# Priest meltdown over photographer at wedding. Ouch!! :O



## cayenne (Sep 30, 2013)

Wow...I was amazed to see this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oReLN5nntKw&feature=player_embedded#t=1

I mean, I've heard of officiants getting testy inside of church buildings, but even then, usually setting the rules *before* the ceremony.

This guy blows up in the MIDDLE of the ceremony, embarrassing the bride and groom....and this ceremony was OUTDOORS.

I read one quote someone made on YouTube that I agreed with. The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."

cayenne


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 30, 2013)

This is just sad.

It appears that this priest has some serious delusions of grandeur. If god was actually watching this, the priest failed to notice the resulting heavenly facepalm motion. So much for his connection to his boss.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 30, 2013)

That was a mild rebuke, far from a "meltdown." 

Believe me, I've been the recipient of meltdown behavior--at events where everybody was signed off except one hissy-fit prone individual or another.

In this case, the priest was stressed about something, and the clacking of the shutters irritated him. He could have communicated better, being clear about shooting from another location versus leaving the premises, but he doesn't deserve disrespectful derision. 

I know, as a photographer, we can think the wedding is put on for our benefit. A reminder now and then doesn't hurt.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 30, 2013)

The wedding should be for the benefit of the bride and groom and their friends and family. Anything else (catering, chauffeur services and the like) is just part of the package.

Both wedding photography and priestly services are services, which should be provided in a professional fashion. 

I don't see why a priest shouldn't get along with wedding photographers. I believe it is fine, if the priest asks for photos not to be taken during some parts of the ceremony, when the priest wants to say something meaningful, but generally sending the photographers off, because the priest doesn't feel like getting center stage is going too far, because it will ruin the couple's opportunities for getting those memories and having them preserved in lovely photos. This is as much a part of a wedding as anything else that comes with it.


----------



## LSV (Sep 30, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I read one quote someone made on YouTube that I agreed with. The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."
> 
> cayenne



I totally disagree with this. So, the groom would add his meltdown to the officiant's over-reaction? You have not seen anything yet until the bride breaks down when the officiant walks away.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 30, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Wow...I was amazed to see this one:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oReLN5nntKw&feature=player_embedded#t=1
> 
> ...



I will not call it a meltdown. The priest is very calm. We only see part of it. We do not know whether the photographer has asked the priest's consent BEFORE the ceremony or not. Even worst, the priest may have announce that no photographer is allow in the alter area and the photographer has ignored it. Most of the priest will not allow photography during the ceremony no matter whether it is inside of the church or outdoor. If the photographer is a professional, he should know better. The priest has the right to ask him to leave whether the photographer is hire by the groom or not.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 30, 2013)

Rocky said:


> I will not call it a meltdown. The priest is very calm. We only see part of it. We do not know whether the photographer has asked the priest's consent BEFORE the ceremony or not. Even worst, the priest may have announce that no photographer is allow in the alter area and the photographer has ignored it. Most of the priest will not allow photography during the ceremony no matter whether it is inside of the church or outdoor. If the photographer is a professional, he should know better. The priest has the right to ask him to leave whether the photographer is hire by the groom or not.



This is certainly correct in a church or church-owned facility. In the video it appears to be outside an area, where the priest would have any say over such things. In any case priest and photographer should talk before the ceremony and not like this, during the ceremony. This is just awkward.


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 30, 2013)

Rocky said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...I was amazed to see this one:
> ...



I wouldn't call his reaction "very calm." A calm response would have been to simply and politely _ask_ the photographers to remove themselves. I don't know what kind of weddings you've been to, but all the ceremonies I've been to, even the ones in churches, have allowed photographers to do their thing. The priest's reaction was obviously tacky, whether warranted or not, and what it comes down to is that it was the bride and groom's day, not his...so if they wanted the photographer there, and he wasn't interfering with the ceremony, then what's the problem?


----------



## surapon (Sep 30, 2013)

Rocky said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...I was amazed to see this one:
> ...



+ 1 For me too.
Yes in The Large Church, The Wedding in North Carolina, No photographer allow at the Altar area or the Church Sanctuary/ Main Floor level, Except at the Balcony area of the Sanctuary , where we set the Tripods and the Big Zoom Lens or The Big Telephotos Lens, for the Main Photographers, And Let the support photographers shoot from the back of the sanctuary----YES, the Shutter Sound, if Close to the Priest , will interrupt the Ceremony and Priest's speech---Special some new/ Spring chicken - wedding photographers might use continuous shooting mode--That One in a life time ---That are Formal Ceremony.
Yes, As the Wedding photographers, We must have the rehearsal 1 day before the real ceremony, and we will learn the rules from all the people involve. No, We, as the good , Professional Wedding Photographers, We will not screw up the expensive ceremony, and Lose our face and lose future job, for the future $ 20,000 US Dollars Fee. for two day works.
Surapon


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 30, 2013)

ok. DSLR1 is shooting the video.
DSLR 2 unseen is clicking away. We can hear it. If we can hear it, the preist can hear it. The couple can hear it.
clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclick

And as the video DSLR walks away we see the third photographer beside the bridesmaids.

There is also a tripod on the lawn behind the seats.

Emmm. I'm with the priest.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 30, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I read one quote someone made on YouTube that I agreed with. The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."



Yep. Completely unprofessional behavior on the part of the priest. No one has a right to do what he did except the bride and groom. Doesn't matter if we think the photographers were or were not over stepping their bounds. That's up to only two people, and only those two people have a right to say anything.

If the bride and/or groom are not visibly annoyed or saying something, keep it to yourself and keep the ceremony moving smoothly forward.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 30, 2013)

Rocky said:


> I will not call it a meltdown. The priest is very calm.



No he wasn't. His tone and jarring interruption of the most important part of the day were anything but calm.



> We do not know whether the photographer has asked the priest's consent BEFORE the ceremony or not. Even worst, the priest may have announce that no photographer is allow in the alter area and the photographer has ignored it. Most of the priest will not allow photography during the ceremony no matter whether it is inside of the church or outdoor. If the photographer is a professional, he should know better.



Irrelevant. If the activity is not upsetting the bride and groom or otherwise wrecking the ceremony (and by wrecking I mean the priest literally cannot continue speaking), then you deal with it afterwards. You don't air it out in front of everyone drawing attention away from the wedding.



> The priest has the right to ask him to leave whether the photographer is hire by the groom or not.



Nope. It's not about the priest.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2013)

Should the photographer had discussed the ground rules with the couple and the priest beforehand? Yes. 

Should the couple have discussed their expectations with the priest beforehand? Yes.

Does that justify the priest acting like a complete jerk and ruining the ceremony for the bride and groom. Absolutely not.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> This is just sad.
> 
> It appears that this priest has some serious delusions of grandeur. If god was actually watching this, the priest failed to notice the resulting heavenly facepalm motion. So much for his connection to his boss.



Most Vicars and Priests are pretty cool, but I usually get one per year who is completely unreasonable, although I've only ever had one who was this rude. I've very very unobtrusive and nearly silent but even then, I get the odd power mad minister of unrighteousness. Hey, photographers have souls which need saving too! 
Unfortunately not every man in a mitre is a man of God.


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 30, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Should the photographer had discussed the ground rules with the couple and the priest beforehand? Yes.
> 
> Should the couple have discussed their expectations with the priest beforehand? Yes.
> 
> Does that justify the priest acting like a complete jerk and ruining the ceremony for the bride and groom. Absolutely not.



+1

/end thread :-X


----------



## ablearcher (Sep 30, 2013)

Establishing a good connection/mutual understanding with a priest BEFORE the ceremony is essential. Any wedding photog has to know this. Getting that close to the priest's back is always asking for trouble. At the same time, I'd say that to some extent both the photogs and the priest are responsible for the situation. If the priest thought that an outside wedding should have the same rules as a wedding in church in terms of freedom of movement for the photogs - then he had to mention that before the ceremony. You can't mess up someone's ceremony by things like that. Look at the groom's and bride's faces in that video. So yeah, I'd say both - the photogs and the priest are responsible. I doubt both will be recommended by the couple to their friends (unless the photogs managed to get amazing shots done). But nobody wants a ceremony with an angry priest...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 30, 2013)

I counted 3 cameras (the recording cam, the guy next to the recording cam firing off his shutter non-stop. NON-STOP. It's not downhill skiing he's shooting. But there he she is with their motordrive. NON-RUCKING-STOP)

The video guy invaded the priests space. Do you like folk creeping up behind you? No. 

Then there is a third photographer next to the bridesmaids.

It's a bit much.

Perhaps the Priest could have handled things better, but I wouldn't have.

Here's the rub.

Wedding first. The couple are there to get MARRIED. Thats kind of important to everybody.

Photo video. 2nd or maybe even further down the list. Whats the point of having every moment documented if every moment is ruined by the process of the documentarians?

I hate to be the anti-photographer here, but I read all the time stories about the infringement of photographers rights because of idiots taking photographs of other folks kids in public or on private land etc...

I get fed up with it, because these guys, like the MORONs in the video, are giving each and every one of us a bad name.

Will the priest now think about prohibiting photos at future weddings? I would If I were him. 

I was photographing a firewalk last night and the organisers were intially very unfriendly, obstructive even. Now I do video work day and daily and deal with police, security and jobsworth day and daily. It's a fine art.

I turn up early, talk to the person in charge. Ask what the timescale is, the geography of the situation and anything I need to be aware of or anything they want to ask me.

I'll offer to set up nice and early to see if they have any problem.

Don't turn up just before with a huge flash and barge your way to a good position and start ruining the event for everybody else.

It really is common sense. 

We do have rights, often misunderstood by a minority of cops and majority of private security folks, show a bit of respect, stand your ground if need be, calmly.

It's not your wedding. Granted, neither is it the priests.. but he is higher up the pecking order.


----------



## Joe M (Sep 30, 2013)

I've been fortunate never to have experienced this but I think it's because I always, and I mean always make the time to meet the officiant whether it's an outdoor or indoor ceremony. I ask about any "off limits" and depending upon their demeanor I'll ask for leniency when they are a little stricter than I'd like. Sometimes I get it, sometimes not. I may not like it when it gets strict but if an officiant were to ever have a little meltdown like this, it would not be due to me or my assistant. That said, I'd love for one to give it to the guests for a change. I've had many many weddings where I've been banished to the "back" while guests circle the couple with video and still cameras. 

Something that ministers (and I know a few who thankfully agree and with respect to me at least, they are lenient), have to realize is that while he is being paid to marry them, I too am being paid to do a job and the couple have certain expectations of what they'll get from me. I think that some photographers have simply ruined it for those of us who are considerate while at the same time doing what's needed. I think if more could use silent shutter, pause during prayer, walk quietly and stay away from the couple (that's what the big white ones are for), we wouldn't run into the issues that we do. 

And that all said, I have no idea what the full story is behind this clip. However, just going by this clip, I think the minister could have handled it better. We also don't know if there was more irritating behaviour before this clip. In any case, I realize the minister was a little miffed but the look on the bride's face and even the groom's is something the photographer and minister have to live with. One of my favourite ministers would have been irritated, sucked it up and told the photographers later that they are banished. He now also asks couples coming to him for a wedding who their photographers are and if they are on his "black list" won't do their ceremony or asks them to reconsider. I sort of like that approach.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 30, 2013)

The photographer in this instance is clueless.

As photographers we think about things like composition. This guy only thought about his own composition.

This wedding had an arbor set up that frames the priest, bride and groom. Sitting in the audience you see this arbor with its beautiful backdrop and a goofy photographer that doesn't realize he has injected himself in to the composition of the wedding. He is completely clueless to his surroundings or what he is doing. He even asks where he should stand. The answer is he should be standing some place where he is not the center of attention and is un noticed. Then he is doing his job. 

Do not put yourself in the scene.

As for the priest, if this were a religious based forum I would point out his flaws. It isn't so why reward this photographer for his own ignorance.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 30, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Perhaps the Priest could have handled things better, but I wouldn't have.
> 
> Here's the rub.
> 
> Wedding first. The couple are there to get MARRIED. Thats kind of important to everybody.



You just contradicted yourself. If the bride and groom are really what's important, then you as the priest would either a) keep your mouth shut until after the ceremony, or b) calmly and quietly ask the photographer to move (i.e. no one else in the audience should have been privy to what was going on). Look at the bride and groom before and after the priest blew up. They were not bothered by the photographer. They WERE bothered by what the priest did.

Agreed that rules and expectations should have been established before hand; the photographers setup the situation; the photographer got too close and that bothered the priest; the photographer injected himself into the scene (idiot); etc. 

But if any person except the bride or groom is upset about something and has it within their power to keep quiet until afterwards, by God you keep your mouth shut and keep the ceremony progressing smoothly for the bride and groom. This applies to relatives, friends, in laws, kids, hired help, etc, etc. You better be dying if you interrupt a ceremony like that priest did. Because if you're not and you're working for me, you will be dying later.

To be fair to the priest, when he turned around and said move the photographer should not have responded at all. He simply should have moved. "Where should I stand?" The unemployment line buddy.

I'm going to bookmark this video to show it to any future assistants as an example of what you never, ever do.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 30, 2013)

The priest has two functions, to conduct the religious service and to officiate over the legal process of the marraige.

He's quite an important guy.

I agree that it's clear from this 30s clip that boundaries were not discussed before hand. It's the couples big day, but the priest has a job to do.

There is no respect shown for his office or his place in the proceedings. He could have carried himself better.

I don't see the contradictions.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 30, 2013)

I've experienced this in a church with tight space, in which it was impossible to get farther than 2 meters grooms.  The priest stopped the ceremony and spoke rudely to stop photo and video at the moment. :-\ We stopped and hopefully finish that moment (embarrassing). :-[ Resumed when the marriage rite went to "You accept to marry ...". :-X Oddly, this same priest loves appear in the largest broadcasting station in the city, doing ceremonies for the governor, who is also the owner of the television station.  Perhaps that day the priest forgot to take your medication.  On the other hand, I realize that 1DX should not be used to take pictures at distances smaller than 3 meters from the priest. Better yet if 5 meters.


----------



## bleephotography (Oct 1, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I've experienced this in a church with tight space, in which it was impossible to get farther than 2 meters grooms.  The priest stopped the ceremony and spoke rudely to stop photo and video at the moment. :-\ We stopped and hopefully finish that moment (embarrassing). :-[ Resumed when the marriage rite went to "You accept to marry ...". :-X Oddly, this same priest loves appear in the largest broadcasting station in the city, doing ceremonies for the governor, who is also the owner of the television station.  Perhaps that day the priest forgot to take your medication.  On the other hand, I realize that 1DX should not be used to take pictures at distances smaller than 3 meters from the priest. Better yet if 5 meters.



Don't think I've ever seen so many different emoticons in a single post!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 1, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > I've experienced this in a church with tight space, in which it was impossible to get farther than 2 meters grooms.  The priest stopped the ceremony and spoke rudely to stop photo and video at the moment. :-\ We stopped and hopefully finish that moment (embarrassing). :-[ Resumed when the marriage rite went to "You accept to marry ...". :-X Oddly, this same priest loves appear in the largest broadcasting station in the city, doing ceremonies for the governor, who is also the owner of the television station.  Perhaps that day the priest forgot to take your medication.  On the other hand, I realize that 1DX should not be used to take pictures at distances smaller than 3 meters from the priest. Better yet if 5 meters.
> ...


Some emoticon representing my face and the photographer that day. Others represent the face of the bride and groom at that time. There is no emoticon ugly enough to represent the face of the priest that day. ;D


----------



## distant.star (Oct 1, 2013)

.
I can imagine it's annoying to the master of ceremonies there to have photographers around. Hell, I get annoyed as a photographer when people start watching me instead of whatever they are there to see! The whole thing could have been avoided if someone had remembered his Boy Scout training!

As for those who claim the master of ceremonies responded calmly, I've got advice for you. Stay out of poker games and fights; you're going to lose. The fire in his eyes is satanic!


----------



## agierke (Oct 1, 2013)

in Catholicism, there are 7 holy sacraments. Baptism, First Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Ordination, and Last Rights. the church believes that these are moments when an individual makes a very direct and personal connection with God and it is not to be taken lightly. in the strictest observation of these sacraments, there should be absolutely no photography what so ever, but we live in modern times and whoever presides over the ceremony will determine what will be allowed and what will not.

having been an altar server, receiving 5 of the 7 sacraments myself, and being a wedding photographer as well, i am not one bit surprised about the Priests reaction nor do i disagree with it at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony first and foremost, it is a privilege to be present during it whether you be a guest or hired to photograph it. in the eyes of the church, the only necessities are God, the couple, their commitment to each other and to God, and the ordained officiant. that's it. 

now on the other hand, IF i were still a practicing Catholic, i might argue that i am practicing God's gift to me through my photography and that i am there to honor God, the couple, and the sacrament with my skills but in the end nothing trumps the sacraments. 

regardless of all that, i still show the proper respect during religious ceremonies whether they be Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or whatever. that moment is not mine...it is God's and it doesn't matter if i prescribe to the doctrine or not.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 1, 2013)

They should have been using a 5D Mk III and been shooting in silent mode...


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 1, 2013)

agierke said:


> in Catholicism, there are 7 holy sacraments. Baptism, First Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Ordination, and Last Rights. the church believes that these are moments when an individual makes a very direct and personal connection with God and it is not to be taken lightly. in the strictest observation of these sacraments, there should be absolutely no photography what so ever, but we live in modern times and whoever presides over the ceremony will determine what will be allowed and what will not.
> 
> having been an altar server, receiving 5 of the 7 sacraments myself, and being a wedding photographer as well, i am not one bit surprised about the Priests reaction nor do i disagree with it at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony first and foremost, it is a privilege to be present during it whether you be a guest or hired to photograph it. in the eyes of the church, the only necessities are God, the couple, their commitment to each other and to God, and the ordained officiant. that's it.
> 
> ...



+1 of course we are assuming the priest is Catholic. It may not be the case. Depending on their faith the priest may have done as he should. I can only fault him in that he didn't lean over and whisper it to the photographer. If you listen though it seems the photographer wanted to argue so it may have escalated anyway.

Still this situation was created by the photographers stupidity.

It was mentioned it was the couples day, which is true and they chose a priest who was tying them together before the eyes of God. If the couple didn't want God involved in the marriage why have a priest at all. A judge would have been fine and he could handle the divorce for them later.


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2013)

"This is about God."!!!!!!!! Oh lord! 

It is not correct to comment on the situation without knowing complete facts but this being about God is so far fetched.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 1, 2013)

sanj said:


> "This is about God."!!!!!!!! Oh lord!
> 
> It is not correct to comment on the situation without knowing complete facts but this being about God is so far fetched.



Maybe to you. I have known many Christian pastors that take the exchanging of the vows very seriously. The Bride and Groom are taking a Vow before God. Very serious and somber thing.

He wears a collar with a cross on the back and dresses like a priest? I would assume he is either Catholic or some Christian denomination.

The photographer (or the Bride and Groom) chose to post this video on You Tube. So it is very correct to comment on it since they obviously are wanting to be noticed. It was placed in a public forum to be seen.


----------



## agierke (Oct 1, 2013)

> "This is about God."!!!!!!!! Oh lord!
> 
> It is not correct to comment on the situation without knowing complete facts but this being about God is so far fetched.



Sanj,

the priest is wearing a collar and as takesome1 pointed out, it is most certainly a Catholic Priest or at the very least a Christian one.

it is FACT that the sacrament of marriage in Christianity is about God and the couple coming together before Him. ask any Priest...they hold the marriage ceremony very sacred. i served next to priests as an altar server during masses and many weddings for over 10 years. i know what i am talking about.

i am not trying to debate the validity of there being a God or any of that. i am not a practicing catholic anymore. it is their beliefs, not mine, that are important during that moment. i still hold respect for other's beliefs regardless of the denomination. you can never go wrong with respect.

the photographers were in the wrong in this situation. the priests reaction was totally justified based on the religious doctrine of the ceremony. you don't have to agree with it or like it, but you should be aware of it.


----------



## Codzilla (Oct 1, 2013)

For those that think the couple has the final say because both the officiant and photogs are there to provide a service, think again. There is a hierarchy at a Christian wedding and, surprise, the minister is at the top. They call it "preside" over a wedding because he is THE boss. And he was given that responsibility by the B&G. Look up the word if you don't believe me, "president" derives from it. 

If they don't agree with the religious component of the wedding, they can hire an actor or JP or whatever. If they feel it's about the photos, maybe they should have gone that route. 

From what I can tell, the video was set up either right on top of, or way too close to the altar (sanctuary). I have $5 that says the priest never approved that location ahead of time, regardless of his denomination. 

The edited clip speaks volumes as well. It is trimmed to show the priest in the worst possible light, probably so that it would go viral (as it did). You can push someone's buttons all day until they blow up. Only post the outburst and voila, you get what we see here. 

Bottom line: it's the officiant's show. They bought into his belief system, at least for the day. Fall into line and STFU. To complain about it is like voluntarily joining the army and then complaining about the stupid war you got sent to. Suck it up, buttercup.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Oct 1, 2013)

I don't blame the priest for blowing up at them, because of how invasive they actually were. But then the problem arises- that's what they are being paid for and they're doing their job. They're being paid to document the wedding (as bad as they are doing it). 
And I feel as if the priest (as worked up as he was) should have discussed it at a latter time, NOT at a crucial part of the ceremony in front of everyone, ruining the beauty of the moment. 
It's bad on either side. The photographers were too invasive, and the priest didn't choose the correct moment to... "discuss" the issue.
However, everyone is only thinking about the priest and documenting crew. What about the bride? A wedding is, after all, also subtitled as "the bride's (big) day".


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 1, 2013)

BrandonKing96 said:


> What about the bride? A wedding is, after all, also subtitled as "the bride's (big) day".



This brings up another way to look at this.
Of course it is possible this video was released with the Bride and Grooms permission afterwards. 
But what if it wasn't.
What if it was released and now this embarrassing moment is out for the entire world to see. The one moment she had dreamed about her whole life released because some egotistical self centered photographer didn't like what happened.
What if this photographer is one of those we see that worry about retaining the rights to their own photographs, they worry about the rights so they can publish later if they like and feel entitled to do whatever they want with those images regardless of the consequences to others. We often see this mindset with street photographers who have the "right" to do what they do.

If the video was released without the B&G's permission after the event (not by their contract) then in my book this guy is real piece of work.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 1, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> If the video was released without the B&G's permission after the event (not by their contract) then in my book this guy is real piece of work.



Let's do hope that this is not the case. This would be even more embarrassing than what I consider the priest's lack of tact in handling the situation.

Let us also not forget that in today's societies many couples do marry out of a sense of tradition or pleasing their parents or just making a big show out of their marriage, only to make up in advance for facing divorce only a couple of years later, but this does not in any way make them buy into medieval church practices or the like, so the comparison with joining the army is not valid here. Being a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever is your personal decision. I have found that many priests do realize that times have indeed changed and act accordingly, although the extent to which they openly show that does depend on their particular faith and of course on the country they operate in.


----------



## Vossie (Oct 1, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> If the video was released without the B&G's permission after the event (not by their contract) then in my book this guy is real piece of work.



There is an additional video on youtube: something would happen - feat: ABC News

The bride's brother posted the video. According to the couple (who spoke in the ABC coverage in the youtube link above) the photog had not gotten any restrictions other than not blocking the isle. They were very surprised about the priest's action. They did not blaim the photog is any way.

The photog was Kamrul Haman. I looked at his website (www.dhoomstudio.com) and am not particulaly impressed by his portfolio. In his blog (http://www.dhoomstudio.com/blog/) he has a posting about the incident incl some pic from happier moments of the day. He quote's the bride stating that it did not ruin the day.


----------



## Joe M (Oct 1, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If the video was released without the B&G's permission after the event (not by their contract) then in my book this guy is real piece of work.
> ...



I followed the link to youtube last night and there was a second one. It actually made the news on GoodMorningAmerica. Egads. In any case, in appears if I'm hearing it right, that the brother of the bride posted it with the couple's permission. The groom says there were no rules discussed other than to stay out of the aisle. This would seem to excuse the posting as the photographer trying to embarrass the minister (Episcopalian), but rather just the couple trying to share their uncomfortable moment. 

I'm sure there is a little bit of embarrassment to be shared by everyone involved in this but to take something positive from it, maybe all brides-to-be should take note and ensure that everything about the ceremony is crystal clear with your minister and that includes what the photographer can and cannot do (maybe even in writing). 
Edit...... And as I'm writing this, I see Vossie just posted the other link.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 1, 2013)

Vossie said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If the video was released without the B&G's permission after the event (not by their contract) then in my book this guy is real piece of work.
> ...



Stop the video at :38 and imagine how Haman and his other photographer would look standing behind the pastor in the middle of the arbor at the most important part of the ceremony.

The photog needs to get a clue, he was only told to stay out of the aisle? He should have enough sense to stay out of scene.


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2013)

agierke said:


> > "This is about God."!!!!!!!! Oh lord!
> >
> > It is not correct to comment on the situation without knowing complete facts but this being about God is so far fetched.
> 
> ...



I see your point entirely, totally. I just find it difficult to believe that God is part of any of these man made rituals. Just my thoughts... I do not want to offend anyone here. Pls do not get me wrong.


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > "This is about God."!!!!!!!! Oh lord!
> ...



Yes yes to ME. Without offending ANYONE, I do not think two people getting dressed a certain way and taking wows has anything to do with God. My opinion.


----------



## CR00 (Oct 1, 2013)

Most photographers would blame priests and most priests would blame photographers. Both were trying to do their jobs, but I think the photographer is more to blame. Both bride and groom were standing still, why was the photographer shooting in burst mode and standing so close and behind the priest.


----------



## tphillips63 (Oct 1, 2013)

To me, that close right behind his ear with the machine gun rate going off, I'm sure it was extremely distracting for the priest. It could have been handled better but I blame the photogs the most.

Shouldn't they have tried the silent shutter option if they wanted to set up that close?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 1, 2013)

I don't have a lot of experience in wedding photography, but is it a common practice to "spray and pray" like that one photographer was doing?


----------



## Casey (Oct 1, 2013)

My hunch is that the priest was having a bad day and did not expect to hear the constant CLICK CLICK CLICK behind him that just eventually got to him and he just couldn't concentrate on the ceremony. If someone is REALLY annoying sometimes you can hold it in too long and then when you let them know it comes out really bad. He doesn't look like a rookie priest so perhaps he just never had to deal with the constant clicking before and assumed that they knew what they were doing so he gave little direction.

My first hunch on watching the video was that they tried to save money by hiring the friend of a buddy that happened to have a DSLR and assumed they knew how to photograph a wedding. Linking into the blog I am rather surprised that a professional would keep clicking the shutter so close without realizing how annoying it was. But it is also possible that the annoying person was not part of the crew that was hired to take the photos. The priest wouldn't know.

I thought that the blog seemed to concentrate heavily on the rings and shoes and not much on the couple.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Oct 1, 2013)

Wouldn't the "silent shutter mode" of the 5DIII have prevented this mess. Just another reason why the 5DIII is a must


----------



## Botts (Oct 1, 2013)

cayenne said:


> The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."
> 
> cayenne



I'd be this groom, my fiancé and I are planning our wedding right now, and good photos are priority 1. We are also ensuring that our contracts have substantial penalty clauses in case one of our service providers, yes *service providers* decides to get uppity at some point.

I work in a business where I'm dealing with contracts, and unfortunately breach of contract on a daily basis, I sincerely hope our wedding goes smoothly, but sometimes having a stiff financial penalty looming can prevent issues from arising in the first place. We are being fair, and ensuring that contracts protect our service providers in case we do something outlandish. 

In my opinion of the youtube video, it was not a meltdown, but it was extremely unprofessional, and showed that the officiant felt he was the most important person in the room. He put the couple in a bad situation, and it showed. I would be asking him for a full refund if I were the couple.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 1, 2013)

I watched the video and have read most of the comments made here. I think when the priest turned on the photographers he took them quite by surprise, it was totally unexpected, which is why the photographers appears to 'argue' - "where do I go ?". Yes he should have just moved, but was dumbfounded and started garbbleing. Mistake !

I doubt there was any chance of him refusing to move. Where I think the priest started to loose the plot was in saying 'I will stop the ceremony'. The guy clearly has a temper, and he has a responsibility to keep it under contol in such a situation. 

Maybe the photographer _will _ re equip with 5D mkiiis now ;D

Anyway, who's to say God doesn't like a bit of clicking ?

If God had a camera I bet it would be a 1Dx


----------



## Joe M (Oct 1, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I don't have a lot of experience in wedding photography, but is it a common practice to "spray and pray" like that one photographer was doing?



As for others, I can't say. I would suspect for most no, not at this point in the ceremony. You would have to talk to the photographer in this video as to why he chose to do it at that time. For myself "spraying", is definitely not something I do during the ceremony and of course I usually shoot in silent shutter mode. It's amazing how loud a shutter can be even outdoors under the right circumstances. There will be exceptions though. "Spray" without the "pray" (shooting done deliberately) is useful for certain times such as the bouquet toss and certain other animated moments.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 1, 2013)

Botts said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."
> ...



This is one of the reasons I'd never do a wedding today. When I shot a wedding 40 years ago there was no written contract. You told the people what it was going to cost. They agreed. You showed up and did your job. They did what they were told so you could get decent pictures. They got good pictures. You got paid in full. End of story.

Today you've got 20 people vying to make it clear they are the impresario. And if someone tried to foist a contract on me, I'd suggest places where they might store their contract.


----------



## Codzilla (Oct 1, 2013)

> Let us also not forget that in today's societies many couples do marry out of a sense of tradition or pleasing their parents or just making a big show out of their marriage, only to make up in advance for facing divorce only a couple of years later, but this does not in any way make them buy into medieval church practices or the like, so the comparison with joining the army is not valid here.



Seriously? To paraphrase, you're saying that "if their heart's not in it, the rules don't really apply to them"??

My point was that THEY (B&G) chose the denomination. In a lot of cases they must "buy into medieval church practices" in order to get the wedding they want. By choosing the church, they sign up for those rules, whatever they may be. If they don't like the rules or wanted something a little looser, then pick another denomination. If they are trying to please their parents or other relatives, that is NOT the officiant's (nor the church's) problem. And in a lot of cases, if he detects this, he'll send them packing.

It is EXACTLY like joining the army. Armies can have some pretty medieval practices too.


----------



## bleephotography (Oct 1, 2013)

Codzilla said:


> > Let us also not forget that in today's societies many couples do marry out of a sense of tradition or pleasing their parents or just making a big show out of their marriage, only to make up in advance for facing divorce only a couple of years later, but this does not in any way make them buy into medieval church practices or the like, so the comparison with joining the army is not valid here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think he's saying that "their heart's not in it" or that "the rules don't...apply". Some couples endure the ridiculous cost and stress of a wedding to show, before their family and not necessarily God, that they are committed to one another as is customary or traditional to do. My point is that some people don't look at it like a religious practice, but rather a more meaningful representation than merely going into a courthouse and signing some papers. In this respect, the Priests and couples then have different intentions and that is why many of us differ in our reaction to or blaming of one or the other.


----------



## Codzilla (Oct 1, 2013)

> I don't think he's saying that "their heart's not in it" or that "the rules don't...apply". Some couples endure the ridiculous cost and stress of a wedding to show, before their family and not necessarily God, that they are committed to one another as is customary or traditional to do. My point is that some people don't look at it like a religious practice, but rather a more meaningful representation than merely going into a courthouse and signing some papers. In this respect, the Priests and couples then have different intentions and that is why many of us differ in our reaction to or blaming of one or the other.



I take no issue with what you are saying here. I agree. It happens.

But a few people have pointed out that this was an Episcopalian wedding. If you look up the process, there is a series of personal meetings/interviews you have to undertake with the priest before he says "you're ready". If the B&G go into those meetings and don't say the right things, chances are the priest won't marry them in the church.

If they do say the right things, regardless of whether they mean them or not (I understand people do this all the time), and then it hits the fan later on, whose fault is it? Is it the couple's fault because they thought they were just jumping through the hoops and not really aware of what they were committing to? Or is it the priest's fault for letting the wedding go ahead by not ensuring the couple meets the spiritual requirements for marriage within the church he represents? Maybe it's Mom's and Dad's fault, for wanting little Susie to get married in the same church they were married in.

If the church remains fairly unchanging over time, and communicates their stance, you can't really blame them because "they're medieval". Blame yourself for choosing something medieval. Or better yet, rent an abandoned church and dress Uncle Festus up like a minister. The cameras won't know the difference. You could even talk him into wearing a GoPro on his head.


----------



## Botts (Oct 1, 2013)

Codzilla said:


> If the church remains fairly unchanging over time, and communicates their stance, you can't really blame them because "they're medieval". Blame yourself for choosing something medieval. Or better yet, rent an abandoned church and dress Uncle Festus up like a minister. The cameras won't know the difference. You could even talk him into wearing a GoPro on his head.



There's a lot of abandoned churches around here now that are maintained for the sole purpose of being non-denominational wedding venues.

I guess that's the benefit of not having a church, I can choose an officiant I know will follow what I want in a wedding, not what the church has been doing for centuries.

I like your GoPro idea. I'll definitely pitch this to my fiancé. That said, GoPros in some of the bridesmaids' and bride's *(ninja edit to add)* bouquets are definitely happening at my wedding.


----------



## bleephotography (Oct 1, 2013)

Botts said:


> Codzilla said:
> 
> 
> > If the church remains fairly unchanging over time, and communicates their stance, you can't really blame them because "they're medieval". Blame yourself for choosing something medieval. Or better yet, rent an abandoned church and dress Uncle Festus up like a minister. The cameras won't know the difference. You could even talk him into wearing a GoPro on his head.
> ...



Umm...just to clarify...did you mean _in_ some of the bridesmaids...or on? Because if it's the first, you might want to look into the new HERO3+ with improved WI-FI


----------



## Botts (Oct 1, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > Codzilla said:
> ...



Totally forgot to add bouquets originally


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 2, 2013)

I think the priest could have handled it better, e.g. request that photographers respect his personal space, but agree with I agree with takesome1 - it is annoying to have a couple of guys standing right behind you when you're trying to concentrate and do your thing.

Beyond that, I don't think it was a meltdown. He was stern and evidently a bit pissed off, but remained in control of himself.


----------



## Pandypix (Oct 6, 2013)

I am really surprised the B & G ( mainly B) were able to contain their feelings, the Priest may be the one running the proceedings
but the whole day belongs to the B & G. I hope they have a wonderful honeymoon and life together with some great photos to 
remember the day with.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 8, 2013)

Botts said:


> In my opinion of the youtube video, it was not a meltdown, but it was extremely unprofessional, and showed that the officiant felt he was the most important person in the room. He put the couple in a bad situation, and it showed. I would be asking him for a full refund if I were the couple.



I think it would have been funny if the groom took the mike off the priest and then announce what just happend..."Hey guys...you'll never belive what this Priest just said...." and then let the priest watch the scorn from the congregation....I'm pretty sure it would be the last time he did that!

Seriously, this priest has misrepresented himself and really needs to get a grip on his place and his ego. What would Jesus do? Probably not that....


----------



## Codzilla (Oct 12, 2013)

"What would Jesus do?"

Interesting question. Google "moneylenders in the temple". It's mentioned in all four Gospels. Jesus was a man of principle, and probably had the odd meltdown to prove his point. 

To paraphrase the story, the people of the time (including the priests, obviously) allowed more and more non-religious activity to occur on temple property, even inside the temple. The Bible is pretty clear on this being a no-no. The envelope probably got pushed a little further every year (this happened at Passover) until the temple looked more like a bazaar than a house of worship. Jesus saw this and flipped out in a major way, evening making a whip of cords to drive them out of the temple, along with their livestock. Doesn't sound too Jesus-y, does it?

If the event at the temple happened a few weeks ago and got posted to YouTube, I bet the reaction from news agencies (and on discussion threads) would be similar; i.e., that Jesus fella has anger issues, ego issues, and should have handled things better. In fact, he should be sued. After all, those are people's livelihoods he's messing with, and their temple sales at Passover represent the high point of their fiscal year. 

I think how much people respect the religious wedding ceremony determines which side of the fence they land on this one.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 12, 2013)

at the end of the day, the priest was wrong to deliver the message with the words he used, the look on his face, and the tone of his voice. it was all very unpleasant when it didn't need to be..

a smile, a firm yet polite request, and a gentle tone is what I would expect in that setting. I think that's what most people would expect from a priest, and that's why it's uncomfortable for many to watch.


----------



## Old Sarge (Oct 12, 2013)

I have, to some degree, been on both sides of this situation. Many years ago, mid-sixties, I did quite a bit of wedding photography. At that time it wasn't unusual for many churches, not just Catholic or Episcopal but many evangelical churches, did not allow photography during most of the service. It was considered a religious service, a worship service if you please, where a couple were taking solemn vows before God. Most photographs were made before or after the ceremony. Of course that was in film days when we had to make every shot count.

I changed my career but still, on rare occasion for close friends, shot wedding pictures. I also shoot pictures at other religious events but things are a lot looser now than in those days.

As an ordained minister I have also officiated at many weddings. I usually talk to the photographer before hand and have never had any issues. But I still consider it a solemn occasion and most photographers understand that. I also don't consider it so solemn that God is offended by photography taking place. It just can't be disruptive. 

I think the priest went a little overboard and could have handled it better but the photographer should also have been more circumspect.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 12, 2013)

did this make it to tosh? it didn't seem that funny...


----------



## pwp (Oct 13, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> If we can hear it, the priest can hear it. The couple can hear it.
> clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclick
> 
> Emmm. I'm with the priest.



Any wedding shooter that doesn't already have a couple of 5D MkIII bodies permanently set to silent mode, take notice. 
I think I'm kind of with the priest too...A response like his suggests to me that pre-ceremony agreements may have been over-stepped or ignored.

-pw


----------



## gary (Oct 13, 2013)

Avoiding who was right and who was wrong in these circumstances, the Priest should not have made the ultimate threat to walk away from the wedding, no wonder the bride looks mortified, unforgivable


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 13, 2013)

gary said:


> Avoiding who was right and who was wrong in these circumstances, the Priest should not have made the ultimate threat to walk away from the wedding, no wonder the bride looks mortified, unforgivable



maybe they, the bride and groom, will get something out of it... like the one couple who got married on the Colbert report.


----------



## Joshua (Oct 13, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> gary said:
> 
> 
> > Avoiding who was right and who was wrong in these circumstances, the Priest should not have made the ultimate threat to walk away from the wedding, no wonder the bride looks mortified, unforgivable
> ...



What happend to the couple who got married on the Colbert Report? By the way, shouldn't a priest be used to camera clickings as his profession comes with this sort of public interest? To me the priests threat to walk away is a "No-Go" in regard of the feelings of the bride. She was for sure shocked and mortified - just at the moment that should be her finest in her life. I feel sorry for her and am missing the priests empathy. No matter what the photographer did, the priests threat is unforgivable.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 13, 2013)

Joshua said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > gary said:
> ...



the government shutdown prevented them from getting married at the Jefferson memorial... so they were on a show like today and then on the same trip they got married on the Colbert report. it was really funny. I'd encourage you to go see that episode.


----------

