Jul 7, 2010
Here’s why I get all freaky nervous about going to weddings
I have a hypersensitive sympathetic embarrassment reflex, so at events that are supposed to be perfect, I get paranoid that something like this will happen.
Of course, on the internet, it’s nothing short of awesome with a capital aw.
(via)
* * * * *
Could not help but noticed that the groom look to be about 12.
My first thought was the beautiful Canon camera and L series lens… hope it was okay!
That was my first thought too. Those darn baptistries!
OH MAN. that would be awful. That’s why you have to pay more attention then to just what you are shooting. What a disaster!
My brother just had his wedding on June 18th and he and his bride both totally went down on attempting a dynamic first kiss. The stage was a little more slippery than he expected. It is totally hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sIRmSDcPU
I’m a wedding photog and I must admit that walking backwards while shooting is a constant fear of mine. A couple weeks ago I was shooting while walking backwards and tripped and fell on the 4 year old flower girl. Fortunately I did a crazy ninja backflip move and no one was injured, including my gear.
Baptist weddings are safer.
you realize if you sprinkle babies presby style, this is a non-issue, right?
Don’t all throw me into baptistry next and hold me under, but my evil gut reaction is I think he sort of asked for it. I don’t like it when the ceremony is so subordinated to the photography. When the photographer is literally in the couple’s faces during any part of the church service–the first one up the aisle in the recessional fer cryin’ out loud–that’s too intrusive. If couples really think that’s what they need to preserve their memories, I find that regrettable.
Or, even at the practical level of rational fear of Things That Could Go Wrong, it seems that expecting the photographer to do this backward walking thing in the center aisle at such a moment is just begging for Murphy’s Law to engage.
I know; what a crank.
Dianne,
While I agree that a photographer should not be intrusive or disrupting, but far too many churches have made it nearly impossible for photographers to document what is happening during a ceremony because we have to be 30 yards from the place where everything is happening. Or they have the couple face forward but don’t allow the photographer access behind the area where they are facing. Why is this such a big deal? Because some photographers (like myself) desperately want to create images where you can see the reactions a bride and groom are having during there ceremony. When they cry or laugh or when one gives a quick wink, these exchanges happen that are so phenomenal to have but are nearly impossible to catch because churches have made shooting a wedding more difficult than capturing wild animals in the Amazon doing their mating call. I practically need camouflage to get anywhere where there is a decent angle.
And if the image is fantastic, it’s worth the effort, even walking backward, to catch it. The photographer at my wedding did the exact same thing after our ceremony, walking backward, he didn’t trip into anything, but he produced an image where my wife and I were full of emotion an image that I will treasure for the rest of my life.
Sorry if this was a bit of a rant, but this is what I do for a living, so these issues are close to my heart.
Nick,
I completely understand your point and apologize for letting my hyperbole appear to take aim at the photographer himself more than I really meant to. I respect and admire the artistic and technical skills of professional photographers, and appreciate the difficulties you describe in shooting church weddings. But I still have fundamental problems with photography during liturgical services. My objections are both theological and philosophical, and have to do with the commodification of the event and the ramifications thereof. So, in my view, the problem is with the assumptions, expectations, and demands that the bridal couple have about “capturing” all those moments during the service, more than with the photographer, who is just doing his job.
Can’t possibly go into all this with proper nuance in a comment thread, but here’s an article from First Things that gets at what I mean:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/02/pieties-and-pixels
Note that I understand that the people who really angered the author of this piece were guests, not the official, professional photographer hired for the wedding, who did abide by the family’s instructions. Still, I appreciate this piece for its explanation of deep reasons for questioning and even rejecting many of the assumptions normally brought to wedding photography (and photography in general) in our culture.
So, sure, I could very well happily hire you to photograph my daughter’s wedding when that day comes, but you’d be under some pretty firm restrictions during the ceremony.
Dianne,
No need for apologies, I understand the reverent view of the ceremony that you are holding. This isn’t just a “get it over with so you can have sex” thing. This is the uniting of two people under the authority of an Almighty God, two people called to serve and love as Ephesians 5 commands. I have a deep appreciation for the magnitude of this moment. That these very things happening during the ceremony are not just of physical level that can be measured in photographs but on the spiritual level of the unification of two beings until death.
It’s heavy stuff. And I appreciate the understanding that photographers are just doing their job to the fullest of their ability, trying to deliver a product for a client that has payed for.
I read the article that you posted and I can agree with many of the points that he has made in it. My family regularly wonders why I don’t have the camera with me when we partake in family get events and it is specifically for the purpose of being a part of the experience and not on the outside of it taking photos. I can sympathize with that completely. That by spending time trying to take pictures you have actually removed yourself from the experience that you are actually trying to capture.
However, with those things said, since I do believe that the marriage ceremony is of deep serious meaning, that is all the reason why I wish so desperately to document it in a way that is dynamic and stands the test of time. If I can produce an image during a ceremony of a man brought to tears as he sees his bride for the first time he can for the rest of his life put himself back into that moment, remember the affections he had for his bride then, even if his marriage is on the rocks.
I think that the general issue with most couples is that they have little or no reverence for what they are partaking in. Short or weak pre-marital counseling coupled with a very weak understanding of marriage as it is presented in Scripture leads not the photographer who wishes to document the reverent moment as the issue, but a couple who doesn’t understand the weight of their decision.
I want to create photos that preserve the weight of this decision, that show the incredible union that two people are entering into. And I see that your reasons are not rooted in a place that is illegitimate. But often times the reason why I can’t capture the ceremony the way that I’d love to be able to has less to do with what the couple wants and more to do with a Priest or Pastor who thinks that by putting restrictions on the photographer is what keeps the marriage ceremony holy, when it clearly is not.
Nick,
So, we’re not really that far apart in our views then, are we? Still a little distance, but more understanding. Thanks for speaking up; this has been interesting!
It sounds like this is an area of wedding planning in which there needs to be more communication among all parties. Not to mention the need many couples have to think a lot more deeply about what they are doing getting married, as you point out. I understand better what you mean about the conflict between your goals and the pastor’s. It sounds like sometimes the couple isn’t even really aware of how these cross-purposes will play out for their photographer and the end results they’re hoping for with their wedding photos. If the pastor insists on the photographer keeping the distances you describe, then he should make that (and his reasons why) very clear to the couple, who will have to decide if they can live with it or not, rather than having expectations of you that you can’t meet because of the pastor.
That leaves your aesthetic goals frustrated (which I agree are very good goals, if I were to want more than a bare minimum of very discreetly-taken photos during the service), but I suppose that’s an occupational hazard with wedding gigs.
Thanks again, and may all your cameras stay out of the water hazards, in church or elsewhere! ;-)
aaaaand this is my worst nightmare. second place for my nightmare: THAT THE BRIDE AND GROOM KEEP WALKING AND DON’T HELP!
My son is getting married in August…there is a little fountain like that at the very back of the sanctuary…I will have to have the bride’s aunt who is the “official” photographer watch this video. The kiss one…great…how nice they really took it in stride! :)
As a photographer, I have to say, I just died a little bit.
Oh…that camera……..
*tears*
We once watched in horror (comic horror, but horror) as the bride train caught on a candelabra. As the candelabra fell, the lit candle fell on her train and set it on fire. She was fine, but the dress had a sizable hole in it. Being the good friend, I requested Great Balls of Fire at the reception.
I always cry at weddings…and baptisms…*sniffle*