Observing others' rules when photographing

Reading through a different thread, one of the OP's comments really struck me...he wanted a quiet shutter because he was requested not to photograph during a ceremony (wedding I think) but apparently wanted to take photos on the sly regardless of the church's rules.

There is a photographer named Jeff Cable who photographs many of the Olympics, and during the year some of his biggest photos gigs are for Bar and Bat Mitzvahs as well as some weddings. For one particular ceremony, the family hired Jeff as well as a second photography studio. All the photographers were told ahead of time any restrictions regarding shooting during the ceremony. The photographers from the photography studio didn't adhere to the rules so while the ceremony was in progress, the photographers from the studio were asked to leave, but Jeff was allowed to stay.

My church has rules for wedding photography, and if a photographer doesn't adhere to the rules, the church really doesn't want that person to ever return as a photographer.

So my question is this: when you are asked to photograph a ceremony or any situation where you are given specific instructions to follow, if those rules mean you might miss a terrific shot, do you shoot anyway, or do you ask to recreate the situation afterwards? And if you violate any restrictions, does the thought ever cross your mind whether or not you might be invited back?

I'm asking this of the pros when restrictions are given or for those who are involved with religious institutions and/or other scenarios where restrictions are imposed for photography. What are your thoughts?

I'm no a pro, but I would think a re-creation would be the way to go if those shots are wanted by the customers. I think it's up to the customer to help you achieve the goal if restrictions of their church forbid it during the actual ceremony. I don't believe it would be good to close doors on venues to get good shots of one event, losing other possible jobs using that venue.
Besides, the church itself might recommend you if they have no issues and the customers end up happy with your work.

But this is just my opinion.

The only restrictions I have been given had more to do with lighting and flash. I never intrude into the actual alter area or space occupied by clergy and wedding party, that's where the longer lenses (70-200) come into use. Common sense is what is required and I would abide by the house rules even if it meant missing a shot. There is usually time after the ceremony to get great shots.

I shoot many Native American ceremonies and events where some of the dances and prayers are not to be photographed due to their spiritual nature. When I'm told to stop recording, then I STOP RECORDING. No if's and's or but's. Respect for spiritual integrity trumps and if the client wants those images, they should understand that you have to draw the line somewhere. Recreate the scene privately if you can, otherwise, it is what it is.

Bill16 said:

I'm no a pro, but I would think a re-creation would be the way to go if those shots are wanted by the customers. I think it's up to the customer to help you achieve the goal if restrictions of their church forbid it during the actual ceremony. I don't believe it would be good to close doors on venues to get good shots of one event, losing other possible jobs using that venue.
Besides, the church itself might recommend you if they have no issues and the customers end up happy with your work.

But this is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree, Bill, yet I've heard of photographers who would rather get the photos no matter whether or not they follow any restrictions. It might affect a photographer's reputation, and I wonder how many people are willing to risk that. Apparently some do.

WJYPhoto said:

The only restrictions I have been given had more to do with lighting and flash. I never intrude into the actual alter area or space occupied by clergy and wedding party, that's where the longer lenses (70-200) come into use. Common sense is what is required and I would abide by the house rules even if it meant missing a shot. There is usually time after the ceremony to get great shots.

Click to expand...

Yes, flash seems to be a biggie! Many religious venues don't approve of flash during a ceremony or service and many don't want photographers moving around. Are you usually given the opportunity to recreate a shot afterwards? I know many church's would rather go that route. Has that worked out well for you in general? When you've recreated the shots, do the customers ever comment one way or the other about its being recreated?

GeoWes said:

I shoot many Native American ceremonies and events where some of the dances and prayers are not to be photographed due to their spiritual nature. When I'm told to stop recording, then I STOP RECORDING. No if's and's or but's. Respect for spiritual integrity trumps and if the client wants those images, they should understand that you have to draw the line somewhere. Recreate the scene privately if you can, otherwise, it is what it is.

Click to expand...

Wow! This really sounds interesting! I took a Native American history class in high school and really enjoyed learning about their lifestyle. Are you Native American? Is that why you have the opportunity to photograph some of their events? In a situation such as this where a scene is considered to be holy or spiritual, I imagine there are photogs who would rather take a unique photo and be one of the few to do so, but it is a shame when people lack respect especially when it is religious or spiritual in nature.

Also not a pro but..., I always respect the rules of any ceremony. It would strike me as very odd if the participants would want the photographer to go against what should be their own beliefs also? I always ask first.

I was in an ancient chapel once where I struggled to photograph the frescoes without a flash, as requested. Suddenly a flash went off and I swiveled around and observed another photographer firing way with his flash. i was apalled and left right away so as not to be associated with that rude fellow. I respected that chapel's right to try and protect it's precious heritage.

If you come into my house and I ask you to not smoke then I expect you to abide by my wishes. If you do light up you will be removed form the house. Anytime you are in someones house whether it is my house or a house of God then follow their rules. No ifs, ans or buts.

As a pastor we are a pretty lenient church in regards to our "rules" for photographers. We had one instance where a photographer started to boss around another pastor performing the ceremony. Especially in regards to the set up of the bridal party the photog was trying to override the bride by repositioning people. Then in the middle of the ceremony the photog asked the pastor to step back for a shot! The pastor sternly scolded him and asked him to step to the back. When the ceremony was over I had to apologize to the couple but they were glad the pastor said something. Needless to say he is never being asked to come to our church again. On the flip side of the coin we have a regular professional who gets much business from our church. Very respectful. Very professional. Wonderful to work with. She does a great job and then let's me have a go at some shots when I'm not busy

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I like what most have said and it has sio much to do with respect, if you don't show it the door will be shown. I have done outdoor weddings and non-religious ceremonies and had no restrictions stated, just common sense and of course respect.

The last wedding I did I asked the pastor before hand about the photography and he said "It's not my wedding, talk to the bride." I think that is probably the norm now. Still though I think the photographer should not draw attention to what he is doing, stay in the background, no flash during the ceremony and don't get between the wedding party and the people in attendance more than absolutely necessary.

R-e-s-p-e-c-t!

hark said:

Wow! This really sounds interesting! I took a Native American history class in high school and really enjoyed learning about their lifestyle. Are you Native American? Is that why you have the opportunity to photograph some of their events? In a situation such as this where a scene is considered to be holy or spiritual, I imagine there are photogs who would rather take a unique photo and be one of the few to do so, but it is a shame when people lack respect especially when it is religious or spiritual in nature.

Click to expand...

That's a long story. I'm a total white boy but also vice-chair to SSP&RIT which puts me right into a lot of Bay area and California Indigenous issues. I try to participate in and shoot at the same time, which doesn't always work out too well. Yes, I cry every time I hear those words and try to make up for it when the restrictions lift. But my clinents are Indigenous, too and they all understand.

The best part of this is that I'm immersed in a fascinating culture.

Its about Professionalism and respect for others,in our years of wedding photography we never took one picture during the service,it just wasn't done at that time and no vicar would give permission any way. In a small area like ours your main income was from about 15 churches which meant going back to the same one many times,my wife had a great relationship with all the vicars and this returned more benefits than the odd forbidden picture.
I broke the rules about 10 years ago at a family christening,they wanted a video the vicar said no but he would bring a professional in and sell tapes,this to me was unfair so the camera sat on the back of a pew and recorded the whole ceremony,i made no money it was a christening gift from me.

This is a timely post due to the fact I am shooting an outdoor wedding in February, but in the previous times I have always introduced myself to the Pastor or Celebrant and have asked what restrictions if any they have. All have been good and I have worked around any restrictions if there are any. Respect plays alot into it I think aswell.

Don Kuykendall said:

The last wedding I did I asked the pastor before hand about the photography and he said "It's not my wedding, talk to the bride." I think that is probably the norm now. Still though I think the photographer should not draw attention to what he is doing, stay in the background, no flash during the ceremony and don't get between the wedding party and the people in attendance more than absolutely necessary.

Click to expand...

For me, as a user, this is key. When we got married we had an "official" photographer but the brief was to take candid, not intrusive, shots. I don't want to see flash or hear shutters. We got married in a 10th century family church and had our informal, relaxed reception in the 12th century family mansion, the first family wedding there for 200 years. 20th century technology recording the event was great but we were there to get married, not to be photographed! We had no tedious, time-consuming formal poses before or after. There was no seating plan for the dinner but we did put a disposable camera on each table and a comments book in the hall. This was in 2000.

I guess I underscore the essential need to do what you are told to do, or not do what you are asked not to do. Obey the rules!