Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 20 Sep 2013 (Friday) 07:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

It's not about Photography...it's about God.

 
cdiver2
Goldmember
Avatar
1,032 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Safety Harbor Fl
     
Sep 20, 2013 09:45 |  #16

Elfstop
God does not trump at all weddings.

I think he doe's at a religious service
Of course if the B&G do not agree with this then they have the option of going to the togs studio and have a tog marry them




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Sep 20, 2013 09:47 |  #17

^False choice. You can also find religious officiants who give 'full access'. Apparently this wasn't that sort of officiant, so I think the photographers here were at fault.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NewCreation
Goldmember
Avatar
3,215 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 592
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Michigan
     
Sep 20, 2013 09:51 |  #18

I went to a wedding in which the photog was mulling around up by the officiant and bride and groom. More or less, she was circling them many times over during the entire ceremony. It was indeed very distracting and I believe it took away from the ceremony. Just my 2 cents.


My name is Brenda ~Saved by grace, walking by faith
http://brendahoffmanph​otography.com (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Sep 20, 2013 09:58 |  #19

Elfstop wrote in post #16311484 (external link)
God does not trump at all weddings.

You aren't looking at this from the point of view of a priest though.

To a priest, conducting a religious ceremony, God kinda DOES hold the most important position and indeed "trump all". God is what it is all about.

As photographers, particularly ones with no religious affiliation, it is easy to see God as an unimportant part of a wedding. Don't expect people with great religious beliefs to feel the same way, especially priests.

Photographers should be there to record the event for posterity, not be centre stage as part of the show, as these guys were.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
M_Six
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,424 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1230
Joined Dec 2010
Location: East Central IL
     
Sep 20, 2013 10:10 |  #20

I once shot pics with my loud 7D at a lecture and upset several people in the audience. The speaker gave me permission to shoot and was very happy that I did. She liked the images. But from now on I'll be very aware of the fact that camera noise just gets to some people. The 6D and 5D MkIII have excellent silent modes, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue any more. But if these guys were right in the priest's ears snapping away, I can see where he would be upset. And like others have said, some folks take their religion very seriously. You have to respect that. Some pre-ceremony discussion might have helped with this.


Mark J.
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 594
Joined Dec 2010
     
Sep 20, 2013 10:25 |  #21

I agree that the officiant was within his rights.

I've got to wonder if all the photographers & videographers were the official/hired photographers, or a bunch of Uncle Bobs who thought they had the run of the place. From the quality of the video, it makes me think it's the latter.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Beachcomber ­ Joe
Senior Member
466 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
     
Sep 20, 2013 10:27 |  #22

Shake N Vac wrote in post #16311417 (external link)
Seems like the priest created more of a distraction than the photographer. Photographer probably should have talked to the priest before hand about what he could/couldnt do however I don't think the photographer being a distraction is any reason for the priest himself to be an even bigger one.

No probably about it. It is standard procedure to check with the person officiating the ceremony. Shoot first, ask permission later may work with street photography and on location model shoots but it is not the way wedding professionals work.

The priest did the right thing. You don't allow a nuisance to continue; it could get worse. What would have been next? I can visualize photographer moving the priest out of the way so he could get a better angle on the ring exchange.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Motor ­ On
Senior Member
Avatar
941 posts
Likes: 50
Joined Feb 2007
     
Sep 20, 2013 10:45 |  #23

I thought a wedding was about a couple, after all they were "gathered there today to (1) join these two (2) in holy matrimony....." It's about the couple, it's in front of god; the officiant and the photographer are just pawns.

If the photographer was going to act professional, he'd sort this out with the officiant beforehand, yes.

But the reverse is also true, if the officiant was professional, he would have as the leader of the ceremony, been the one to express his limitations, and allow the couple to add to them.

IMO both were at fault here for not taking care to sort it out beforehand, as any experience with weddings from either of them, would understand this is a point that always needs clarification.

This is also an outdoor wedding that appears to be on public property, would the priest stop the ceremony to go get in the face of the 747 pilot in the pattern of the nearby airport? Neighboring properties mowing their lawn? Cars passing by playing loud music? God making loud thunderclaps several miles off? Outdoors there is an expectation of added distraction variables, which the couple seemed to accept in their planning, and the officiant by agreeing to do the ceremony. His professionalism was out the window down the street and getting on the bus when he made the wedding about him, not the photographer, not god, not the couple. I agree with how either the photographer acted before things stopped, or how the officiant responded; but I realize there are others that approach photographing a wedding in a different manner than I.


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mark48
Senior Member
914 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 33
Joined Jun 2011
Location: South Central Kentucky
     
Sep 20, 2013 10:48 |  #24

bpiper7 wrote in post #16311469 (external link)
Erm, he said "rites" not "rights". I think you went down the wrong trolley tracks here. ;)
I'd make a point about homophones but who knows where THAT would end up.:D

Thank you, Bill. "Rites" is exactly what I said and meant.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flashpoint99
Senior Member
411 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2012
     
Sep 20, 2013 10:58 |  #25

Im distracted by how hot the bride is..............just saying!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iowajim
Senior Member
Avatar
518 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 53
Joined Mar 2011
Location: North Central Iowa
     
Sep 20, 2013 11:34 |  #26

This can run dangerously close to a religious vs. secular argument. Let's avoid that as much as we can, given the public nature of the forum - you know, no religion, politics, no matter how screwed up the other person's viewpoint is, haha.

The priest is certainly the officiant of the ceremony, and can do as he sees fit when it comes to the conduct of the ceremony. It doesn't matter if it is the photogs or the bride and groom that cause a problem, the officiant will set it straight. I strongly suspect that a justice of the piece would take a similar stance if he/she was bothered by a situation.

Was the officiant too picky? I don't think we saw enough of the encounter to judge, but at the same time, he was the officiant. If one does not respond to a hint or suggestion, the size twelve boots come out.


Jim, in Iowa
80D / T2i / Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 / Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 / Canon 24-105 f4 / Tamron SP VC 70-200mm f2.8 / Sigma 150-600mm C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
378 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jan 2009
     
Sep 20, 2013 11:54 |  #27

Meanwhile, at the secular wedding on the other side of town, an atheist conducted a ceremony in which he did much the same thing.

Interestingly, though, the incident garnered no attention and prompted no anti-atheist commentary.


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fernando
Goldmember
Avatar
1,628 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Round Rock, TX
     
Sep 20, 2013 11:59 |  #28

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16311539 (external link)
^False choice. You can also find religious officiants who give 'full access'. Apparently this wasn't that sort of officiant, so I think the photographers here were at fault.

That is a fact. The Priest at my wife's childhood church let's the photographers roam all over the place. He seems to like that the Rite is being documented completely. I have shot two baptisms there and he wanted me in so close it made ME uncomfortable. The people actually involved didn't care so I went for it.

Conversely the Priest at our Church made things very clear for our photographers (he required that they be at the rehearsal).


Fuji convert - Ping me if you have any Fuji gear or legacy glass you're moving.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Sep 20, 2013 12:00 |  #29

Motor On wrote in post #16311701 (external link)
I thought a wedding was about a couple,...

Obviously, you do not view a wedding as a religious rite. Fine, but many people do, including this priest. Many people view a wedding as a sacred ceremony, not merely a prelude to drunken toasts at the reception (and they are not all Christians, either).

The photographer in this story was an inconsiderate boor and not a professional in the way he conducted himself. That should have been the end of the story.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Sep 20, 2013 12:02 |  #30

Link, please.

I'm an anti-theist and I'm siding with the priest here. Those dudes were out of line.

Tedder wrote in post #16311888 (external link)
Meanwhile, at the secular wedding on the other side of town, an atheist conducted a ceremony in which he did much the same thing.

Interestingly, though, the incident garnered no attention and prompted no anti-atheist commentary.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,650 views & 0 likes for this thread
It's not about Photography...it's about God.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AlexRapp
1216 guests, 295 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.