Nikon D810.

Energize said:
Well either way you can't take any photos. :p

The wedding party are the customers of whomever is performing the service, they should cater to their wishes to have a wedding photographer.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work like that and it's a dangerous attitude to take. The officiant has full control over the ceremony and can stop it at any time or ask anyone to leave if they feel they're being disruptive.

The couple may have paid you to do a job but, from the perspective of the officiant, you're there at their discretion and should defer to their rules and wishes. Failing to do so can be very risky.
 
Well.. I'v now put these camera's through their paces in the field. I used them for the majority of the time in QC mode unless there was some faster action. I can say a simple thing like a quiet shutter makes a huge difference to how I shoot. Vicar even commented to me (his words) "this time you were a perfect photographer". The time before he wasn't very happy with me! :o

Couple of random pictures/samples from yesterday.

examples-1.jpg


examples-2.jpg
 
Nah.. best friends.

This particular vicar really hates photographers and finds them annoying/distracting, he told me so in no uncertain terms.
Anyway at the previous wedding, he told me a place to stand that's fairly hidden behind some furniture, and basically not to move until after the ceremony.
I politely tried my usual negotiations, but he wouldn't budge an inch.
Anyway I stayed there all through the ceremony, and after the signing of the register etc. then they went to the front of the chapel for a final prayer. Without thinking, I assume this is my queue to get into position before the walk down the isle. Not only that, I grabbed a quick shot of the end of the prayer.. Oops apparently vicar was livid.
angle-2-3.jpg


Anyway, the vicar was a friend of the family of this last wedding so he came along to the reception. He was actually quite polite to me which I wasn't expecting, and even said he looked forward to seeing me again.

Also got a present at this wedding, which I was really happy with...
examples-4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
Doesn't work like that and it's a dangerous attitude to take. The officiant has full control over the ceremony and can stop it at any time or ask anyone to leave if they feel they're being disruptive.

The couple may have paid you to do a job but, from the perspective of the officiant, you're there at their discretion and should defer to their rules and wishes. Failing to do so can be very risky.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, Churches are businesses and their employees should cater to what their customers want, since the Victorian era, having wedding photography has been a pretty standard procedure. Not allowing someone to stand there are take a few photos is extremist to say the least.
 
Energize said:
What I'm saying is, Churches are businesses and their employees should cater to what their customers want, since the Victorian era, having wedding photography has been a pretty standard procedure. Not allowing someone to stand there are take a few photos is extremist to say the least.
Click to expand...

It may seem to you to be extremist, but it's the norm. The last two weddings and funerals I'd been to were extremely strict affairs. The weddings were different from each other, but only slightly. One vicar didn't allow photography in the church AT ALL. The only photos internally were staged before and after the event. He refuses to have photographers in there during the ceremony. If you bring out a camera or mobile phone, you're asked to leave and everyone was forewarned of this, and it stated it in all the invites, he has such a reputation for going nuts.

The second wedding, you had two photographers and he didn't mind people taking their own photos, but ONLY at strictly specified times. Other than that, the wedding photographer had free reign, but to my mind he'd been given too much freedom as he was standing right next to the bride & groom, was constantly a distraction from the event and seemed to be pretty inept really.

As for the funerals, it's becoming an oddly increasing event to have a photographer. Pretty similar rules as to weddings really, but more controlled and solemn as you'd imagine. The main capture points are transporting casket, the viewing room (with closed casket, obviously) and the burial. To some it seems odd (it does to me really) but when you consider the whole Victorian death mask era, then it's not overly odd in comparison.
 
ElDude said:
It may seem to you to be extremist, but it's the norm. The last two weddings and funerals I'd been to were extremely strict affairs. The weddings were different from each other, but only slightly. One vicar didn't allow photography in the church AT ALL. The only photos internally were staged before and after the event. He refuses to have photographers in there during the ceremony. If you bring out a camera or mobile phone, you're asked to leave and everyone was forewarned of this, and it stated it in all the invites, he has such a reputation for going nuts.

The second wedding, you had two photographers and he didn't mind people taking their own photos, but ONLY at strictly specified times. Other than that, the wedding photographer had free reign, but to my mind he'd been given too much freedom as he was standing right next to the bride & groom, was constantly a distraction from the event and seemed to be pretty inept really.

As for the funerals, it's becoming an oddly increasing event to have a photographer. Pretty similar rules as to weddings really, but more controlled and solemn as you'd imagine. The main capture points are transporting casket, the viewing room (with closed casket, obviously) and the burial. To some it seems odd (it does to me really) but when you consider the whole Victorian death mask era, then it's not overly odd in comparison.
Click to expand...

A funeral I could understand out of respect for the deceased, it's not a celebratory occasion. Who on earth takes photos at a funeral anyway?

A wedding on the other hand is a celebratory occasion that has photography to create many happy visual memories for all involved. And I can only imagine how much revenue some places must lose due to crazy vicars ruining the wedding with their unprofessional outbursts.

None of this seems to relate to the original topic of the shutter noise being an issue though, sounds more like arbitrary vicar craziness.
 
Energize said:
A funeral I could understand out of respect for the deceased, it's not a celebratory occasion. Who on earth takes photos at a funeral anyway?

A wedding on the other hand is a celebratory occasion that has photography to create many happy visual memories for all involved. And I can only imagine how much revenue some places must lose due to crazy vicars ruining the wedding with their unprofessional outbursts.

None of this seems to relate to the original topic of the shutter noise being an issue though, sounds more like arbitrary vicar craziness.
Click to expand...

Again, you are looking at it wrong.

The vicars are not crazy. It is their house, their rules.

Period.

People are gathered to witness and enjoy the special occasion of 2 people joining matrimony before god. It is not a group of people coming together to take photos of 2 people getting married.

The couple comes first, not the guests. You have it backwards.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Again, you are looking at it wrong.

The vicars are not crazy. It is their house, their rules.

Period.

People are gathered to witness and enjoy the special occasion of 2 people joining matrimony before god. It is not a group of people coming together to take photos of 2 people getting married.

The couple comes first, not the guests. You have it backwards.
Click to expand...

The couple are the ones who have hired the photographer to take pictures of them getting married...
 
Energize said:
The couple are the ones who have hired the photographer to take pictures of them getting married...
Click to expand...

Who are restricted by the rules of the venue he is in....how many times do I have to say that?

I am not employed by the church to photograph the wedding, i am employed by the B&G, who follows the rules of the church that they are in, they are there because they like the church, the vicar and everything that goes with it. The church do not bend their rules for the B&G, that's not how it works. That's why it's a rule, luckily they are not all like that but the ones that are, you just got to live with it and do the best that you can.

Just because the B&G paid the church doesn't mean they can do what they like. Just because you pay for a pint in a pub, it doesn't mean you can be rude to the establishment. Just because you you are invited, it doesn't mean you won't be rejected.
 
Last edited:
Rojin said:
LOL, the venue makes the rules, never the client.
Click to expand...

Energize said:
Indeed, the hallmark of bad service that is so prevalent nowadays.
Click to expand...

Rojin said:
What are you on about? You obviously have some sort of agenda here. I'm finished playing your game, ta ta.
Click to expand...

It's the clients' wedding day... not the vicar's...

I understand using discretion as in not firing the shutter once per second, picking moments etc... but not allowing photos of one of the most important times in the life of two people just because some dude in a dress has had a bee fly up there once in a while is just plain unpleasant, especially as the couple have obviously requested someone be there just for that reason.

Working in harmony with vicar = great... but neither should be a dictator ;)
 
hi, my brother is about to press the buy button, just wondered if anyones spotted any good deals like free extra battery and grip etc ?

thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom