Bill said: "> On the heels of the AF revolution came the "PJ" style of wedding > photography, which to me requires as much skill as squishing a wounded bug."
Jeez Bill, hope tv doesn't read that... I totally disagree with you on that point. I am hopeless at PJ photography and I don't really like it much either. I like to have "control" of a situation, and I think it takes GREAT skill to be able to produce a good photograph when every "controllable" factor such as light, posing, expressions, colour etc are taken out of your hands... > Suddenly, to be a professional photographer, you didn't need to know what > you were doing. Yep, well, that would include me! <vbg> > All you needed was a thousand dollars for a camera, lens and flash, and the > store would happily take Visa or Mastercard. Unless you are like me and your visa is usually maxed out due to buying toys, sewing machines to make clothes for the kids and the like. I save for my equipment and pay for it all up front. > A lot of people became instant professionals, and cashed in big in the > wedding market. Yep, making it harder for the rest of us to do so. > I shot a wedding for a friend a few years ago. > The church was some United church. > Basically, a social club with delusions of religionhood. > Friggin twits wouldn't let me shoot at all during the service, and actually > put a staffer on me to make sure I didn't break their rules. > > Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand > years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a > spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life > miserable? I TOTALLY agree. Have seen this MANY a time. One priest told me that I could take photographs during the ceremony, but wasn't allowed to make any of those "silly clicking noises", not allowed to "use those bright flash things that go off in my eyes all the time" AND that I had to stay in one spot and if I moved at all during the ceremony he would "stop the proceedings and have me removed from the church". So, I batted my eyelids at him, smiled sweetly and said "I completely understand and respect your church's policies, would you mind explaining these things to the bride and groom so that when they receive their photographs back, they'll understand why the most important part of their day wasn't captured how they had dreamed it", more batting of eyelids, and sweet little smiles, followed by compliments on the church's decore... He said "umm, well, i am able to make some allowances in exceptional circumstances and I *do* really like this couple" (but hold on I thought these things were the policy of the CHURCH, not some aging old priest weilding to the "pressure" of having to justify his nasty old ways to a young, in love couple"...), Ok, so Wedding day arrives - Tanya uses flash all the way through ceremony, "clicked" as much as I felt like it (AND used the AF confirmation beep too!), AND flitted around all over the place like a little butterfly and waiting for the proceedings to stop and for me to be removed from the church as he'd promised. Ceremony ends and priest "thanks" me for my assistance (?!?) and then congratulates me on a "job well done" (erm, yep, but you haven't seen the pics yet, buddy!).... Moral of the story? Most old fuddy-duddies of priests wouldn't dare risk damaging their pride or egos, by having to "bow down" to simple folk like a naive young couple, are too dim-witted to think of a way to sway the argument in their favour, and in fact, probably think that they are doing said couple a favour by "allowing" them such wonderful "coverage" of their wedding day.... (yeah, the one that said Church has probably accepted a sizeable donation for "hosting"...) OTOH, I have had the more progressive churches and priests (male and female), say to me upfront "I understand that you are a professional and that you need to do whatever it is to ensure that the couple get the memories that they always dreamed of. You may do whatever you like (erm, but no standing on the alter preferably) within my Church providing that you are respectful to us and the proceedings etc" I don't get it either Bill! tan.
