Can anyone say "uncomfortable?"

[Peter Riding]

Bit more background to it here:

Minister stops wedding ceremony to shout at photographers | Mail Online

The establishing shots supplied to the newspaper by the photographer show just what a messy scenario it was in which to shoot. There are no real vantage points other than from the back of the ceremony. There is hardly any space between the celebrant and the lake and what there is is partially limited by two mature tree trunks. Then there's that arch. No higher ground vantage points. Then there's that stupid stupid stupid American habit of the wedding party filing off to either side of the couple forming a crescent and blocking any chance of front-side aspect shots. And why do the fellas always assume that pose with their hands clasped in front of the family jewels? We call that the penalty shoot-out pose in the UK (from what professional footballers do when defending against a penalty kick in a game of real football).

This was a circus waiting to happen. There were two photographers and at least one videographer. Why? What was the point of that? And why did the videographer think it was a good idea to plonk himself and all his paraphernalia behind the arch in direct sight of everyone. maybe thats why the photographers were reluctant to shoot from the rear. A GoPro or two disguised on the arch or in the static flower arrangements could have worked wonders for both stills and video.

I've had my fair share of run-ins with crazed clergy and civil celebrants but I feel some sympathy for this priest. I got the feeling from his words and demeanour that his aim was to get the ceremony "back on course" as he would see it as absolutely quickly as possible; he didn't think it desirable to go into a lengthy discourse but when the shooters started questioning him that aim unravelled.

And no amount of pre-wedding planning, discussions, written contracts, attending rehearsals etc will guarantee a problem free ceremony. There are just too many differences in what the various players regard as normal or acceptable. I have the scars to prove it :- )

Not sure if this vimeo link will play - I'm part way through resurrecting my old Vimeo pro account. I think the reference number is 75159647. It illustrates that priests can also be very accommodating:

camera-rules-03 on Vimeo

Pete

[Dave Blackhurst]

Actually there looks to be a fair amount of room behind the arch - likely drops off towards the lake, making it a bit treacherous, like many outdoor venues. Not ideal, but doable if you have a "normal" wide lens (video cam)and want to get good closeups during the ceremony (and a mild tele for the stills). The deep DoF makes it look like there is less room than there probably was...

Since this article adds quite a bit to the scenario, I think it substantiates much of what has been said here - the priest's "collar was a little too tight", and the clicking got to him.... I doubt he got a "tip", and maybe he'll be the one not hired in the future? If he was trying to help the B&G not be "distracted" or "nervous", I believe the term is EPIC FAIL.

I still say that the clatter of mirror flap and shutter CAN be pretty annoying/distracting, especially if the 'tog is firing off burst after burst, so I sympathize in that sense, but losing your cool and making up a silly story to explain it later when you look like a buffoon is not terribly "professional" either...

I suspect the now "viral" nature of this clip is more embarrassing to the priest than he would have ever expected...

[Dan Burnap]

Thanks James - 2xC100s with 24-105 IS and 17-55 IS on monopods, plus a 60D with tokina 11-16 for the static guests shot. Priest and groom mike'd with Irivers.

[Jim Snow]

I believe this train wreck has two components that pretty much define what went on. The catalyst that caused the priest's melt-down was the incessant swack!, swack!, swack! of the photographer's DSLR mirror. Don't photographers realize how loud and irritating that is!? And to position himself five feet away and pull that stunt is way over the top!

As for the focal length debate regarding the videographer's lens, take another look at the video. The curtains block the videographer from being seen by the guests. If he had been farther back, more guests would have seen him. Were it not for the photographer's machine gun imitation, no one would have even noticed the videographer.

The final point is the priest was way out of line. That outburst was juvenile and totally uncalled for.

[Clive McLaughlin]

Another interesting angle for discussion on this is - Is it right for a videographer to release a clip like this to go viral? (although I'm sure they didnt know it would?)

I mean if this was your wedding, it would be bad enough if this happened, but to find that you videographer is sharing the clip simply to badmouth the incident and the priest. Would that not be something you would be annoyed by?

In fairness, there are people out their who would pay money to feature in a viral video about ANYTHING.

In the article posted above, the bride is actually interviewed.

So for the rest of their lives, what stands out for them from their wedding day!

"It was such a lovely day, the priest was an arse, the video went viral, the media even interviewed me!"

Just like every young girl dreams of...


QUESTION

If there was anything 'bad' that you filmed at a wedding, would you ever release it online??

[Chris Harding]

Hi Clive

I don't even include anything unfortunate on the DVD unless of course the bride specifically asks for it.
We did a wedding 3 weeks ago where the bridesmaid came down with her groomsman after the signing and didn't notice the step down so ended up in a crumpled heap on the floor. I just automatically cut that out and cut the footage back to the B&G exiting down the aisle then back to the now recovered bridesmaid so, in the video, nothing happened!

I know it's our job to accurately record the day, but some things should be left out IMHO and an angry outburst would be one of them.

I'm sure most brides would want the day to look perfect

Chris

[James Manford]

With Chris on this one ... I'll just creatively edit the video in a way any 'bad' things are completely left out. Yes,it's not showing the day exactly as it unfolded but i'm sure anything bad is the last thing the bride needs reminding of...

I don't bother calling / asking the bride or groom if I should leave any occurrence out either. I just voluntarily keep it out ... contract does say I have editing rights and pick and choose what I want as long as the main bits are in the video.

If they want me to put it in for free my instant reply would be that it will cost £XX.XX an hour in editing/rendering time, if there is anything else you want as well I can squeeze it in during that editing time.

It's never happened yet, hopefully never will!

[Tim Lewis]

I filmed a friend's wedding and their guest singer sounded like "a dog howling at the moon". I thought this a strange choice as the groom is an accomplished musician. Not one note made it to the final edit.

[Don Bloom]

As I have said time after time, in this industry nothing beats good common sense!
I may document the day but when editing I start by cutting the air and the inappropriate and go from there.
As for the right to post the clip, it's possible the videoguy talked to the B&G before doing so...at least I hope he did. While he own's the rights to the footage I would be remiss to post something like that, that could embarrass the B&G or family.