Can anyone say "uncomfortable?"

James Manford · September 19th, 2013, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

We have an Anglican Cathedral here with a Canon (a lady) affectionately known for her tough rules!
One position only, no flash in the Church ..no-one allowed in the aisle at any time and also NO guests are allowed any cameras or video whatsoever.

One poor photog (his own fault) flaunted the rules and she stopped the service, evicted him from the Church (physically! he had to stand outside and wait for the bride to exit) She is one tough cookie but very sweet as long as you stick to her rules!

I haven't yet had the embarrassment of being thrown out of any Church as yet but when I was filming the register signing she did once motion to me to move back and to the side.

I have had two photogs at an outdoor ceremony that were intent on taking about 500 frames a minute each and getting as close to the couple as they possibly can. One even stuck his head in between the priest and couple so he could do a ring closeup with the lens only inches from her hand. At that stage the priest had had enough and moved them away with some stern words. They reminded me of the flies we get here in Summer they get in everywhere and just keep coming back!!

Chris

Here in the UK, i've also been told to switch of the camera or not to record the signing on the register.

We do get the chance to do a 'fake' signing for photographic purposes a bit later on though.

Clive McLaughlin · September 20th, 2013, 12:36 AM

I've had that too James. Theres a law about making a record of an official document. Videoing/photography basically is grouped in with photocopying. Stupid, but I think thats where it comes from.

Roger Gunkel · September 20th, 2013, 05:45 AM

A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws.

The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information.

Roger

Steve Bleasdale · September 20th, 2013, 06:24 AM

If you are coming into the game then be prepared for a rough time with most church's, the wardens are the worst, some priests you can get around, but its hard work.... For all of us trading for ages, argue at your peril, I did and can no longer film at one church in Liverpool, now I keep my gob shut. But last week I did St Chads again and I had to say something. I was at the church at midday for a 1pm wedding. Doors locks and chains, groom arrives gets some footage of him, none in church, cant do my usual slides and racks in church, bride arrives, doors still shut. 12.50 two wardens turn up, I politely said can you please tell me why you are opening so late, there reply! not you again!!! Jeeez I might go back to ranting and raving as the quiet nice approach sometimes don't work. Week previous, small hotel, registrar, "I stand here you cannot go there" she said to me!! ok I said where do you want me to go? At the back she says. But I will not be able to see the bride and grooms face as they are facing you I said and the bride has paid for a wedding film? Ok when the bride comes I will stop the isle entrance and go up to her and say you wont let me film her coming down the isle? Nooooo stay there then, lets not upset the bride!! Works every time....

Steve Bleasdale · September 20th, 2013, 06:26 AM

[QUOTE=Roger Gunkel;1813891]A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws.

The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information.

(Roger, when that's happening I film the lot, but I keep turning my head away as if it looks like I am not filming...Works every time...)

Nigel Barker · September 20th, 2013, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws.

The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information.

Roger

I have heard a whole bunch of different arguments as to why filming/photographing the register signing is forbidden e.g.
1) The register is Crown Copyright
2) There are the names of other couples visible on the adjacent page
3) The B&G signing with a fountain pen my mess up & blot the register while being distracted by posing the cameras

However as Roger points out they are all completely bogus as it is a document open to public inspection.

James Manford · September 20th, 2013, 06:59 AM

The key is not to be polite.

Your instant reflex should be.

Well, the bride has paid me to film her. Should I tell her YOU specifically told me not stand here/film here/stay here etc before she arrives?

As soon as you drop a line like that, just watch them change their attitude.

People just make up their own rules to feel like they have responsibility!

Steve Bleasdale · September 20th, 2013, 07:09 AM

+1 James, spot on friend

Clive McLaughlin · September 20th, 2013, 07:29 AM

I wonder if a line like
"well you should have discussed this with my employer before now, but it's too late, she expects footage from here and you never told her that her photographer and videographer wouldn't be allowed to"
would work?

Roger Gunkel · September 20th, 2013, 07:44 AM

I filmed a wedding in Kings Lynn UK early last year, where the photographer Tom Clegg, a very well respected and long established photographer, was told what he could and couldn't do. He tried to discuss politely with the lady vicar and was told 'in my church you do as I say'. His response was an interesting one, he replied 'It's God's house madam not yours, and when I spoke to Him last night he was very happy about it, are you appointing yourself above Him?' The vicar stomped off and just gave him black looks every time he took a picture. I wouldn't have had the balls to say that, but he was semi retired and was fed up with BS.

Roger

Robert Benda · September 20th, 2013, 07:49 AM

We had one pastor, at an outdoor ceremony, tell us we weren't allowed to put a mic on the groom because, I wish I were joking, "their vows are between them and god." me:"so what are all the people here for?" She did not care for that.

We have a couple of Gorillapods for tricky setups, if anyone ever gives us grief like you British guys apparently get all the time. I'm considering getting a lighting stand that could hold a camera but instead of a tripod, it's got a base plate, like microphone stands do, so it's footprint is tiny.

All this reminded me to read it over, but you better believe our contract has a line about 'shall not be held responsible if subjects are not made available to film...'

Warren Kawamoto · September 20th, 2013, 09:16 AM

Turn up the volume and listen to the footage again. It seems like the still photographer was shooting everything at 5fps, which is what may have irritated the priest. Poor video guy was kicked out just because he happened to be next to the photographer. 5fps throughout the entire ceremony might be a little excessive...don't you think?

Greg Clark · September 20th, 2013, 09:39 AM

I completely agree that shutter noise is a constant distraction. I'm glad video is silent.

Phil Goetz · September 20th, 2013, 02:34 PM

Yeah. Never forget the the first time I shot from the back of a church with a 100mm F2.0 on a GH2 set to crop mode. It allowed a little tighter than head to toe shot. To keep a constantly rolling shot I started with a Rokinon 8mm Canon mount for the entrance and then went to the 100 and then back to the 8mm for the exit. Because the lens mount was passive I didn't have to worry about electronics or the start stop being triggered by taking the lens off. I know, plural eyes for syncing things, but back then I wanted the shots as long as possible.

Paul R Johnson · September 20th, 2013, 03:17 PM

When I got married in Church, the photorgrapher took pictures going in, when requested at the 'pretend' register signing done for photographic reasons, and not the real signing - and then as we were leaving, shot from the far end, so we were walking towards the exit down the aisle.

We got married in Church because we wanted to, and knew the Church had rules we had to follow. Not just on photography but cine, and the new fangled video gizmos just appearing (U-matic).

The vicar was in charge, what we did, said and where we stood was set by him. We chose a religious ceremony where you make promises in front of the congregation, and the big man upstairs. Over the years, I've lapsed, but I still believe in God. Nowadays people who don't believe in God want to get married in church, because they get to wear nice dresses, and the photos look better. They make meaningless promises, and most of the congregation don't even know the Lords Prayer anymore. The priest has to conduct a legal and religeous ceremony with an audience more suitable for Jeremy Kyle, who cannot understand what the problem is - and trot out the old line that 'they paid for it'. If they really wish to put visuals in front of religion, then hire a deconsecrated church, pay to have it made nice to look at, and have it done by a registrar you have engaged who doesn't mind it being made into a meaningless circus.

I've no problem with weddings that need endless video and photographic interference, if that's what the couple want, but the photography rules will have been detailed in advance, they won't be a shock - and the couple just disregard common courtesy, and sanctity - and expect the priest (who's entire career is built on religion) to set aside his beliefs and views to allow Spielberg-esque behaviour.

If you got permission to hold a wedding at a Freemason's Lodge, would it be ok to poke fun at their beliefs, or if you work in Northern Ireland, would you do a wedding in a Catholic area and expect your protestant views as photographer to be accepted?
[quote]That priest is an absolute IDIOT then and i'm not surprised the bride made the WTF face .{/quote]
They didn't have to select that priest, and obviously didn't spend any time talking to him before the ceremony. Why is he an idiot for wanting everyone to behave appropriately for what he was doing? When guests at a reception want the DJ or band to play inappropriate music, they won't do it. If you book a country band for your wedding, are they idiots for not playing Death Metal. If you engage an 'art' photographer do you complain when you get all the odd angles and weirdly composed shots with photoshop treatment?

If you want a fully documented wedding, with moving video and stills people shooting every little thing - then the choice of venue, officiant and other details need some consideration.

The vicars know that they have a fair number of non-believers getting married by them, and a small number may at some point become more involved with religion. They know the vast majority won't, and the next time they'll see them is baptism. Would you, as a person of strong belief be happy to let them hijack your service?

You do not need to agree with what they do to derail the video, but as the entire service needs them more than it needs anyone else apart from the B&G, then paying for the service is not an automatic right to take it over.

Sorry guys - but what these people did was disrespectful. The various excuses put forward are clever. The comment about having asked God yourself is amusing. Amusing because it undermines the authority of the priest, who obviously cannot prove the existence of God anyway, and shows that the root of the problem is not understood by the photographers, who believe legal contracts and payment overturn the rights of the priest contracted in law and belief to carry out the process. I am not against persuasion and promises to not intrude - they are in my view the only tools at the photographers disposal. Threats to tell the Bishop, or put the blame on the priest are underhand, and really not serious threats, because the church are fully aware of these issues, and have endless discussion about how to deal with it. Stuff like this just adds a name to the priests unofficial list of firms not to suggest to B&Gs who ask for advice. Priests forever fall out with the powers that be, and appealing to the highest authority in their disciplinary actions doesn't work.

Guests, participants and contracted people need to conduct themselves with dignity, respect and professionalism - and if the vicar says NO - then respect it. They are in charge, and have the power to stop a ceremony if they wish - and the best you can do is complain afterwards. At the time of the dispute - they are the boss, live with it.Do they care about the video or photographs? Nope - nothing to do with the success or failure of their contribution - which is simply the ceremony.

September 20th, 2013, 12:36 AM	#17
Clive McLaughlin Major Player Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Belfast Posts: 823	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" I've had that too James. Theres a law about making a record of an official document. Videoing/photography basically is grouped in with photocopying. Stupid, but I think thats where it comes from.

September 20th, 2013, 05:45 AM	#18
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud. It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws. The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information. Roger

September 20th, 2013, 06:24 AM	#19
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" If you are coming into the game then be prepared for a rough time with most church's, the wardens are the worst, some priests you can get around, but its hard work.... For all of us trading for ages, argue at your peril, I did and can no longer film at one church in Liverpool, now I keep my gob shut. But last week I did St Chads again and I had to say something. I was at the church at midday for a 1pm wedding. Doors locks and chains, groom arrives gets some footage of him, none in church, cant do my usual slides and racks in church, bride arrives, doors still shut. 12.50 two wardens turn up, I politely said can you please tell me why you are opening so late, there reply! not you again!!! Jeeez I might go back to ranting and raving as the quiet nice approach sometimes don't work. Week previous, small hotel, registrar, "I stand here you cannot go there" she said to me!! ok I said where do you want me to go? At the back she says. But I will not be able to see the bride and grooms face as they are facing you I said and the bride has paid for a wedding film? Ok when the bride comes I will stop the isle entrance and go up to her and say you wont let me film her coming down the isle? Nooooo stay there then, lets not upset the bride!! Works every time....

September 20th, 2013, 06:26 AM	#20
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" [QUOTE=Roger Gunkel;1813891]A few years ago, I looked into this whole thing about not being able to film the signing of the register in a civil ceremony. There is no law to prevent you doing this at all. Having also spoken to a number of registrars about it, they tell me that they are told during their training not to allow filming of the signing. This is apparently because someone in authority has taken it into their head that it might enable people to copy personal details from the register and use it for identity fraud. It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that that the certificate and details are available for anyone to view on request, or that photos and video taken at an oblique angle from across the signing table are going to be totally illegible. I have been asked not to point my camera at the couple during the signing even though I was 15ft away. It seems that officiants just put their own interpretation on the guidelines, rather than actual laws. The idea that an identity fraudster would want to go through someone's wedding photos to try to catch a glimpse of a signature is somewhat ridiculous, when there are so many easier ways of getting their information. (Roger, when that's happening I film the lot, but I keep turning my head away as if it looks like I am not filming...Works every time...)

September 20th, 2013, 06:59 AM	#22
James Manford Trustee Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,393	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" The key is not to be polite. Your instant reflex should be. Well, the bride has paid me to film her. Should I tell her YOU specifically told me not stand here/film here/stay here etc before she arrives? As soon as you drop a line like that, just watch them change their attitude. People just make up their own rules to feel like they have responsibility!

September 20th, 2013, 07:09 AM	#23
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" +1 James, spot on friend

September 20th, 2013, 07:29 AM	#24
Clive McLaughlin Major Player Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Belfast Posts: 823	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" I wonder if a line like "well you should have discussed this with my employer before now, but it's too late, she expects footage from here and you never told her that her photographer and videographer wouldn't be allowed to" would work?

September 20th, 2013, 07:44 AM	#25
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" I filmed a wedding in Kings Lynn UK early last year, where the photographer Tom Clegg, a very well respected and long established photographer, was told what he could and couldn't do. He tried to discuss politely with the lady vicar and was told 'in my church you do as I say'. His response was an interesting one, he replied 'It's God's house madam not yours, and when I spoke to Him last night he was very happy about it, are you appointing yourself above Him?' The vicar stomped off and just gave him black looks every time he took a picture. I wouldn't have had the balls to say that, but he was semi retired and was fed up with BS. Roger

September 20th, 2013, 07:49 AM	#26
Robert Benda Trustee Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Crookston, MN Posts: 1,353	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" We had one pastor, at an outdoor ceremony, tell us we weren't allowed to put a mic on the groom because, I wish I were joking, "their vows are between them and god." me:"so what are all the people here for?" She did not care for that. We have a couple of Gorillapods for tricky setups, if anyone ever gives us grief like you British guys apparently get all the time. I'm considering getting a lighting stand that could hold a camera but instead of a tripod, it's got a base plate, like microphone stands do, so it's footprint is tiny. All this reminded me to read it over, but you better believe our contract has a line about 'shall not be held responsible if subjects are not made available to film...'

September 20th, 2013, 09:16 AM	#27
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" Turn up the volume and listen to the footage again. It seems like the still photographer was shooting everything at 5fps, which is what may have irritated the priest. Poor video guy was kicked out just because he happened to be next to the photographer. 5fps throughout the entire ceremony might be a little excessive...don't you think?

September 20th, 2013, 09:39 AM	#28
Greg Clark Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Surprise Arizona Posts: 297	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" I completely agree that shutter noise is a constant distraction. I'm glad video is silent.

September 20th, 2013, 02:34 PM	#29
Phil Goetz Austinite Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Austin Posts: 550	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" Yeah. Never forget the the first time I shot from the back of a church with a 100mm F2.0 on a GH2 set to crop mode. It allowed a little tighter than head to toe shot. To keep a constantly rolling shot I started with a Rokinon 8mm Canon mount for the entrance and then went to the 100 and then back to the 8mm for the exit. Because the lens mount was passive I didn't have to worry about electronics or the start stop being triggered by taking the lens off. I know, plural eyes for syncing things, but back then I wanted the shots as long as possible.

September 20th, 2013, 03:17 PM	#30
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,045	Re: Can anyone say "uncomfortable?" When I got married in Church, the photorgrapher took pictures going in, when requested at the 'pretend' register signing done for photographic reasons, and not the real signing - and then as we were leaving, shot from the far end, so we were walking towards the exit down the aisle. We got married in Church because we wanted to, and knew the Church had rules we had to follow. Not just on photography but cine, and the new fangled video gizmos just appearing (U-matic). The vicar was in charge, what we did, said and where we stood was set by him. We chose a religious ceremony where you make promises in front of the congregation, and the big man upstairs. Over the years, I've lapsed, but I still believe in God. Nowadays people who don't believe in God want to get married in church, because they get to wear nice dresses, and the photos look better. They make meaningless promises, and most of the congregation don't even know the Lords Prayer anymore. The priest has to conduct a legal and religeous ceremony with an audience more suitable for Jeremy Kyle, who cannot understand what the problem is - and trot out the old line that 'they paid for it'. If they really wish to put visuals in front of religion, then hire a deconsecrated church, pay to have it made nice to look at, and have it done by a registrar you have engaged who doesn't mind it being made into a meaningless circus. I've no problem with weddings that need endless video and photographic interference, if that's what the couple want, but the photography rules will have been detailed in advance, they won't be a shock - and the couple just disregard common courtesy, and sanctity - and expect the priest (who's entire career is built on religion) to set aside his beliefs and views to allow Spielberg-esque behaviour. If you got permission to hold a wedding at a Freemason's Lodge, would it be ok to poke fun at their beliefs, or if you work in Northern Ireland, would you do a wedding in a Catholic area and expect your protestant views as photographer to be accepted? [quote]That priest is an absolute IDIOT then and i'm not surprised the bride made the WTF face .{/quote] They didn't have to select that priest, and obviously didn't spend any time talking to him before the ceremony. Why is he an idiot for wanting everyone to behave appropriately for what he was doing? When guests at a reception want the DJ or band to play inappropriate music, they won't do it. If you book a country band for your wedding, are they idiots for not playing Death Metal. If you engage an 'art' photographer do you complain when you get all the odd angles and weirdly composed shots with photoshop treatment? If you want a fully documented wedding, with moving video and stills people shooting every little thing - then the choice of venue, officiant and other details need some consideration. The vicars know that they have a fair number of non-believers getting married by them, and a small number may at some point become more involved with religion. They know the vast majority won't, and the next time they'll see them is baptism. Would you, as a person of strong belief be happy to let them hijack your service? You do not need to agree with what they do to derail the video, but as the entire service needs them more than it needs anyone else apart from the B&G, then paying for the service is not an automatic right to take it over. Sorry guys - but what these people did was disrespectful. The various excuses put forward are clever. The comment about having asked God yourself is amusing. Amusing because it undermines the authority of the priest, who obviously cannot prove the existence of God anyway, and shows that the root of the problem is not understood by the photographers, who believe legal contracts and payment overturn the rights of the priest contracted in law and belief to carry out the process. I am not against persuasion and promises to not intrude - they are in my view the only tools at the photographers disposal. Threats to tell the Bishop, or put the blame on the priest are underhand, and really not serious threats, because the church are fully aware of these issues, and have endless discussion about how to deal with it. Stuff like this just adds a name to the priests unofficial list of firms not to suggest to B&Gs who ask for advice. Priests forever fall out with the powers that be, and appealing to the highest authority in their disciplinary actions doesn't work. Guests, participants and contracted people need to conduct themselves with dignity, respect and professionalism - and if the vicar says NO - then respect it. They are in charge, and have the power to stop a ceremony if they wish - and the best you can do is complain afterwards. At the time of the dispute - they are the boss, live with it.Do they care about the video or photographs? Nope - nothing to do with the success or failure of their contribution - which is simply the ceremony.