Video camera banned in church

Carl Walters · September 2nd, 2004, 03:49 PM

<<< A DONATION TO THE RESPECTIVE RELIGOUS SERVICE, JUST, MIGHT, GET WHAT YOU WANT. >>>

What you suggest Robert may work, but why should we have to even consider doing that. I don't know about in the states but in England, all churches charge the bride & groom for the privelidge of being allowed to have a video in church anyway, so a donation is normally out of the question. We are shooting a wedding next month and the b & G have been charged £500.00, yes five hundred UK pounds ! just to shoot the video. The bride has special connections with the church and will not marry anywhere else. The church have them over a barrel. The b & g have to pay the fee, we do not involve ourselves with that.

Robert J. Wolff · September 3rd, 2004, 02:33 AM

Carl,

You have answered my point. You, (ney, the B&G), have paided off the piper.

As far as I know, many of the religious institutions here, have a "resident" photo/video maker, that does all of the inside work. If the B&G, over on this side of the pond, gave the religious institurion 500 quid, (or it's equivalent), they would get the bishop or whomsoever, to do the service.

This is no worst than doing a newsy, and paying off the security guard, to get to the event. That's what the term "miscelaneous expenses" is for on your voucher.

It works the world over. Bribe, payola, donation, etc. What ever you choose to call it.

All I am suggesting is that everyone get on with it: Pay the Piper!

Enought said by me.

Steve McDonald · September 12th, 2004, 10:25 PM

People didn't need video of weddings before it was invented, because they tended to stay married back then and could look at each other every day, for life.

Obviously, the couple to be married in this case, doesn't care much about having video of the event-----why should you bother yourself about it? It seems that you would reject the job and find another where the clients arrange for active cooperation.

I remember one exasperating incident where some friends and their families had pleaded with me, until I agreed to do their wedding (for free). When I arrived, the priest banned me from bringing in a camcorder. The couple hadn't even talked to him about it and blamed me, saying I should have been the one to make arrangements with him. The bride got the marriage anulled after a few weeks, anyway.

Members of this same large family got me to video the funeral of their mother and the get-together afterwards. However, several others of the family rudely insulted me and ordered me to leave. They seemed to think I was invading their privacy for my own benefit. Needless to say, I never took a camera near that bunch again.

I imagine that it's often a hassle for outsiders to video private family events, as some of them may not want cameras around. Now, when I video any sort of family activity, commercially or without a fee for friends, I require that someone in charge explain my presence in advance and assure that I won't be harassed.

Steve McDonald

Carl Walters · September 13th, 2004, 09:23 AM

<<< Obviously, the couple to be married in this case, doesn't care much about having video of the event-->>>

They very much care about. However for reasons i won't go into here, the bride really wants to get married at that church. We include a love story and other parts to a completed wedding production. The service is just part of it.

<<<---why should you bother yourself about it?--- >>>>

Quite simply...because I am a professional! I don't know if you're a pro wedding videographer or not, but, and I don't mean to sound to harsh, with that kind of attitude in the UK, you wouldn't be for long. I pride myself and my company and the people who work for me, on producing a quality product, and a professional service from beginning to end. You can do 60 good weddings in a year, and maybe get 60 good reports. You do one bad wedding and you will get 600 bad reports!

Secondly, the bride & groom are friends of my wife. And as far as i'm concerned a friend is worth bothering about.

<<<--- It seems that you would reject the job and find another where the clients arrange for active cooperation.--->>>

For reasons as stated, easier said than done. They are fully co-operative, it's the church where the problem lies.

The wedding is next saturday and I have planned to create a dream shoot, after the main service as suggested earlier in the thread.

Funerals are a touchy subject. The filming of them has not "took off" in the UK, although a few people do ask for it. Not something ive covered as yet.
Carl

Dylan Couper · September 24th, 2004, 12:43 PM

I'm with Gints. Canon makes a fairly small digital camera with a 10x zoom, IS, and it shoots 30fps 640x480 video. It looks like a normal little camera, and is reasonably priced. Get a good seat, prop it up, and stick a hat over it.

Scott Jaco · September 20th, 2006, 08:23 PM

You are a trooper! I have to admit, I can’t believe that the bride & groom are actually going to re-do the ceremony just for the sake of video. I hope they are very very good friends of yours!

Marcus Marchesseault · September 21st, 2006, 06:09 AM

I almost feel bad reading this thread, but for some reason a satisfied smugness keeps washing over me...

I just shot a wedding a few weeks ago over on Maui where I used a stabilized monopod and my B-cam was on a CRANE NEXT TO THE ALTAR! There is only one church in Hawaii, to my knowledge, that has shooting restrictions so tight that it interferes with getting the job done. Things are usually backwards here, so it is good to know we are progressive on at least one thing.

Okay, the smugness went away. I don't often have such good karma on video jobs and it felt good to gloat a bit.

By definition, churches exist for God and his/her people. The church is not supposed to exist for the edification of the clergy. Any church that can't get that is going to fade away rapidly. I feel sad for the people of those churches and I'm not even religious.

I don't think I could take a job with such restrictions. I don't feel I could put together a product in a situation like this worth their money or my time. I just wouldn't feel right taking their money, except possibly for doing the reception. I think I would rather the video just start at a party instead of being brought down by a crippled ceremony.

Tim Painter · September 21st, 2006, 06:30 AM

This has been very interesting. I am just starting out doing weddings and did my first wedding last weekend.

Since you redoing the vows, maybe try filming in front of a green screen and lay in a picture of the inside of the church behind them?

Can you get in and film some of the sanctuary before/after the event when it is empty? Maybe some shots of the point of view from the bride/groom walking up the aisle would be nice to include.

Steven Davis · September 21st, 2006, 07:53 AM

Call me crazy, and many people do, but what about a reinactment. As long as it's not a 3 hour Catholic wedding, and more of something like 30 minutes or so, what about just having the service, let the guests go, then do a reinactment. Since they will already be married, the reinactment could be structured as to be just that, a restaging of events.

You might not have to reinact all of it either.

September 3rd, 2004, 02:33 AM	#32
Robert J. Wolff Major Player Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Adirondacks of New York Posts: 210	Carl, You have answered my point. You, (ney, the B&G), have paided off the piper. As far as I know, many of the religious institutions here, have a "resident" photo/video maker, that does all of the inside work. If the B&G, over on this side of the pond, gave the religious institurion 500 quid, (or it's equivalent), they would get the bishop or whomsoever, to do the service. This is no worst than doing a newsy, and paying off the security guard, to get to the event. That's what the term "miscelaneous expenses" is for on your voucher. It works the world over. Bribe, payola, donation, etc. What ever you choose to call it. All I am suggesting is that everyone get on with it: Pay the Piper! Enought said by me. __________________ Himself

September 24th, 2004, 12:43 PM	#35
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	I'm with Gints. Canon makes a fairly small digital camera with a 10x zoom, IS, and it shoots 30fps 640x480 video. It looks like a normal little camera, and is reasonably priced. Get a good seat, prop it up, and stick a hat over it. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

September 21st, 2006, 07:53 AM	#39
Steven Davis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 3,065	Hey Carl Call me crazy, and many people do, but what about a reinactment. As long as it's not a 3 hour Catholic wedding, and more of something like 30 minutes or so, what about just having the service, let the guests go, then do a reinactment. Since they will already be married, the reinactment could be structured as to be just that, a restaging of events. You might not have to reinact all of it either. __________________ What happens if I push the 'Red' button?

September 2nd, 2004, 03:49 PM	#31
Carl Walters Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: East Midlands Posts: 137	<<< A DONATION TO THE RESPECTIVE RELIGOUS SERVICE, JUST, MIGHT, GET WHAT YOU WANT. >>> What you suggest Robert may work, but why should we have to even consider doing that. I don't know about in the states but in England, all churches charge the bride & groom for the privelidge of being allowed to have a video in church anyway, so a donation is normally out of the question. We are shooting a wedding next month and the b & G have been charged £500.00, yes five hundred UK pounds ! just to shoot the video. The bride has special connections with the church and will not marry anywhere else. The church have them over a barrel. The b & g have to pay the fee, we do not involve ourselves with that.

September 12th, 2004, 10:25 PM	#33
Steve McDonald Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 366	People didn't need video of weddings before it was invented, because they tended to stay married back then and could look at each other every day, for life. Obviously, the couple to be married in this case, doesn't care much about having video of the event-----why should you bother yourself about it? It seems that you would reject the job and find another where the clients arrange for active cooperation. I remember one exasperating incident where some friends and their families had pleaded with me, until I agreed to do their wedding (for free). When I arrived, the priest banned me from bringing in a camcorder. The couple hadn't even talked to him about it and blamed me, saying I should have been the one to make arrangements with him. The bride got the marriage anulled after a few weeks, anyway. Members of this same large family got me to video the funeral of their mother and the get-together afterwards. However, several others of the family rudely insulted me and ordered me to leave. They seemed to think I was invading their privacy for my own benefit. Needless to say, I never took a camera near that bunch again. I imagine that it's often a hassle for outsiders to video private family events, as some of them may not want cameras around. Now, when I video any sort of family activity, commercially or without a fee for friends, I require that someone in charge explain my presence in advance and assure that I won't be harassed. Steve McDonald

September 13th, 2004, 09:23 AM	#34
Carl Walters Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: East Midlands Posts: 137	<<< Obviously, the couple to be married in this case, doesn't care much about having video of the event-->>> They very much care about. However for reasons i won't go into here, the bride really wants to get married at that church. We include a love story and other parts to a completed wedding production. The service is just part of it. <<<---why should you bother yourself about it?--- >>>> Quite simply...because I am a professional! I don't know if you're a pro wedding videographer or not, but, and I don't mean to sound to harsh, with that kind of attitude in the UK, you wouldn't be for long. I pride myself and my company and the people who work for me, on producing a quality product, and a professional service from beginning to end. You can do 60 good weddings in a year, and maybe get 60 good reports. You do one bad wedding and you will get 600 bad reports! Secondly, the bride & groom are friends of my wife. And as far as i'm concerned a friend is worth bothering about. <<<--- It seems that you would reject the job and find another where the clients arrange for active cooperation.--->>> For reasons as stated, easier said than done. They are fully co-operative, it's the church where the problem lies. The wedding is next saturday and I have planned to create a dream shoot, after the main service as suggested earlier in the thread. Funerals are a touchy subject. The filming of them has not "took off" in the UK, although a few people do ask for it. Not something ive covered as yet. Carl

September 20th, 2006, 08:23 PM	#36
Scott Jaco Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 471	You are a trooper! I have to admit, I can’t believe that the bride & groom are actually going to re-do the ceremony just for the sake of video. I hope they are very very good friends of yours!

September 21st, 2006, 06:09 AM	#37
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	I almost feel bad reading this thread, but for some reason a satisfied smugness keeps washing over me... I just shot a wedding a few weeks ago over on Maui where I used a stabilized monopod and my B-cam was on a CRANE NEXT TO THE ALTAR! There is only one church in Hawaii, to my knowledge, that has shooting restrictions so tight that it interferes with getting the job done. Things are usually backwards here, so it is good to know we are progressive on at least one thing. Okay, the smugness went away. I don't often have such good karma on video jobs and it felt good to gloat a bit. By definition, churches exist for God and his/her people. The church is not supposed to exist for the edification of the clergy. Any church that can't get that is going to fade away rapidly. I feel sad for the people of those churches and I'm not even religious. I don't think I could take a job with such restrictions. I don't feel I could put together a product in a situation like this worth their money or my time. I just wouldn't feel right taking their money, except possibly for doing the reception. I think I would rather the video just start at a party instead of being brought down by a crippled ceremony.

September 21st, 2006, 06:30 AM	#38
Tim Painter New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 19	This has been very interesting. I am just starting out doing weddings and did my first wedding last weekend. Since you redoing the vows, maybe try filming in front of a green screen and lay in a picture of the inside of the church behind them? Can you get in and film some of the sanctuary before/after the event when it is empty? Maybe some shots of the point of view from the bride/groom walking up the aisle would be nice to include.