpose and is planned.

It is a priviledge and an honor to be asked to officiate a wedding. It is not just a job that I have been hired to do, it is a life changing event for the couple. I could just pronounce them husband and wife (with witnesses) and sign the papers, and they are married, but 99% of couples do not choose that and neither do I.

My point is to show that statements about photogs stating that this day is all about the bride and groom, is the foremost element of why I officiate weddings. The photogs reluctance and anger about not using flash during wedding ceremonies, is not showing your respect for this time in the lives of the couple. I would hope that because both the officiant and photog want the best for the bride groom, would show respect for each other and the couple and not add controllable distractions to the ceremony.

rhyde Loc: Little Rock, AR

Chapjohn, glad to hear from a fellow colleague.

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

It would no doubt be a pleasure to photograph a wedding at which either of you were officiating. As a wedding photographer, you both have my support. :thumbup: