Minister wont allow any shots at all in church, any suggestions?

[captiva]

Ive been photographing weddings for 5 years now and have built up a good relationship with most of the ministers, priests here in the west coast of Scotland. One has retired to be replaced and this is the first time she has married a couple that have contracted me as photographer.The bride called me this morning to let me know when the rehersal is ( I always like to attend) and told me that the new minister is not allowing any shots from 15 minutes before the ceremoney untill the registry signing.

The bride, groom and family are dismayed that the procession, recession and especially the kiss at the alter after the ceremoney have not to be captured.

I have never met this new minister but the word is she is realy old school and has upset a fair few previous couples in the area she came from.

Any suggestions as how to perhaps gain a bit of ground on this one? The wedding is next Saturday. Should I call her and introduce myself and see if any progress can be made for the couple? . Wait till I see her at the rehersal and have a quiet word? or just
accept her rules?

If anyone else has had to deal with this situation in the past some advice would be appreciated.

[cdifoto]

You're not going to convince the minister to let you shoot the pictures. Stage the ceremony shots if you can. It'll be better than nothing.

[archaeoman]

The day is not hers, it's the B&G's. I'd talk to her and start with that. Then ask her what her objections are. I would be very proactive here for the B&G. Keep us updated.

Oh yea, and make sure you win. You don't have to be a bully to do so either.

[cdifoto]

The day is not hers, it's the B&G's. I'd talk to her and start with that. Then ask her what her objections are. I would be very proactive here for the B&G. Keep us updated.

Oh yea, and make sure you win.
That's the quickest way to get banned from a whole lot of churches.

I consider myself a neutral service provider. I am not a liaison between the couple and their chosen venues and I'm certainly not going to try to change the venue's rules.

[Lizzy7]

Hi there,

Oh, that's really annoying! I think if I were you I'd give her a ring, introduce yourself, explain that you be very unobtrusive and will not be using flash at all and hope for the best. Chances are though she is probably set in her ways and then there's really nothing you can do.

I had one occasion where I wasn't allowed in the chapel to take pictures at all, it was part of a college and very grand. They did however leave the doors open and I was able to shoot from outside which fortunately had a good view up the aisle and actually I got some great shots.

Good luck, I hope there is something you can do.

Lizzy

[archaeoman]

That's the quickest way to get banned from a whole lot of churches.

Not if you are diplomatic and kind in the way you do it.

[RDKirk]

It would not hurt to ask the minister about it at the rehearsal if for no other reason than to be sure what you were told is, indeed, the true situation. If you seem reasonable enough--and respectful of the minister's intention for the decorum of the ceremony--you may be able to gain a bit.

You might suggest, for instance, that you would not use flash, you would take all photographs from a position at the rear of the sanctuary or from the balcony, you would not do a lot of flittering about, and you would not set your shutter to "continuous" mode.

But if the minister simply won't hear of it, then don't press it. As has been mentioned, the couple chose this church and this minister for more significant reasons than the wedding pictures.

[cdifoto]

Not if you are diplomatic and kind in the way you do it.
"Make sure you win" doesn't afford diplomacy and kindness if the minister is adamant about his or her rules. It may start with that but it won't end there. And you'd still lose.

Chances are pretty good that if she's upset couples in the past, she's not going to open up to you.

[MDJAK]

As Don Corleone said: Make her an offer she can't refuse. Does she have any horses? :lol:

me

[captiva]

Thanks for the replies and no I dont think she has horses. I have decided to wait untill the rehersal, have a quiet word and as mentioned above if its a no go there aint much I can do about it.

The idea of shooting in an open door might be beneficial thanks for that.

I intend to mention not using flash and may even offer to show her what I would do on the day ( A rehersal for the minister at the rehersal!, that appeals to me).

I will let you know how it goes at the rehersal, but please keep any suggestions coming. Better to have a plan B,C,and D. Appreciated.

[Hermes]

Speak to the minister and see why she's not allowing pictures. If it's to avoid distractions or noise then explain that you can shoot silently from a distance (buy or rent a camera with silent shooting) without flash and without moving. Shots taken like this will be better than nothing. If you're given another reason or refused point-blank then see if you can re-enact the major bits after the ceremony to get some images.

I agree that if the minister sticks to their guns that you should accept their decision, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to come up with a solution that gets the couple some pictures. I don't see how the minister could possibly take issue with you asking if you're polite and explain that you want to co-operate with her so that the couple will have pictures of the happiest day of their lives to look back on and share with their family.

[Zivnuska]

I know of local priests who have the same restriction. It comes from their belief that the ceremony is a sacred event and their view as to how to honor that divine occasion.

They do allow photographs to be taken in the church before or after the ceremony and will be present, if asked, to recreate the ceremony for pictures.

No photographer is going to change the minds of these gentlemen.

[Roy Mathers]

That's the quickest way to get banned from a whole lot of churches.

I consider myself a neutral service provider. I am not a liaison between the couple and their chosen venues and I'm certainly not going to try to change the venue's rules.


I couldn't agree more!

[Roy Mathers]

The day is not hers, it's the B&G's. I'd talk to her and start with that. Then ask her what her objections are. I would be very proactive here for the B&G. Keep us updated.

Oh yea, and make sure you win. You don't have to be a bully to do so either.


The day may well be the B&G's, but the ceremony is in the charge of the minister and he or she is in charge in the church. The minister probably takes the view that it is a religious ceremony and isn't staged for the benefit of the photographer.

[RobKirkwood]

I sympathise - Ann and I have similar situation this weekend in Yorkshire, but couldn't be at the rehearsal. I'll have a quiet word with the vicar beforehand just to clarify the true position.

One thing I would add to what others have said, is that I've found it useful to ask whether the vicar is going to tell all the guests before the start that there will be no photography - unacceptable if they're going to ban the official photographer while allowing guests to fire away unhindered.

We once negotiated a complete ban into the freedom to do what we wanted by attending the rehearsal and having a chat - we agreed with the minister that if she felt we were intruding in any way she only had to glance at us and we'd stop shooting immediately. The look never came, and we made a point of thanking her profusely afterwards.

We did once shoot discreetly from the back and side aisle after we'd been told not to - vicar never noticed, however some kind soul gave her the gallery password, and we had a email from her saying "very nice photos, but..."

I replied in a level-headed way thanking her for her compliment, and drawing her attention to some of the shots which showed the videographer (with a full size pro camera on his shoulder) standing in the pulpit recording the ceremony - something we would never ever dream of doing, even when we have permission to roam anywhere and shoot anything.

While we're always keen to explore whether we can ease any restrictions, it's really the bride & groom's battle, and we make that clear in our agreement with them - they want the photography, they need to negotiate, or get married somewhere else.

Worst case scenario: you get chance to sit down and rest for 45 minutes or so!

Rob

[OdiN1701]

Have the B&G fire the minister and get married somewhere else would be the best...but they should know this before getting married somewhere and it's probably too late for that.

No minister will tell me what my wedding ceremony will be...I don't know why anyone else would allow that to happen if it wasn't what they wanted.

[Roy Mathers]

Don't forget that, as I previously pointed out, to a minister it is primarily a religious ceremony and the minister is in charge.

[breal101]

I'm faced with the very same thing this weekend, what I intend to do is to stage the important pictures after the ceremony in the 20 minutes allowed. I will attend the rehersal and have a word with the priest in hopes he will be kind enough to stage important parts of the ceremony for pictures. He is actually a visiting priest with this parish and it's not his policy, I received an e-mail from the church outlining the policy and there are no exceptions.

[archaeoman]

Don't forget that, as I previously pointed out, to a minister it is primarily a religious ceremony and the minister is in charge.

Yea, one of the many problems with organized religion....but that's a whole other can or worms to open....

[archaeoman]

This is a good thread though. I haven't shot a wedding yet and I would have not thought it would be an issue. Something to ask the b&g before hand. Leave it up to them on where to get married based on caring or not caring about shots of the ceremony inside the church.

[CliffordPhotography]

Thats terrible. Lets us know your results.

[sapearl]

I agree - it's all about how you present yourself. Being proactive is OK so long as it's done in a respectful manner. Just don't have an attitude - express curiousity about the rules, and inquire if there's any way you can work with her.

I've taken this approach in the past - sometimes it works, sometimes not.... but you won't know until you try.

Not if you are diplomatic and kind in the way you do it.

[RobKirkwood]

Yea, one of the many problems with organized religion....but that's a whole other can or worms to open....It has nothing at all to do with organised religion - in fact if the whole process WAS centrally organised with one set of standards applied universally, things would be so much easier for all of us in the UK, and at least we'd all know where we stood (at the back and don't touch the camera!).

The problem here is that each church/vicar/minister/priest/church-council/whatever decides their own individual policy based on all sorts of issues and prejudices (real or perceived).

Rob

[archaeoman]

It has nothing at all to do with organised religion - in fact if the whole process WAS centrally organised with one set of standards applied universally, things would be so much easier for all of us in the UK, and at least we'd all know where we stood (at the back and don't touch the camera!).

The problem here is that each church/vicar/minister/priest/church-council/whatever decides their own individual policy based on all sorts of issues and prejudices (real or perceived).

Rob

I was thinking bigger picture :)

[RDKirk]

I was thinking bigger picture :)

Well the bride and groom could get married by the county judge or they could get a Unitarian minister to marry them on a street corner. But the reason they're doing it at the church is because they want the organized religious aspect.

[sapearl]

It sounds like photos are pretty important to the b&g and family - as I can appreciate - but they didn't know about the restrictions in advance? Well, I suppose I could just as easily have assumed myself it would be ok also....::cry::

[Lizzy7]

It is very random in the uk, when the B&G initially come and see me I always tell them to ask about photos in the church because usually they assume that it will be fine and I like to know early on if it's a problem.

Actually the only one that ever confused me was at a civil ceremony outside and the registrar suddenly announced no photos during the ceremony!!! I was probably lucky as it was in full sun and the groom was wearing a suit of very shiny armour :)

Here's one of the ones I took through the door...

http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo154/LizKitMik/Frances.jpg

Lizzy

[captiva]

I am under the impression that the bride and groom had approached the original minister way back last year, before he retired due to ill health in March this year.

He, the original minister was so laid back and helpfull. Over the years I have photographed well over a dozen weddings where he was the minister. He not only allowed full coverage of the ceremoney, but also asked if their were any members of the congregation who wanted to snap at various points of the service.

The new minister is such a change to what the bride expected and that I imagine is why they are so upset.

The suggestions have been helpfull, and have given me a gameplan for the rehersal. Thanks its appreciated.

[sapearl]

Lizzy - very nicely done:D. I'm not a fan of b/w checkered tile but I must say it looks really nice with that rich dark wood, the diffused window light and good coloration. Thanks for sharing.

[wickerprints]

The B&G need to fire the minister. Get a different one. Go elsewhere. These are once-in-a-lifetime shots. If I were in their position, in light of the circumstances I would threaten to sue, that's how livid I would be. I would not allow my wedding day to be dictated by the paranoid and controlling tendencies of some minister I did not choose. The minister is on a power trip and if the B&G just rolls over and takes it, it only encourages the minister to keep it up.

[luigis]

most churchs are hierarchical, if you get permission from the minister boss if she has one then there you have it. In the catholic church for instance you could ask the bishop. Don't know if this is useful to your case.

[Roy Mathers]

Yea, one of the many problems with organized religion....but that's a whole other can or worms to open....


It's not to do with organized religion - it's just that, if you want to use their premises, you have to obey their rules.

[form]

Permission denied. Fighting gets you nowhere, and going over someone's head gives them a reason to dislike you. It is not yours or the B&G's decision; if the B&G really want to have photos of the ceremony they will have to choose a different place.

[wickerprints]

Permission denied. Fighting gets you nowhere, and going over someone's head gives them a reason to dislike you. It is not yours or the B&G's decision; if the B&G really want to have photos of the ceremony they will have to choose a different place.

You didn't read what happened. They selected the location when a previous minister, who is photo-friendly, would preside over the ceremony. Then he retired and was replaced by someone who is not. How is that not fraudulent? Weddings take a great deal of time to plan. The invitations are printed and everything hinges on the location. So if, a few months out, there's a change and now someone tells them they can't take photos at the ceremony, that is grounds for a lawsuit to recover the expense of choosing a new location.

This is why contracts exist. What should have happened was that the B&G enter into a contract with the church at the time of location selection, outlining what will be permitted and what services will be rendered. At a future point in time, either side can then point to a breach of said contract should a dispute arise. The church, by switching ministers, pulled a classic bait-and-switch and that is unacceptable. Again, if I were in the B&G's position, I would immediately threaten a lawsuit, not to mention refuse to be married by that minister anyway. It may be the church's property, but it is the B&G's service and their ceremony. The role of the church should be to facilitate their wishes, not impose their own narrow view on what it should be. What if the minister said "No black people allowed at my ceremony because my religion says they are slaves to be used by white men?" How is that even remotely appropriate? And you're just supposed to bend over and take it because it's their property and you have no recourse? Bull****.

[sapearl]

Wicker, I agree with the essence of what you are saying, and I would not be happy with the situation either if I were the groom.

But unfortunately churches aren't run like the rest of the businesses we shop or secure services from. The clergy can be wonderful, fickle, aggravating or compassionate. In a synagogue the Rabbi can be voted out, or not have his contract renewed. I'm not sure what's done in a church if the congregation becomes unhappy. But sad to say, these are his rules, and I doubt anybody would take up the case of a lawsuit, let alone the B&G as they just start out it life.

It stinks, but it is what it is. They can always - certainly not without difficulty and trouble - go elsewhere.

[bigland]

You didn't read what happened. They selected the location when a previous minister, who is photo-friendly, would preside over the ceremony. Then he retired and was replaced by someone who is not. How is that not fraudulent? Weddings take a great deal of time to plan. The invitations are printed and everything hinges on the location. So if, a few months out, there's a change and now someone tells them they can't take photos at the ceremony, that is grounds for a lawsuit to recover the expense of choosing a new location.

This is why contracts exist. What should have happened was that the B&G enter into a contract with the church at the time of location selection, outlining what will be permitted and what services will be rendered. At a future point in time, either side can then point to a breach of said contract should a dispute arise. The church, by switching ministers, pulled a classic bait-and-switch and that is unacceptable. Again, if I were in the B&G's position, I would immediately threaten a lawsuit, not to mention refuse to be married by that minister anyway. It may be the church's property, but it is the B&G's service and their ceremony. The role of the church should be to facilitate their wishes, not impose their own narrow view on what it should be. What if the minister said "No black people allowed at my ceremony because my religion says they are slaves to be used by white men?" How is that even remotely appropriate? And you're just supposed to bend over and take it because it's their property and you have no recourse? Bull****.

Very interesting thread. Great arguments from all sides!

I have to agree with wickerprints' post I quoted above. If the B&G had to book the church/minister with the knowledge that no pictures were permitted, then there should not be any recourse. However, they were under the assumption that photos during the ceremony were okay. IMHO, the minister who is now performing the ceremony should honor the previous arrangement. If I were the groom, I would look into some sort of recourse - legal or through the church hierarchy.

[RDKirk]

Again, if I were in the B&G's position, I would immediately threaten a lawsuit, not to mention refuse to be married by that minister anyway. It may be the church's property, but it is the B&G's service and their ceremony. The role of the church should be to facilitate their wishes, not impose their own narrow view on what it should be. What if the minister said "No black people allowed at my ceremony because my religion says they are slaves to be used by white men?" How is that even remotely appropriate? And you're just supposed to bend over and take it because it's their property and you have no recourse?

Lawsuit? No. That would be silly. And "the role of the church" is not, in any denomination I've ever heard of, "to facilitate the wishes" of any particular member. Contrary to your belief, if they desire to hold a ceremony in a church, it is not their ceremony--it most certainly comes under the control of the church authority, however that church ordains its authority.

Statistically, in most US congregations, that's going to be the head pastor. Even if there is some kind of elder board or deaconate, or whatever, or even a bishopric theyr'e not likely to oppose the pastor on an issue like this--there are far more significant things for them to fight about. A bishop is unlikely to poke a stick in a pastor's eye over something like this.

For that matter, a couple can't even rent a venue and have total control over what they do there. If they want complete control of the ceremony, they must select a property they own.

There are circumstances that we still don't know: Are the bride and groom members of that congregation, or have they merely rented the church as a venue?

If they've merely rented it, do they necessarily have to use that minister, or can they bring in another?

We don't even know for sure how serious the bride and groom really are over this particular issue in comparison to other criteria they have for selecting a particular church. If it's the family church, for instance, being married in that particular place may be far more important to them than getting photographs of the actual ceremony.

It makes a great deal of difference in how they handle it.

[DennisW1]

The day is not hers, it's the B&G's. I'd talk to her and start with that. Then ask her what her objections are. I would be very proactive here for the B&G. Keep us updated.

Oh yea, and make sure you win. You don't have to be a bully to do so either.


"Proactive"? "Make sure you win"?

Give me a break.

Most restrictive policies such as this one are a result of a minister's bad previous experiences with people and their cameras, either the hired pros or just guests acting like morons. Going in with a "proactive" attitude and trying to "make sure you win" is only going to make you look like just another jerk with a camera.

To the OP:
I would definitely suggest that you take a moment to meet with the minister before the ceremony. Introduce yourself and let them know that you do understand their rules and would like to be able to re-create some of the more important moments after the ceremony. That's about all you're going to be able to do to be honest.

The debate, even in this thread, over who has the right to decide what can and will be allowed in a church still rages on. You can throw around all the legal advice you wish but the bottom line is that the minister is in charge on that day in that church. You're the hired help, period. Yes, you have an important job to do, and its going to be harder under those conditions but that's what you're going to have to deal with.

IF there is to be any negotiation or bargianing with the minister, it's the Bride and Groom's place, not yours. Obviously this situation has caught them off-guard and is upseting to them, but sticking your nose into a fight that simply isn't yours won't do anything to help, and could well end up making things even worse. They're aware of the limitations it places on your coverage and the fact that they won't get some photographs of the important moments of their ceremony. Let them decide how to resolve the situation, and then work with them to make the best of it. That makes YOU look like the good guy, not the jerk getting into an argument with the minister.

Please also ignore any and all brilliant suggestions like "just try and sneak a couple in". You risk not only being asked to pack up and leave, but making it even that much worse for the next photographer. If this minister is so restrictive, the next step could be to simply not allow any photography AT ALL.

[DennisW1]

This is a good thread though. I haven't shot a wedding yet and I would have not thought it would be an issue. Something to ask the b&g before hand. Leave it up to them on where to get married based on caring or not caring about shots of the ceremony inside the church.


Then I respectfully suggest that you do not have the right to be giving advice to those who have been doing it for years and are dealing with an unfamiliar situation.

Come back when you've got a couple hundred under your belt, in varying churches and religions with their different rules and customs, and then you might be a little less "proactive".

[MichaelBernard]

That's the quickest way to get banned from a whole lot of churches.

I consider myself a neutral service provider. I am not a liaison between the couple and their chosen venues and I'm certainly not going to try to change the venue's rules.

Doesn't seem like the "venue's rules" seems like the ministers rules.

The Brash/Gruff/Capitalist/American in me says:

Churches want money, churches make money off weddings, the bride and groom are paying for a service from the church. I don't understand how someone that is paying for a service can be bullied this way. If I wanted a marching band to walk me down the aisle during my multi-thousand dollar service, I'd have a marching band walk me down the aisle.

Old saying, "I pay the cost to be the boss..." I don't see where this problem is coming from really.

The Christian in me says:

Go above her head...speak to her boss :) Not God mind you, but her boss on earth :)

[bigland]

"Proactive"? "Make sure you win"?

Give me a break.


I agree. How can the photographer ensure they win? March in there and take the pictures anyways? Afraid not.

It is the responsibility of the B&G to fight for pictures during the ceremony. If they don't want to, or don't succeed in their fight, then as the photographer you have to do as they wish. After all, they are employing you.



Please also ignore any and all brilliant suggestions like "just try and sneak a couple in". You risk not only being asked to pack up and leave, but making it even that much worse for the next photographer. If this minister is so restrictive, the next step could be to simply not allow any photography AT ALL.

I agree also. If you sneaked some pictures and no one (the minister or other clergy) caught you, then there wouldn't be any trouble to the B&G. However, if you did get caught, then the minister could (however unlikely) say something during the ceremony and possibly ruin the atmosphere/moment for the couple and family.

My advice to the OP (now take with a grain... errr, box of salt: I have never photographed a wedding and have never had to deal with clergy as a photographer; this is only my common sense talking). During the rehearsal, ask to speak with the minister aside. Try to determine if there is some common ground and try to make a compromise. If not, try to arrange a recreation. Then, thank the minister for his/her time and go on your way. After the rehearsal, you can let the B&G know about your disscussion with the minister. After that, it is up to them how they want to proceed.

Make sure you let us know how this turns out!

[bnlearle]

Hmmm... this is the trickiest version of this story I've ever heard. Usually the BnG know - and then I wouldn't feel bad or any obligations. But if they went over this issue with the minister they hired... that's terrible.

Here's what I'd do.

Have the couple talk to the new minister. It's a LOT easier for a vendor to turn a vendor down. It'll take some guts to turn the BnG down. Make sure they explain that they covered this with the minister they hired - and therefore booked the church based off of that fact.

If that doesn't work, have the couple talk to the original minister. Plead their case to him (I think the first was a him?) and see if he can reason with the new minister.

After that, I'd talk to the minister. COMPLETELY respectfully and kindly, I might add. But I'd ask if there was any way if I sat in the back seat, not even standing if she didn't want me to, no flash, no movement, in a doorway - whatever she would allow. I'd make sure my language was very "whatever you would allow" to let her know I respect her beliefs and am sort of asking for a gift.

If that doesn't work, ask the couple what is important to them. If photos during the wedding are, just let them know that getting married there could mean they won't have that. Personally, that would be a deal breaker for me.

Lastly, if I'd been to the venue before and knew I could sneak a few, I'm sorry, I would. I think it's completely unreasonable/unethical of the new minister to not honor the agreement of the old minister. And I was a missionary for 4 years - hardly anti-religious (quite the opposite).

But yeah, they are getting duped here. It's totally unfair. Something should change - but it'll be THEIR job to change it. They have more weight to push around than you do.

If these matters were covered in a contract, I don't think it's wrong to consult a lawer.

Terrible turn of events for the couple :(

Bobby

[sapearl]

Very nicely stated Bobby, and some very positive, constructive suggestions.

[RobKirkwood]

Be interested to hear how you got on captiva? As I mentioned early in the thread we also faced an outright ban, so I'll just update what happened for us in Yorkshire...

I managed to arrive at the Church well before the vicar (always handy when that happens). Vicar arrived, I introduced myself and asked if we could chat about what we could, and could not do, as photographers.

The vicar was very apologetic that Parish Church Council had passed a rule 2 years ago that no-one was allowed to photograph the vows - this followed some unfortunate incidents with videographers at the front of the Church.

I said it's a real shame everyone has to suffer a blanket ban rather than dealing with the individuals concerned. During chatting (and despite the PCC ban) we were able to agree that that Ann and I both stood at the back of the Church during the actual ceremony part, and we photographed from there. It's not ideal, it's far from what we'd normally do, but the couple were over the moon, because they were expecting no photographs at all from the ceremony.

Rob

[captiva]

Hey Rob, Yea i will keep the thread updated. rehearsal is tomorrow night, 7.00pm.
Game plan.....

Find out, politely, if I can shoot from a distance in the church. If not...let her know that I will be taking staged shots after the ceremoney is over. Also, as I am respecting her wishes during the ceremoney I would expect her to respect my wishes and take part in the staged shoot.

I have since heard that she does not like her photograph taken, it puts her off during the ceremoney.

I appreciate all the advice and ideas I have received in the thread and will update progress tomorrow night. Heres hoping the thread can be closed with a photograph or two posted, taken during the wedding.


Danny

[sando]

I consider myself a neutral service provider. I am not a liaison between the couple and their chosen venues and I'm certainly not going to try to change the venue's rules.Bingo.

They chose the venue, they'll have to live with staged shots.

[captiva]

For everyone wanting to know how the meeting with the minister went. I got a "result".

I arrived 30 minutes early, just in time for her to arrive at church. I helped carry some stuff for her and she invited me in. (Good start). Meanwhile her session clerk arrived and offered us both a coffee. I explained who I was ( She said she thought I was a member of the bridal party here for the rehersal. ( I wondered if I was still getting the coffee, I did) .

I told her I wanted to respect her wishes regarding what I could and couldnt do during Saturdays ceremoney and asked her for a run down of what shots were allowed or not.

She replied that this was both her and her new session clerks first wedding since arriving. Wanting to continue my good start I suggested that I take a photograph of them both to remember her first rehearsal in her new church ( She was delighted at the suggestion !). After the shot and the promise I would give them both a copy on Saturday, she asked me to show her what I would normally do.

As its a narrow horse shoe shaped aisle I explained and demonstrated how I would capture the procession in 8 shots. Then where I would sit quietly through the ceremoney untill the kiss. Then, how I would move to the side of the alter to catch those shots, before moving over to the opposite side of the church ready for the registry signing and recession. (4 and 8 shots respectively). I waited for her reaction. She said as it was the first in the new church she would agree to my requests as long as there was no flash used and she would still be telling the congregation not to take photographs.

A huge thankyou to everyone who offered advice, support and ideas.

P.S. The bride was crying when I gave her the good news.

Danny

[bnlearle]

Handled like a TRUE pro! You've definitely made a lifetime's worth of memories in that one small meeting, Danny. You should be proud ;)

Bobby

[Lizzy7]

Great news Danny....bet that bride was one happy bunny :)

Lizzy

[captiva]

Thanks, Bobby, Lizzy.
I went with a multitude of plans up my sleeve, then luck and the situation took over. Sometimes youve just got to be prepared for unexpected doors that open.

Danny

[RobKirkwood]

Great news - well done - enjoy the day!

Rob

[exile]

Woohoo! Nicely done! :-)

[wardie]

Professionally handled with a great outcome.

[DennisW1]

For everyone wanting to know how the meeting with the minister went. I got a "result".

I arrived 30 minutes early, just in time for her to arrive at church. I helped carry some stuff for her and she invited me in. (Good start). Meanwhile her session clerk arrived and offered us both a coffee. I explained who I was ( She said she thought I was a member of the bridal party here for the rehersal. ( I wondered if I was still getting the coffee, I did) .

I told her I wanted to respect her wishes regarding what I could and couldnt do during Saturdays ceremoney and asked her for a run down of what shots were allowed or not.

She replied that this was both her and her new session clerks first wedding since arriving. Wanting to continue my good start I suggested that I take a photograph of them both to remember her first rehearsal in her new church ( She was delighted at the suggestion !). After the shot and the promise I would give them both a copy on Saturday, she asked me to show her what I would normally do.

As its a narrow horse shoe shaped aisle I explained and demonstrated how I would capture the procession in 8 shots. Then where I would sit quietly through the ceremoney untill the kiss. Then, how I would move to the side of the alter to catch those shots, before moving over to the opposite side of the church ready for the registry signing and recession. (4 and 8 shots respectively). I waited for her reaction. She said as it was the first in the new church she would agree to my requests as long as there was no flash used and she would still be telling the congregation not to take photographs.

A huge thankyou to everyone who offered advice, support and ideas.

P.S. The bride was crying when I gave her the good news.

Danny

wonderfully handled!!

....and you've most likely paved the way for future photographers to have a bit more freedom with her. As a matter of fact you might condsider it a service to your fellow wedding photographers to re-visit with the minister and offer to help her draw up some sort of guidelines for wedding photography in her church.

much better than just "sneaking a few in" :)

[cdreemz17]

bw!Have the B&G fire the minister and get married somewhere else would be the best...but they should know this before getting married somewhere and it's probably too late for that.

No minister will tell me what my wedding ceremony will be...I don't know why anyone else would allow that to happen if it wasn't what they wanted.

[cdreemz17]

For everyone wanting to know how the meeting with the minister went. I got a "result".

I arrived 30 minutes early, just in time for her to arrive at church. I helped carry some stuff for her and she invited me in. (Good start). Meanwhile her session clerk arrived and offered us both a coffee. I explained who I was ( She said she thought I was a member of the bridal party here for the rehersal. ( I wondered if I was still getting the coffee, I did) .

I told her I wanted to respect her wishes regarding what I could and couldnt do during Saturdays ceremoney and asked her for a run down of what shots were allowed or not.

She replied that this was both her and her new session clerks first wedding since arriving. Wanting to continue my good start I suggested that I take a photograph of them both to remember her first rehearsal in her new church ( She was delighted at the suggestion !). After the shot and the promise I would give them both a copy on Saturday, she asked me to show her what I would normally do.

As its a narrow horse shoe shaped aisle I explained and demonstrated how I would capture the procession in 8 shots. Then where I would sit quietly through the ceremoney untill the kiss. Then, how I would move to the side of the alter to catch those shots, before moving over to the opposite side of the church ready for the registry signing and recession. (4 and 8 shots respectively). I waited for her reaction. She said as it was the first in the new church she would agree to my requests as long as there was no flash used and she would still be telling the congregation not to take photographs.

A huge thankyou to everyone who offered advice, support and ideas.

P.S. The bride was crying when I gave her the good news.

Danny
A-W-E-S-O-M-E!

[zelseman]

Congrats! Now lets see some pictures from this wedding!

[-g-]

We want photos!! :-)

[Wilt]

Superb! You showed the value of tact and remembering to respect the religious setting, and to not be a jerk intrusive photographer who simply 'takes over' the wedding and could not care less about the minister or family or guests that they are imposing themself upon.