Hardest wedding ceremony ever!!

WelshNoob said:
OK, stupid comments by me.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily stupid. But anyone who suggests ignoring a registrar immediately reveals themselves to have no idea at all about the reality of photographing weddings in England and Wales.

As to Yvonne's comment about vicaresses, we could never fathom it out either. Without exception, the ones we tangled with were even more mean-spirited and mendacious than the average CofE priest.
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Not necessarily stupid. But anyone who suggests ignoring a registrar immediately reveals themselves to have no idea at all about the reality of photographing weddings in England and Wales.

As to Yvonne's comment about vicaresses, we could never fathom it out either. Without exception, the ones we tangled with were even more mean-spirited and mendacious than the average CofE priest.
Click to expand...
Only ever had nice women vicars, but a couple of monstrous CofE priests, the worst of which not only forbade us from shooting, he then castigated the congregation for spontaneous applause (you'll clap when you're invited to) he failed to invite the B&G to kiss, then insisted he pose for a smiley handing over the certificate shot.:mad:

If I'd been Uncle Bob that day he'd have got both barrels, as I'm a resolute pro I just smiled and went about my job.
 
Phil V said:
Only ever had nice women vicars, but a couple of monstrous CofE priests ...
Click to expand...

Only two? :)

The two that immediately spring to mind here are first off the asshole in Surrey who greeted me with the immortal words "Are you the photographer? Don't like wedding photographers. Haven't you got a suit?" to which I could only reply "Did you mean to be bloody rude or did it just come out like that?", after which he disappeared into the vestry with the groom, the best man and a bottle of red wine for a pre-ceremony drink and to tell the groom no photos in the church.

And there may still be a vicar not far from Tonbridge who gets the show off to a rollicking good start by announcing that there is to be no confetti in the churchyard on the grounds that there are always mourners coming in to tend the graves and put flowers on them, and confetti would remind them of happier times. Seriously. That's his standard spiel.
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
And there may still be a vicar not far from Tonbridge who gets the show off to a rollicking good start by announcing that there is to be no confetti in the churchyard on the grounds that there are always mourners coming in to tend the graves and put flowers on them, and confetti would remind them of happier times. Seriously. That's his standard spiel.
Click to expand...

Oh yes! Him. Can't remember the church or anything else about him but I remember the speech. Kicked us off to a great start.
 
Yv said:
Don't think I have ever had a problem with CofE priests or catholic ones come to think of it....just those pesky female clergy.
Click to expand...
Obviously jealous of your glamorous lifestyle. :D
 
Yv said:
Don't think I have ever had a problem with CofE priests or catholic ones come to think of it....just those pesky female clergy.
Click to expand...

On thinking about it, I should have expected that. I can recall 4 other female wedding snappers saying exactly the same thing.

We covered Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish and Indian weddings over 10 years, and if we ignore the JW one we did at which we knew beforehand we couldn't photograph it, there was only one occasion on which anybody other than a CofE priest put the mockers on photography during the ceremony.

And before anybody suggests that at least the CofE were pretty much consistent about it, we once shot at two different City churches on consecutive days. Both vicars were much the same type of person. One ruled that the only pictures we could take in his church were of the signing (on the grounds that it wasn't part of the ceremony so he didn't care), and the other ruled that we could snap away as much as we like but I was not allowed anywhere near the signing lest I try to sneak a snap of it.

It's all good fun :)
 
I've always found the Catholic priests to be fine, the one I did on Sunday just said 'be your professional self' and let me go where I wanted. A couple of weeks ago there was a female CofE Vicar, blimey she was strict, not allowed to move, had to wear something dark so I didn't catch anyones eye and she meant business too. During the ceremony somebody coughed and she stopped her reading, shouted out for the spluttering cougher to own up and ordered the verger to get her some water and didn't restart until the poor woman had shut up.

Talking about signings Sid, most weddings I've done, I've been told not to take photos of the actual signing and have to do a mock afterwards, is that a really a legal thing? I have tried to find out but don't know the answer.
 
Northstar100 said:
Talking about signings Sid, most weddings I've done, I've been told not to take photos of the actual signing and have to do a mock afterwards, is that a really a legal thing? I have tried to find out but don't know the answer.
Click to expand...

The reason often quoted is the data protection act. Which seems wrong as the register is a public document. But I'm not going to argue with the registrar on the day
 
I do wonder how many of these registrars/ celebrants/vicars from hell were born unresonable morons, and how many changed their view aftermeeting a 'photographer from hell' ( I was a guest at a wedding last year where the vicar told the congregation no flash during the service , and about 5 minuites in a the official tog let fly with an enormously bright flash gun. The vicar stopped and asked him basically what the actual f*** he thought he was playing at and the tog said " oh those rules don't apply to me i'm here officially" :bang: ( he was escorted from the church and the couple had no ceremony pics other than a few rather poor shots that some of us snapped discretely with smart phones)
 
boyfalldown said:
The reason often quoted is the data protection act. Which seems wrong as the register is a public document. But I'm not going to argue with the registrar on the day
Click to expand...

Ive also been told that you can photograph the register itself but not the actual signing because its a 'legal act' - the registrar went on to explain that "this is why cameras arent allowed in court" - this is of course a total bag of arse , but again i wasnt going to argue the toss on the day
 
Northstar100 said:
I've always found the Catholic priests to be fine, the one I did on Sunday just said 'be your professional self' and let me go where I wanted. A couple of weeks ago there was a female CofE Vicar, blimey she was strict, not allowed to move, had to wear something dark so I didn't catch anyones eye and she meant business too. During the ceremony somebody coughed and she stopped her reading, shouted out for the spluttering cougher to own up and ordered the verger to get her some water and didn't restart until the poor woman had shut up.

Talking about signings Sid, most weddings I've done, I've been told not to take photos of the actual signing and have to do a mock afterwards, is that a really a legal thing? I have tried to find out but don't know the answer.
Click to expand...

Registrars normally say its for data protection, though none have ever stopped me taking a picture of the signing if I get down and shoot with the table flowers or whatever blocking the actual book itself, then usually a mock up afterwards with book open to blank pages. In churches I've never been told not to shoot the book or the act of signing. Again though, it is one of those things you simply don't argue about, isn't worth it, if they say don't shoot, just don't, you get your chance with a mock up if you want it anyway.
 
OK ... the real reason is the DPA, but only in the context that thou shalt not photograph any previous entry in the register. If the registrar covers up previous entries, or if your couple's is the first on a new left-hand page, theoretically you can snap away.

What I don't understand though is why so many snappers get bent out of shape about this, although admittedly it tends to be the newbies that do. My own position on it after I'd got used to the way it works was as follows ...

If the registrar or priest says "No photos of the signing", I would politely ask why.

If they said "data protection" or gave any sort of semi-sensible explanation at all, I'd say "OK, how about I photograph it by kneeling alongside the table so that my camera's at the same height as the register, therefore I can't photograph the entries?" and if necessary, I'd take just such a snap and show them it. 9 times out of 10, that worked.

If they came out with something patently daft, I have been known to say "You know that's not true and I know that's not true, so I don't really understand why you said, it but whatever ..."

If they said "You can set up a nice posed one once we've actually signed it", my answer was always "No thanks. I'm not into faking photos."

ATEOTD, if I tried but got nowhere, so be it.

PS A pal of mine was once told by a Stevenage (?) registrar that the reason was "because we use a special ink and you're not allowed to photograph it" ...
 
Last edited:
Ah, yesterday was my favourite registrar. We had the please of Mr James Brown of Rochester. I think @PatrickO was genuinely shocked when he said to us "no, I don't care if you use flash. Do what you want - get some nice pictures" :) He also eased through the ceremony quite fast so we could dodge the expected rain for a couple of pics with the car. Even he doesn't allow you to photograph the signing but agreeing with this keeps him happy all day and for the next time we meet so I'm really not going to argue.

He has actually given up on the bit where he stops the ceremony and tells the B&G to look right at the camera and smile because he's sure their photographer would like a nice picture for their mums. I guess I'll just have to struggle by.
 
JonathanRyan said:
He has actually given up on the bit where he stops the ceremony and tells the B&G to look right at the camera and smile because he's sure their photographer would like a nice picture for their mums. I guess I'll just have to struggle by.
Click to expand...

Try Photoshop? You've now got me wondering if Hastings office still has that guy who at one stage of the proceedings used to stand facing the rabble, holding hands with the groom on one side and bride on t'other to their considerable unease, while he waffled on as if he was doing a Shakespearean monologue. I'm fairly certain he was the only registrar we ever encountered who did the whole ceremony without a crib sheet.

Whatever, is Rochester Kent registrars or Medway? Every Medway registrar we ever tangled with was a miserable bugger. One of them was so officious at Cooling Cattle Barn that even the Kent registrar who was moonlighting there in toastmaster mode was appalled by her ...
 
Last edited:
I am starting to think Hertfordshire registrars are generally a very jolly and down to earth bunch compared to some stories. One of the regular venues I work at has 'outdoor' ceremonies, by which of course I mean the guests can sit getting sunburnt whilst the couple and the registrars are under the pavilion balcony roof, which means I'm shooting from under there against light. On one occasion, the celebrant half of the pair saw all my kit dumped on benches along from the table and actually asked whether I had my flash as I would need it! That set the rather nervous groom off giggling like a loon because she was looking at the bags and not the bloody great camera with a flash and bounce card in my hands. I very rarely use flash during a ceremony but this is one place where if they will let you, it is a sanity saver because what is beyond the shadows of the balcony is a very flat cricket pitch and a massive big sky off to the distant horizon. :)
 
No, the Richmond lot are a pretty pleasant lot as well. As long as you don't photograph the signing they're happy and I've never had a problem with them
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Whatever, is Rochester Kent registrars or Medway? Every Medway registrar we ever tangled with was a miserable bugger. One of them was so officious at Cooling Cattle Barn that even the Kent registrar who was moonlighting there in toastmaster mode was appalled by her ...
Click to expand...

It's Medway. I think James is head registrar at Medway or something. He's a nice guy and his ceremonies are always good.
 
Our vote for top registrar has to go to the very wonderful Dean "Five Cats" Geoghegan at Chelsea RO, although we can't recall a single registrar in any of the London boroughs with whom we ever had a problem.

I'm sure that Mr Ryan will confirm that Kent registrars are always fine to work with, although we always felt that it was a sad day when the lovely Margaret Rose retired from the Tunbridge Wells office. At the time, Kent celebrants worked to a printed script with spaces on it for them to insert the couple's names beforehand, and Margaret it was who revealed to me that since having once forgotten it at the start of the ceremony, she always inserted her own name in the space after "My name is ...". She was a lovely lady, and had amazing eyebrows ...
 
The final processing looks excellent. Sounds like a real headaches at times. But the end results look great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top