Officiant ruins wedding.

I wonder how the bride and bridesmaids (all of them!) managed without a hoody?
 
Hey, if you let someone with an imaginary friend run your wedding, what do you expect?


[Just kidding, people. Put down the pitchforks]
 
It should be up to the couple whether or not they wish to have photographs taken during their marriage ceremony, wherever that takes place. And it should be up to the couple to determine whether or not the filming is intrusive. And hence it should be the couple who have the right to pause and caution the photographer as they see fit. Otherwise normal house rules should apply - if the photographers were abusive or causing damage to church property then of course the officiant must have the right to step in and throw them out. But otherwise, he is not the most important person in the room (but try telling that to a member of the clergy). This particular officiant behaved in an utterly abominable manner in my opinion, causing discomfort and embarrassment to everyone. There are far better ways in which he could've handled the situation.

I suspect situations like this have arisen due to the proliferation of inexperienced and cheap photographers, many of whom simply do not know how to behave appropriately. Couples need to realise that there is an element of risk when taking on people like that.
 
Lindsay D said:
It should be up to the couple whether or not they wish to have photographs taken during their marriage ceremony, wherever that takes place. And it should be up to the couple to determine whether or not the filming is intrusive. And hence it should be the couple who have the right to pause and caution the photographer as they see fit. Otherwise normal house rules should apply - if the photographers were abusive or causing damage to church property then of course the officiant must have the right to step in and throw them out. But otherwise, he is not the most important person in the room (but try telling that to a member of the clergy). This particular officiant behaved in an utterly abominable manner in my opinion, causing discomfort and embarrassment to everyone. There are far better ways in which he could've handled the situation.

I suspect situations like this have arisen due to the proliferation of inexperienced and cheap photographers, many of whom simply do not know how to behave appropriately. Couples need to realise that there is an element of risk when taking on people like that.
Click to expand...

What Lindsay said.

Personally I can't see the point of vilifying this photographer, he clearly believed he was in the right place doing what his customers wanted. (him being slightly misguided is either an experience or communications issue) But the clergyman was clearly out of order, no matter how much he was upset - like a bad referee, he was assuming the crowd was there to watch him perform.
 
The photographer/s were definitely too close. Must have been very annoying for the celebrant.
 
It is the couples right to chose a photographer and select the officiating priest or registrar ( or both in many cases)
Registrars often have firmer rules during the ceremony than do Priests. But both can set conditions under which they are prepaid to conduct the ceremony.
Photographers have no right to set rules or do any thing that interferes with the wedding ceremony.
However they can do what they like before or after it. Provided the venue will permit it.
In a hotel or other grand venue the owners may have their own strict House rules about what and where a photographer or guests may go or do.

It is up to the bride and groom and the photographer to find out what can or can not be done.
If they do not do so, they could find their plans frustrated, as in this case.

These things are in the control of the bride and groom in as much as they are part of the terms agreed when they book the venue and the priest or registrar. If they do not bother to find out about them or ignore them they might well be disappointed with the outcome.

Equally it is down to the photographer to find out what these parameters are and see how they might affect their plans.

The use of wedding planners has centralised and removed many problems away from the bride and groom, and can hold the sanctions on payment to all hired staff if their terms are broken.
They are becoming more used in the larger and society weddings.

Photographers may well find their role in these situations more and more proscribed.
 
Phil V said:
What Lindsay said.

Personally I can't see the point of vilifying this photographer, he clearly believed he was in the right place doing what his customers wanted. (him being slightly misguided is either an experience or communications issue) But the clergyman was clearly out of order, no matter how much he was upset - like a bad referee, he was assuming the crowd was there to watch him perform.
Click to expand...

It mattters not a jot what the photographer believed.....

Clergy do not perform, nor do Registrars. They have legal authority to controll the ceremony, in the light of the law, as they see fit.

A clergyman may have authority to act as a registrar in any licenced venue in his diocese. Or may apply to the Bishop for a licence in other diocese.
The service he conducts is before God. In some faiths it is a sacrament. During the registration he or the registrar are acting in their legal capacity and have complete authority over what takes place. They are not hired.

Neither the priest nor the Registrar have "Customers" Nor was this one in any way out of order.

During the service and registration the couples wishes, as the photographers customers, are subordinate to the authority of the Clergy and Registrar.
In some countries Photographers my be excluded altogether till after the service.
 
markmullen said:
Not only that but he feels good :D
Click to expand...

I knew that he would.

BTW all the people talking about church/state and Henry VIII and stuff - you realise this is America, right? Henry VIII didn't go down so big over there. Most weddings are conducted by Elvis if you can believe the TV.

No matter who was right and who was wrong (it was the photographer in the wrong BTW) I can't begin to imagine why he started arguing like that. Vicars aren't known for suddenly saying "well I was going to throw you out but since you present such a cogent argument, crack on with the motor drive my son".
 
He politely asked them to move, that should have been the end of it. The situation only continued because of their obvious reluctance to do so. I agree prior consultation should have established the ground rules. I suspect the video was not the problem but the machine gunning photographer who instigated the incident. In those situations discrete is the name of the game, 8fps is not required for a wedding!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It mattters not a jot what the photographer believed.....

Clergy do not perform, nor do Registrars. They have legal authority to controll the ceremony, in the light of the law, as they see fit.

A clergyman may have authority to act as a registrar in any licenced venue in his diocese. Or may apply to the Bishop for a licence in other diocese.
The service he conducts is before God. In some faiths it is a sacrament. During the registration he or the registrar are acting in their legal capacity and have complete authority over what takes place. They are not hired.

Neither the priest nor the Registrar have "Customers" Nor was this one in any way out of order.

During the service and registration the couples wishes, as the photographers customers, are subordinate to the authority of the Clergy and Registrar.
In some countries Photographers my be excluded altogether till after the service.
Click to expand...
Terry, you may be factually correct about the authority (none of which is in any way contrary to my post) but if you think that the guy handled that situation well, and was in no way 'out of order' we have very different views on proper behaviour.

No one deserves to be spoken to in that manner, the guy is (on the evidence provided) a complete ********, whether he's in charge or not. That's not how you speak to people, no matter how important you think you are. And there's certainly no sign of 'christian' behaviour in evidence.

As he approached his position he'd have been able to see the photographer and videographer, which would have been an appropriate time for a private word which would have got them out of the way. Stopping someone's wedding (customers or not) to ball out the guys was completely out of order and on the face of it unnecessary.

I can't argue with 'my house - my rules' but that's no justification for me shouting and publicly humiliating anyone that is a guest in my house :nono:.
 
I think you can avoid this by having the right conversation before the ceremony.
 
JonathanRyan said:
BTW all the people talking about church/state and Henry VIII and stuff - you realise this is America, right? Henry VIII didn't go down so big over there. Most weddings are conducted by Elvis if you can believe the TV.
Click to expand...


Don't think he went down at all....he was dead many years before the first English settlers arrived and colonialisation.:)
 
artyman said:
"Please, sirs leave" is that not polite enough for you!
Click to expand...

The words might read as 'polite' but there was nothing polite about his manner.

It's not like has asked them to leave, left them to do so and got on with his job, he turned round for a confrontation and it was obvious where he was going from the first word, he wasn't letting it go without threatening to stop the ceremony.

I simply can't see how anyone could think he was being anything other than a complete jerk - see the look on the B&G's face for what it was like to be there.

For all the wonderful people I've worked with shooting weddings, the one that stands out was the minister who castigated the congregation for a spontaneous round of applause, and believed it was perfectly reasonable to finish his 'job' and then invite the same congregation to have a round of applause:wacky:. Didn't invite the groom to kiss the bride, wouldn't let us shoot all the way through the ceremony and demanded we photograph him handing over the marriage certificate (all smiles).

Like I said, just like a bad referee, believing they were there to watch him.

Like others have said, the photographer should have got his directions in early, but that's no excuse for the officiant to be a kn0b.
 
Phil V said:
If he did I'm afraid I missed it. All I saw was an outburst
Click to expand...

In fairness to the celebrant it was a 41 second edited video clip. I've never met any celebrant who just goes off on one like that. Neither of us have any idea what was said before the events shown there, but I'm betting it didn't just escalate from 0-100 in that instant as it were.

I stil stand by what I said earlier, machine gunning like that behind the celebrant was out of line
 
Last edited:
@10 seconds in. What`s with the guy in the bg stood next to another Bride with no head :shrug:
 
Lindsay D said:
It should be up to the couple whether or not they wish to have photographs taken during their marriage ceremony, wherever that takes place. And it should be up to the couple to determine whether or not the filming is intrusive. And hence it should be the couple who have the right to pause and caution the photographer as they see fit. Otherwise normal house rules should apply - if the photographers were abusive or causing damage to church property then of course the officiant must have the right to step in and throw them out. But otherwise, he is not the most important person in the room (but try telling that to a member of the clergy). This particular officiant behaved in an utterly abominable manner in my opinion, causing discomfort and embarrassment to everyone. There are far better ways in which he could've handled the situation.

I suspect situations like this have arisen due to the proliferation of inexperienced and cheap photographers, many of whom simply do not know how to behave appropriately. Couples need to realise that there is an element of risk when taking on people like that.
Click to expand...

Wow the photographer is king/queen. Well I have news for you they ain't well not in an official ceremony anyway. Whilst I thought the officiant didn't handle it well, although to be fair we cant be sure if anything was said before, that's not what you are saying. Your just complaining because you see it as impinging on your right to take photos as and where you please. There are boundaries the officiant sets them if you step over them he has every right to remove you from the ceremony, after all the photographer cannot marry the couple and that surely is the most important job on the day.

Steve
 
Really badly handled situation by the priest although having said that the photographer might have blatantly ignored the priest's guidelines as to what was and wasn't allowed.
None of them acted professionally. He could have introduced humour and joked about the photographer's machine gunning. Have a laugh, smile, be kind!!!! Of all people, should not priests be most forgiving and understanding, bring joy and happiness?
Who knows maybe the couple could not afford a pro photographer and it was their friend who offered to capture the day for free, now stressing and making sure he has got the frame.
It is because of this 'stiff' and 'serious' approach to religion that so many people find themselves disconnected from church.
 
If I was the officiant i'd have ignored him and kept to the job in hand - **** who is right - think about the effect it has on the B&G. (after all the bible tells us to turn the other cheek)

I might have given him a serious *******ing afterwards though
 
Last edited:
artyman said:
"Please, sirs leave" is that not polite enough for you!
Click to expand...

Out of context just looking at the words on their own yes it is. However, communication is more than words! It is the tone of voice, your grimace and body language. Mute the video, show the clip to your partner, kid or whoever did not see it before and ask them is the priest polite or not? Wonder what they will say.
 
I wonder why the videographer appears to be shooting the back of the celebrants head - bet that's good for the couple
 
boyfalldown said:
In fairness to the celebrant it was a 41 second edited video clip. I've never met any celebrant who just goes off on one like that. Neither of us have any idea what was said before the events shown there, but I'm betting it didn't just escalate from 0-100 in that instant as it were.

I stil stand by what I said earlier, machine gunning like that behind the celebrant was out of line
Click to expand...

But to be fair to the photographer, we don't know what happened before the outburst. The photographer could have been instructed where to stand, he could have been given a time limit to get his shots, anything. I'm no more taking the tog's side, clearly there should have been better communication beforehand, but the result was the guy acted like a ....

But there's no way I can describe the officiant's behaviour without using unprofessional language.
 
Phil V said:
B

But there's no way I can describe the officiant's behaviour .
Click to expand...

I can i'd just say he was a complete and total ****ing ****bracket (no unproffesional language there just lots of stars :LOL:)
 
Phil V said:
But to be fair to the photographer, we don't know what happened before the outburst. The photographer could have been instructed where to stand, he could have been given a time limit to get his shots, anything. I'm no more taking the tog's side, clearly there should have been better communication beforehand, but the result was the guy acted like a .... But there's no way I can describe the officiant's behaviour without using unprofessional language.
Click to expand...
Although it seems to be the celebrant getting vilified. I agree his outburst was out of line, but the photographer machine gunning on his shoulder was no better.anyway, probably best left there. Without a lot more info it's only really speculation as what the event leading to that were
 
Last edited:
I don't think it was the photographing that upset him. I reckon the photographer was caressing his bum in a sexual way. This got him all excited, and the people in front were starting to notice! So he needed to turn around to distract from his massive boner, and to stop the bum rubbing. This is why the holy man told the photographer and videographer to take images from behind, to hide his erection whilst also pleasuring him.

Personally I just feel sorry for the bride and groom. her because her wedding was ruined by a horny vicar, and him because he felt insecure after seeing the size of the other mans willy and losing his confidence on the wedding night.

I've been on the wine.
 
supersammy said:
I don't think it was the photographing that upset him. I reckon the photographer was caressing his bum in a sexual way. This got him all excited, and the people in front were starting to notice! So he needed to turn around to distract from his massive boner, and to stop the bum rubbing. This is why the holy man told the photographer and videographer to take images from behind, to hide his erection whilst also pleasuring him.

Personally I just feel sorry for the bride and groom. her because her wedding was ruined by a horny vicar, and him because he felt insecure after seeing the size of the other mans willy and losing his confidence on the wedding night.

I've been on the wine.
Click to expand...

A lot to be said for wine :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
I don't do weddings. Just don't. I get enquiries and refer them to other photographers, so this observation and query may get pounded but it seems to me that the catalyst for this episode was the noise from the camera. Set aside the debate as to who said what and how to whom and I ask why wedding photographers don't use silent cameras where appropriate. Leicas might be cost prohibitive for some but with the number of mirror less systems available offering near silent operation (just bought a Fuji x20 and it can be silent) why don't photographers switch to a silent option when needed?
 
thewtam said:
I don't do weddings. Just don't. I get enquiries and refer them to other photographers, so this observation and query may get pounded but it seems to me that the catalyst for this episode was the noise from the camera. Set aside the debate as to who said what and how to whom and I ask why wedding photographers don't use silent cameras where appropriate. Leicas might be cost prohibitive for some but with the number of mirror less systems available offering near silent operation (just bought a Fuji x20 and it can be silent) why don't photographers switch to a silent option when needed?
Click to expand...

I use the x100s from time to time during weddings now, but fantastic as it is when in a really tricky situation it doesnt measure up to an SLR in terms of what it can achieve.

There is also the matter of perception. Every time I use it it draws comments. Rightly or wrongly its not seen as professional as an SLR
 
thewtam said:
I don't do weddings. Just don't. I get enquiries and refer them to other photographers, so this observation and query may get pounded but it seems to me that the catalyst for this episode was the noise from the camera. Set aside the debate as to who said what and how to whom and I ask why wedding photographers don't use silent cameras where appropriate. Leicas might be cost prohibitive for some but with the number of mirror less systems available offering near silent operation (just bought a Fuji x20 and it can be silent) why don't photographers switch to a silent option when needed?
Click to expand...

Fair point, but its only one consideration; high ISO performance, twin card slots, affordable, silent, massive lens selection, great low light focussing, affordable, etc.

If the sound was the only consideration itd be a no-brainer, but its just one of the things on the wish list.
 
What an arrogant tool.

EDIT: Just to add I use a blimp for my production stills work, I wonder if anyone would use one for a wedding. (I've used one for a conference before). They're fairly cumbersome and not ideal but maybe a good idea if you're snapping around the sensitive.
 
Last edited:
I must admit that I sort of take his point but he should not of reacted that way. A quiet word would have been better and hopefully he will of learnt from that.

Feel sorry for the couple.
 
Scrubdog said:
I must admit that I sort of take his point but he should not of reacted that way. A quiet word would have been better and hopefully he will of learnt from that.

Feel sorry for the couple.
Click to expand...

What we do not know, is what the preist had said previously to the togs.
This might just have been the last straw.
It hardly looked like the first off.
 
steve_v said:
Wow the photographer is king/queen. Well I have news for you they ain't well not in an official ceremony anyway. Whilst I thought the officiant didn't handle it well, although to be fair we cant be sure if anything was said before, that's not what you are saying. Your just complaining because you see it as impinging on your right to take photos as and where you please. There are boundaries the officiant sets them if you step over them he has every right to remove you from the ceremony, after all the photographer cannot marry the couple and that surely is the most important job on the day.

Steve
Click to expand...

I don't think you read a single word of what I wrote - I'm talking about the COUPLE's point of view, not the photographer's. If you're reading that as a complaint about "photographers rights" then you have failed to grasp any of the points under discussion in this thread. I couldn't care less if I get to photograph a wedding ceremony or not - that should be up to the couple, it's their day. But what I do have an issue with is any officiant who resorts to "Beelzebub from the Pulpit" as his favoured means of communication.
 
tommmy.star said:
It is because of this 'stiff' and 'serious' approach to religion that so many people find themselves disconnected from church.
Click to expand...



Its not actually the bits where he tells them to get out, its the bits in between that are really damning.

First he cracks a funny making the bride and groom laugh

Then its a solemn occasion during which he acts like a dictator, embarrasses the bride and groom and threatens to take his bat and ball home like a 2 year old.

And then, its not about any of that, its about God.....:shake:


This of course does nothing to negate the actions of the photographers, they were A+ dime bars.

Its interesting to note that the B&G don't seem at all disturbed by the div with the MC gun, and appear surprised by the vicars....outburst.

And its not like there's any half way ground either, there's no just hold off with the pictures for a bit while we do the important stuff, no its leave the ceremony and don't darken my door again rubbish.

They'd all do well to remember who's paying for them to behave like ********s at this wedding.
 
Crikey. If that was my wedding that would have ruined my wedding completely.

I can understand that it is something between God and the bride and groom, but it is the bridge and groom's day, so it's really what they want.
 
Yeah the tog was trigger happy and it sounded distracting, but it was the Officiant that was the complete dick.

Look at the couples faces they were only upset once he kicked off. The video camera was clearly set up long before the service started if the Officiant had a problem with that he should have said before he started.

Personally if I was the Officiant I would have carried on and had a word with the tog after instead of ruining the ceremony. The bride was probably gutted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top