----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Culberson" <waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 02 September, 2003 04:24 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Albert's quest/even more OT
>
> >From: John A. Lind <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > I wouldn't dispute the flash capability. About half my weddings are "no
> > flash" during the ceremony itself. The person officiating has the final
> > word on the matter . . . along with restrictions on where I cannot be
> > during the ceremony. Some are quite restrictive.
>
> I'd like to add a comment here from the point of view of the "person
> officiating". I've officiated at several weddings, and have one coming up
on
> the 27th of this month, and another, for my son and his fiance, on Nov. 1.
>
> I can't speak for what others do, but I usually try to follow the wishes
of
> the bride as to whether there are pictures taken during the ceremony. As
> John says, in the culture here, the bride is Queen for the day, and what
she
> says (and her mother) is mostly what happens. But my "advice", IF they
> follow it, is to restrict picture taking during the ceremony to the
official
> photographer only, and to keep that at a minimum, and if possible without
> flash.
That is the position my father found himself in years ago at the wedding of
his nephew in a "high" Anglican church in England. The parson dictated "no
photographs in my church during the ceremony". The "my" was stressed. Of
course my Father took some non-flash photos with his aged Leica RF and a
medium telephoto from a discrete distance. The parson exploded with rage in
public right after the wedding.when he said "no photographs in my church,
remember." The parson was told very audibly in public "I consulted God and
He was pleased that such a happy day should be recorded in His house for
posterity." The parson shrank away like a wilted leaf. The parson and my
Father never ever exchanged another word and that was 40 years ago. Those
photos were the only ones the bride and groom had of their wedding ceremony
in church.
jh
My reason for this is simply that too many flashes and too many
> people jockeying for position (and I've seen it get quite bad) really
> distracts from the ceremony. Depending on the size of the building and how
> it is setup, the photographer usually has to position himself or herslef
> between the guests and the wedding party, so it is a bit like standing
> someone in front of the TV during the best part of the movie. My advice is
> to have someone video the ceremony from the side, and take the pictures
> after the ceremony. Having said that, I've also been behind the camera for
a
> couple of weddings, one of which I was asked to take photos during the
> ceremony (against my advice again).
>
> I can quite confidently say that the easier part by far is the
officiating
> part. And yes, while the bride expects perfection in every detail, a
mistake
> in the ceremony is much easier to pacify than one in photography would be,
> I'm sure. When I meet with the couple to discuss their wedding, I try to
> tone down somewhat their expectations of perfection on the wedding day.
>
> As to my son's upcoming wedding on Nov. 1, he at first asked me about
taking
> pictures as well. I immediately remembered John Lind's excellent advice on
> his web site, and responded that being father of the groom, officiating
> person, and official photographer might be a bit much. So they are going
for
> the pro photographer. Thanks John,
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|