ehegwer Posted October 8, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here in Texas, I've never had that problem (and we have a bunch of religion (if you want to call it that) here. Did I just use a double parenthetical reference? Whoa! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Hi ehegwer, Take a look here M8 Saves Wedding Ceremony images. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Riccis Posted October 8, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 8, 2009 What bothers me the most is that some guests are more disruptive than most photographers (whether they are M or SLR users) firing their little P&S with flash all the time during the ceremony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 9, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 9, 2009 Riccis--right on! There's nothing like having no clear view at all because a raft of guests feel the need to get right up with the BG and use their point and shoot. Or video guys with tripods the size of small trucks. That always makes for an elegant composition. Once, a Greek Orthodox priest took pity on me because there were at least 20 guests surrounding the bride and groom! At first I thought he was motioning me off, but he actually let me stand in the cantor's space, up in the sanctuary. I try to remember the ceremony is about the ceremony, and I'm really careful not to go into sacred space (altars, etc...). But at a hotel room? Ridiculous. Having said that, the M8, while it's nothing like my M6, is still a lot less noisy than my D3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 11, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 11, 2009 "I'm legally bound by a Contract of Sale to provide images of this part of the event to the Bride. If you exclude me, you need to know that any losses incurred as a consequence, including the cost of re-staging of this event, will be invoiced to the church, and pursued, by my insurance company." The T&Cs in the venue's contract with the bride and groom will trump those between bride/groom and photographer. You simply will not be able to sue the church in these circumstances and your insurance company will know this. Far better for your T&Cs to stipulate that your obligation to provide ceremony shots is conditional on the venue/vicar/registrar chosen by the bride and groom permitting the taking of said shots. If you are told that you cannot take photographs it is the bride and groom's problem, not your problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 11, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 11, 2009 You simply will not be able to sue the church in these circumstances and your insurance company will know this. I think the technical term is "calling someone's bluff". Even if Rolo couldn't successfully sue the church, the person saying no to the photographs may not know that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 11, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 11, 2009 I think the technical term is "calling someone's bluff". Even if Rolo couldn't successfully sue the church, the person saying no to the photographs may not know that. I think they know their legal position and powers very well indeed - certainly in the case of registrars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted October 12, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think they know their legal position and powers very well indeed - certainly in the case of registrars. I don't have a problem with 'my church, my rules'. I was talking about a civil venue where the registrar may never have set foot in the place before the big day (as in the OP's example which looks like a hotel). That is the scenario where I would look askance at a registrar laying the law down about who can do what. As far as I'm concerned they are paid to make some checks, and conduct the civil marriage ceremony. Audible cameras or even flash should not concern them unduly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted October 13, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 13, 2009 Had the same situation in a church with the M9 hey! this is the m8 forum..grrrhhh!! woof:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted October 13, 2009 I was talking about a civil venue where the registrar may never have set foot in the place before the big day (as in the OP's example which looks like a hotel). That is the scenario where I would look askance at a registrar laying the law down about who can do what. As far as I'm concerned they are paid to make some checks, and conduct the civil marriage ceremony. Audible cameras or even flash should not concern them unduly. It was in a country house wedding venue. Don't understand what "look askance" means in terms of action. No doubt, the Registrar has to conduct the ceremony so that everyone can hear and witness/disagree with the wedding commitment of the B&G. With a distraction of flash, or noise, the photographer may be considered to be disruptive and the event would be ended at enormous cost. Further, the next time one met the Registrar, you could be stopped from entering the room. That has happened to me on one occasion at a distant venue and it's very frustrating, but not my fault. Had other situations where I've been told - "one photograph during the hymns .... only" and on another occasion "no photography from the moment the Bride steps into church, and none until she is out of the building. It's our tradition." Have also been told twice "you can't follow the wedding party across the altar into the registry, you must walk around the outside of the church and enter through the back door". All seems very extreme to me, but this last weekend I was told that a photographer was thrown out of a church because he stood on the altar rail to get his shot. Should have been castrated at the christening font on his way out, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 13, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 13, 2009 {snipped}All seems very extreme to me, but this last weekend I was told that a photographer was thrown out of a church because he stood on the altar rail to get his shot. Should have been castrated at the christening font on his way out, IMO. Yep--those are the ones that spoil it for the rest of us. My worst wedding was the old "you don't get any pictures inside the church and you have to stand here, in the foyer." Fortunately, the priest did not understand the power of a 200 or 300mm telephoto lens and high ISO capability This is the only time I'd ever felt that an M would not have worked at all, and on that occasion I was happy to have my Canon with me. From then on, I've always had a dSLR with a long lens available just in case In fact I'm thinking of going 'all M' through the wedding day, but even if I do I'll have a 7d or something with a R180 on close to hand Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikenic Posted October 21, 2009 Share #31 Posted October 21, 2009 I don't shoot weddings any more, but I always attended the rehearsals to hose down this very problem. Celebrant takes photographer aside and starts laying down seriously restrictive rules. Photographer says, " I'll just invite the bride and groom over here so that they can hear this too, if that's OK. They have told me that they expect pictures of the ceremony and I would like them to know why they will have none for their album. " Celebrant makes an exception "just this one time". Can't upset the bride and groom on their special day now, can we? Everybody happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.