# Flash in churches



## JDS (Oct 24, 2007)

I've heard of it, but never known why.  Why do some churches not allow flash photography?  The one reason I ever got was only "For religious reasons."  I'm religious - I mean, I go to church every time the doors are open.  But I'm just curious what these religious reasons are for not allowing flashes?


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 24, 2007)

God hates photographers?  I don't know :scratch:

Actually, I think it's because a lot of people find flashes to be annoying or distracting.  The way that many photographers shoot now, with digital, the officiant and the couple could get 'flashed' hundreds of times during the ceremony.  If I were the Officiant and I had the power to tell them 'No Flash'...I might consider doing just that.  As a photographer, I think it's ridiculous...but then, as a photographer I would design a church with fantastic lighting.


----------



## ahphotography (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm on board with Mike - I did a wedding back in August where they requested no flash photography. The church was way old and the lighting really was poor. I find it crazy when a thousand flashes go off but then at the same I agree that all church lighting should be placed with no flash photography in mind! There was no religious reason for it that I know of. It's just a preference... 

a very uncool preference for the photographer.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 24, 2007)

The thing that bothers me, is that the Officiant will tell you that you are not allowed to use flash (because you were professional enough to ask ahead of time).  But then you are shooting the wedding and 36 guests are flashing away and nothing is said...what are you supposed to do in that situation?


----------



## JDS (Oct 24, 2007)

For the wedding I did, there was a grouchy elderly lady that just spouted off saying no flash photography would be allowed during the ceremony.  All of the family that was going to be taking some with their own P&S cameras were sorta bummed, but were going to comply.  Then this other lady said that it was ok..so they went ahead and did it.  I don't believe the officiant wasn't even a member of the church it was held in, and he never gave a preference.

I did, however, have those couple of family photogs that kept getting in the way.  That I could do without.  The rest, I don't really care too much about.


----------



## optical_girl (Oct 25, 2007)

maybe because it causes a distraction to those who are attending the ceremony...



__________________________
_Chevrolet Oxygen Sensor |  Ford Oxygen Sensor
Mitsubishi Galant Catalytic Converter_


----------



## doobs (Oct 25, 2007)

Because they can.


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 25, 2007)

Well, within an ongoing service, my feeling is that flashes simply disrupt the service. They are annoying, a nuisance, a distraction, call it what you want. They might not be "un-religious", but simply go against the meaning of the service (to my mind).

In old churches here in Germany, there may very well also be very old paintings, painted walls and ceilings, paint on woodwork etc, which actually and truly suffers from too much exposure to light (the colour pigmentation will fade), so that is another very sensible (to me) reason why no flashes should be fired in churches. The bursts of bright light might actually harm what antique (valuable) objects there are!


----------



## nossie (Oct 25, 2007)

I had to feel sorry for the photographer at one wedding when the Priest said "now I shall bless the rings IF I can get a moments peace from the photographer".  Hey buddy it's an action shot and we gotta eat.  Ok but this girl was rattling away 3/4 shots at a time with the camera, I was at the back of the church and I could hear it but I couldn't decide if it was because I was tuned into the sound.

As for the flash, you can hide the odd one here and there in with all the P+S flashes.  Fire a couple off every now and then and I think the Priest will be more understanding than if you turn the place into a disco.


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 25, 2007)

To my mind, a BLESSING is the LEAST moment in which I would wanted to be interrupted by a photographer doing their work!!! THAT would be one of the VERY IMPORTANT moments in which I would wanted to have my peace! Honestly. 
Why do such photos NEED to be taken "in situ" ... those could easily be staged later! (I think).
I very much accept our pastors' regulation: no photography during the service, only could I come to an arrangement with one when I explained the congregation would definitely not notice me nor hear me, and I took the photos with a camera that makes NO noise, and I had the flash OFF.


----------



## nossie (Oct 25, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> To my mind, a BLESSING is the LEAST moment in which I would wanted to be interrupted by a photographer doing their work!!! THAT would be one of the VERY IMPORTANT moments in which I would wanted to have my peace! Honestly.
> Why do such photos NEED to be taken "in situ" ... those could easily be staged later! (I think).
> I very much accept our pastors' regulation: no photography during the service, only could I come to an arrangement with one when I explained the congregation would definitely not notice me nor hear me, and I took the photos with a camera that makes NO noise, and I had the flash OFF.


 
I'm getting married next May and I can tell you that I think the whole lot is a load of senseless crap, 1 shot outside the church afterwards will do me, everybody say cheese now let's go eat.
Why spend 3000 on a photographer, 2000 for a dress that will be worn only once, 100s on old cars to drive me 1 mile to the church, and on and on and on?
My fiance and I just had a conversation last night about her engagement ring when she said "I don't know what I'd do if I lost this", I had an easy answer "Get another one!" she's like "nooo, this one is special" and all the time I thought it was just a fekin ring that put me 5 grand out of pocket - for what to me is a bit of shiney stone out of the earth, but like it's oooh such and such grade and it's weighs like almost who gives a crap.

So isn't it just another snapshot from the alter, tell that to the BrideZillas going around that think they're Queen Victoria crossed with Queen Latifa for a day demanding all sorts of crap. A staged photograph?!?!? No no no no no, I'm paying you for the "real" thing!

Is it an important shot?.. Who can say but I'd rather have it and not want it than not have it and want it.

Geesuss my woman will get me to the airport at 4am to save 30 bucks on a cheaper flight but then she'll pay extra for the express queue, choice of seats and extra baggage.

Take the shot!


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 25, 2007)

OK, you can have a personal opinion and a general opinion.
Personally I must admit my sister applied flash photography all during my own wedding, the pastor didn't mind, and I (to tell you the truth) had long forgotten about it, had I not taken out the old wedding album a wee while ago.

Generally I now think that whenever possible, leave out the flash during a service.

If the service, the blessings, and all that is being done during a church wedding has no meaning to you, whatsoever, so little that you say "What is all this fuss about, anyway?", get married in front of the registrar and ... done. A church wedding SHOULD have a meaning to those who decide they want a church wedding. (My personal opinion again). And provided it HAS a meaning to you, your spouse-to-be, the families and all involved, then I feel that a flash can really be distracting.

I go all  over the fact that we actually let my sister run around and take photos from all angles DURING the actual service. But I was sooooo nervous (must have been), I never realised at the time...!


----------



## nossie (Oct 25, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> If the service, the blessings, and all that is being done during a church wedding has no meaning to you, whatsoever, so little that you say "What is all this fuss about, anyway?", get married in front of the registrar and ... done. A church wedding SHOULD have a meaning to those who decide they want a church wedding.


 
Get married in front of a Registrar.... oh if only... I wish... please please please... maybe if I was marrying another man... it's not too late, is it?.. but here's a news flash... Woman and Men are different beings, in fact they are so different one would start to wonder how we ever get along at all.

Man: Registrar 55, own suit, new dress for her 200, drinks and grub for everyone afterwards 500, off to the airport destination hedonism.

Woman: Wedding Planner, Church, Cars, 2000 for Flowers, Dresses - 3 for her & 1 each for the 3 maids, 4 suits, gold stamped invitiations, priests that go "and now I'll bless the rings", photographers, shoot locations, hotels before, hotels after, cake, food, drinks, gifts for guests, and on and on and on... >30,000!

Church wedding for me means boredom for a ridiculas half hour and disappointment for my guests standing up, sitting down, kneelingdown, standing up, turn around, do the hokey kokey, load of crap for to sign a contract and get on with the rest of my life with my woman.
Church wedding for my fiance means the dream she's always dreamt coming true and that LaFoto is the thing that matters most to me so that I'll put up with the rest of the circus.

[Insert some talk about flash here to justify post :er: ]


----------



## EOS_JD (Oct 25, 2007)

nossie said:


> Get married in front of a Registrar.... oh if only... I wish... please please please... maybe if I was marrying another man... it's not too late, is it?.. but here's a news flash... Woman and Men are different beings, in fact they are so different one would start to wonder how we ever get along at all.
> 
> Man: Registrar 55, own suit, new dress for her 200, drinks and grub for everyone afterwards 500, off to the airport destination hedonism.
> 
> ...


 
I do enjoy other peoples weddings - especially ones I shoot although I must admit to being the above man in your description!!

It's trru men are from a different planet when it comes to things like this.


----------



## skieur (Oct 25, 2007)

In a church that many tourists visit, flashes would certainly irritate the regular parishioners, so a no flash policy makes some sense.  Flashes from most tourists do not cover the distances involved anway.  I think we have all seen tourists with a point and shoot camera with a flash trying to light up the whole interior of a cathedral.

On the other hand, it is a ridiculous arbitrary restriction when it comes to special events such as baptisms, first communion, weddings, etc. in church.  Interesting that these restrictions often come from the dogmatic conservative clerics who seem to have forgotten that there is a certain festivity and celebration in holy events that should not be forgotten or ignored just because they take place in a church.

skieur


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 25, 2007)

My local catholic priest told me to get on with my job and he'd do his, I take a minimum of shots during the actual service anyway, however, I find C of E vicars are a mostly obnoxious group of people who actually think they are gods and what they say goes, they're also more likely to allow anything, if they get paid. I've yet to meet a UK vicar who allows photography during the service, I've worked from kent in the south to aberdeen in the north and they are all the same so my shots are usually staged afterwards which isn't a problem but slows the proceedings down a bit. Sometimes a good thing at weddings anyway. H


----------



## JDS (Oct 25, 2007)

Wow..I didn't intend for people to get all excited.   So it looks like that all it really comes down to is the _preferences_ of the church members/officiant/bride & groom.  I always intend to respect those preferences as each case may be..I hope it didn't seem like I wanted to just do things the way I wanted regardless - I was just curious if anybody knew of any actual religious _reasons_ to not allow it, because I'd never personally heard of any.


----------



## nossie (Oct 25, 2007)

Well before this turns into a Priest bashing session shouts out to Father Tony who is now practising in Rome. :thumbup::thumbup: Not only did he allow photography, and not only encourage it but he did in fact order people into shots for me on the altar after the cermony!! "Now the brides family etc.." 

A great man filling the place with good vibes. I also met him a few days later in a religous goods shop on the other side of Rome where he advised me that this was a great place to get good quality garments at a great price - it was hard not to laugh, we we're just looking for beads for a 103 year old lady back home heheh


----------



## EOS_JD (Oct 25, 2007)

I try not to use flash anyway.  Fast quality lenses go a long way to doing a better job and keeping the atmosphere of the ceremony intact.

I've had a mix of reactions from ministers. As the professional we should always ask what is/is not permitted.  No matter that others are flashing away.

We should remember that a wedding, christening, etc are still religious ceremonies and should be given respect by all - whether you have beliefs or not.  I personally don't have any religious feelings but I do have respect and I think that is important.

JD


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 25, 2007)

nossie said:


> ...but he did in fact order people into shots for me on the altar *after the cermony*!! "Now the brides family etc.."


 
That last bit I find quite important, see?
And to tell you the truth: when even the wedding photographer was asked to refrain from flash photography during the ceremony, I find it quite a bit (or quite much even) audacious of the other members of the congregation to ignore the agreement and happily flash away... :shock: . If I were the priest, I would interrupt the ceremony and "go on strike" until they would have understood. (But we're in Germany, and it seems like things are quite a bit different here, anyway, also the significance of a wedding in people's lives, including one that involves a church ceremony. Not that it doesn't mean as much to them ... but I don't really know anyone among my friends who have spent such an awful lot of money on their weddings. No one has, and their marriages still mean a lot to them).


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Oct 25, 2007)

I always ask the officiant if there is a problem w/ flash, though I try to keep it at a minimum if using it at all during the ceremony.  I'm about to do my 3rd and during the first two, the officiant basically said he didn't care and wouldn't notice anyway.  "Do your job and I'll do mine" they said.  As Mike said, it is very annoying though when you are trying to get by w/o flash and every guest is flashing theirs ruining your shots.  

Personally, I think it detracts from the ceremony as it should be a religious event and distracts others which is why I limit it as much as possible.  An exception to this is when you have a B/G who don't attend church or practice any religion, but want "a church wedding" and shop around for a quaint church that will make for nice pictures.  For those, I might use flash more if the officiant doesn't mind.

just my .02


----------



## nossie (Oct 25, 2007)

Another thought I have about this is that since it's my wedding coming up I should decide if I want the photographer to be flashing away not the priest. 
Who's paying for the gig anyway? 
So some uptight Priest is gonna tell me if it's ok for me to be having photos of the event? If I want a film crew going in there for my wedding then a film crew is going in there for my wedding. I'll do all the decision making and Priest can do all the hubblybubbly bit, which by the way he's been instructed to show me and my pagan guests mercy and get to the patronizing I now pronounce you... as quickly as possible.

Oh the things I do for this woman of mine!

So I say ask the B+G what they want and then tell the Priest what you will be doing.  Nicely of course.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Oct 25, 2007)

at least in the really long halls where you have to stay in the back its not such a problem (your flash wont reach them 150 feet away anyways.)
Just high iso on a 200mm zoom and stop it down as much as you can and still get at least a 100 - 150th shutter you can crop into it later on. 

The second they start walking back down the isle you can flash away and then follow them out .... or switch to a body thats got a wide angle plus a flash on it. 

thats when it matters to flash, but those darn family members who jump in your way.... that really sucks.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 25, 2007)

> So I say ask the B+G what they want and then tell the Priest what you will be doing. Nicely of course.


That's a dangerous game.  If the Priest decides he doesn't want you there...you have to leave.  If the couple doesn't like that...they can leave as well.  You have to think of the Priest (or whoever) as the property owner and you are just the people being allowed to use the space.  Also, it's their ceremony...they don't 'have to' perform the marriage if they don't want to...so you have to cater to them, as does the couple.

Worst case scenario (well maybe not worst, but it's bad) is if you ask the bride & groom if flash will be allowed.  They say yes, (why wouldn't they?) so that's what you prepare for.  Then you show up 10 minutes before the wedding and the priest says no-way.  I've heard of this happening.

Another story I've heard of...is that a photographer talked to the priest before hand, everything was OK for them to use flash etc.  Then on the wedding day, he shows up and it's a different priest (first one is sick or something).  Same church but the new priest says no flash.

Moral of the story, be prepared for anything.


----------



## dpolston (Oct 25, 2007)

short message... my last wedding I set up 3 strobes (and shot during the service) I would have been dead in the water without them. The church had NO windows in the sanctuary. (I wish I knew how to post photos on here... I'd show you what I mean)


BTW - how do you put a photo up on this post?


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 25, 2007)

> BTW - how do you put a photo up on this post?



http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73415


----------



## nossie (Oct 25, 2007)

> That's a dangerous game. If the Priest decides he doesn't want you there...you have to leave. If the couple doesn't like that...they can leave as well. You have to think of the Priest (or whoever) as the property owner and you are just the people being allowed to use the space. Also, it's their ceremony...they don't 'have to' perform the marriage if they don't want to...so you have to cater to them, as does the couple.


 
I agree with all that but as my fiance will attest my attitude is if the priest doesn't like it then f* the little despot and let's get another one. They're only there to do a job for the people and if they want to get smart about it then I'll take my business else where.  

Moreover though I'd say that it does need to be part of the planning, the B+G must tell the priest at the start that taking pictures is important to them and needs to be accepted and possibly present the idea of extra gear being needed.  The B+G often put enormous amounts of planning into this day (unlike me) so they've a right to a perfect day on their terms.


----------



## dpolston (Oct 25, 2007)

Thanks... I'll try it this way. 

http://davidpolston.blogspot.com/2007/10/forum-photo.html


----------



## elsaspet (Oct 26, 2007)

My husband and I have done several hundreds of weddings.
In most cases, flash is only allowed during procession/recession, and then only at a fixed place behind the last pew that people are seated in.
Why?
Because many many many unprofessional photographers never showed up at reheasal, never showed up for the church rules, and just went PJ crazy and killed it for the rest of us.
I have heard nightmares from Priest and officiants about renegade photogs who think it's all about the shot.
Meanwhile, I had to shoot out of a HOLE in a wedding I did a few weeks ago due to the past transgressions of past photogs.
This is a religious cerermony on many occassions.  This is not a photo op.
You can recreate it if you need to.
(BTW-I started a thread on another forum about the abuses brought on photogs because of unrespectful photogs-it's well over 200 posts now)
However, we wouldn't be in this mess if photographers would be respectful.
I've been told:
Photographer was lying down in the center altar area, "For a better angle".
Photographer had the bride lifting up her dress to the waist to show her garter.
Moving sacred articles for a "better photo".  This included the Holy Water.
Photogs using non stop flash, running up and down the aisles.
Shooting over the officiant's shoulder.  EVEN RESTING THIER CAMERAS THERE.
If you ever wonder why we have it so bad........look at our community.
I worked one church where I was not allowed to take any ceremony pictures AT ALL.
I've spoken online to others who defended themselves by saying, "I would never shoot there again so I disregarded all the rules".
Well good for you.  You just ruined it for every other photog following you, and every bride who wanted a nice photo of her ring exchange.  Yay.  You rule.  You got the shot.
Now, others won't.


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Oct 26, 2007)

nossie said:


> I agree with all that but as my fiance will attest my attitude is if the priest doesn't like it then f* the little despot and let's get another one. They're only there to do a job for the people and if they want to get smart about it then I'll take my business else where.
> 
> Moreover though I'd say that it does need to be part of the planning, the B+G must tell the priest at the start that taking pictures is important to them and needs to be accepted and possibly present the idea of extra gear being needed.  The B+G often put enormous amounts of planning into this day (unlike me) so they've a right to a perfect day on their terms.



I think you're a little misguided here.  This is after all, a religious ceremony.  You as a photographer, are not the main attraction, nor are the pictures.  It's a religious celebration and it should be treated w/ respect.


----------



## elsaspet (Oct 26, 2007)

nossie said:


> Another thought I have about this is that since it's my wedding coming up I should decide if I want the photographer to be flashing away not the priest.
> Who's paying for the gig anyway?
> So some uptight Priest is gonna tell me if it's ok for me to be having photos of the event? If I want a film crew going in there for my wedding then a film crew is going in there for my wedding. I'll do all the decision making and Priest can do all the hubblybubbly bit, which by the way he's been instructed to show me and my pagan guests mercy and get to the patronizing I now pronounce you... as quickly as possible.
> 
> ...


 

What the heck are you thinking?
Do you ACTUALLY think the officiant is going to let you in with a film crew because you paid a few bucks?
Good luck to you for what will NEVER happen. And say a little prayer for all those poor photogs who will have to deal with the church after you.

(_Cindy ... I best take out the words you spoke here ... they got somewhat too personal, and we want to stay with the MATTER of the OPs question, i.e. WHY is it not allowed in so many churches to use flash, and nothing more, ok?)_


----------



## nossie (Oct 26, 2007)

Johnboy2978 said:


> I think you're a little misguided here. This is after all, a religious ceremony. You as a photographer, are not the main attraction, nor are the pictures. It's a religious celebration and it should be treated w/ respect.


 
I don't think I'm misguided at all, but you said "you as a photographer", but partly I'm speaking as a Groom to be. 
Now if You want to be easily led that's up to you, wheter you feel that way about it or not. We are not living in the dark ages and it think it's a sign of the times that the priests need to catch up with. For me, and I think 50% of the people, the church and the priest is just another traditional feel prop.
As far as I'm concerned I'm paying for the gig and if they don't want the job on my terms then fine there are plenty of others that will. There will be photographs taken at my wedding in the church and if the photographer deems it necessary he will take some shots with the flash and the priest will definately be notified about it before the wedding.


Now I do also agree with elsaspet and if I were a priest I'd say I'm not putting up with this sh*t...


> Moving sacred articles for a "better photo". This included the Holy Water.
> Shooting over the officiant's shoulder. EVEN RESTING THIER CAMERAS THERE.


 
That's also not on and those people are just prats that lack proper etiquette. But nothing wrong with hanging back and still getting a few good shots while employing a little live and let live.


----------



## elsaspet (Oct 26, 2007)

And don't cry that I'm picking on the Pagans.  I know MANY of them.  And many I love.
But the real Pagans would NEVER DREAM of holding a ceremony in a church, never DREAM of making a big deal or having a film crew there.
I know real Pagans.  They aren't about shock value.


----------



## elsaspet (Oct 26, 2007)

Nossie,
We need to talk offline.


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 26, 2007)

That's wise, Cindy. Thanks for that.
For the original question was not "Would YOU use flash in churches - for your own wedding or other occasions" but "WHY is it so often not allowed?"

And my answer is (and I stick to it) that it is a religious ceremony that really should be respected, even by those who don't believe in in and call it mumbo-jumpo or whatever ... they enter a sacred place and have to pay respect, full-stop. 
And b) I believe that many old churches in my country REALLY have a lot of art that would suffer. The colours of the painted ceilings, walls, carved wood altars and figurines, statues, all that might become paler and paler with an uninterrupted flash assault (by tourists, for example). That I take for a second good reason not to be allowing flash photography in churches.


----------



## nossie (Oct 26, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> Nossie,
> We need to talk offline.


Who's we? I don't need to talk to you offline anyway.  I don't even know you so why would I?  If you've got something to say then say it for everyone's benefit.


----------



## elsaspet (Oct 26, 2007)

You are right LaFoto,
I think the ceremony comes first.  However, I'd really like to capture this on the wedding day for the bride.
I've found that the more money I'm paid, the more restrictions I have in place by the churches.
It's sad, but I do understand, having heard the horror stories.


----------



## EOS_JD (Oct 26, 2007)

Nossie
Maybe it's different where you are from (although in the main I don't think so). Here in the UK the minister / priest / registrar sets the rules regards photography because of exactly what LaPhoto states. 

A wedding is not a "gig" it's a religious ceremony that is meant to be taken *seriously *by those getting married in the eyes of God.  Don't get me wrong I'm not religious myself but I do totally respect the beliefs of others that are, and I also respect that when in a house of God and/or in the presence of God at a civil ceremony, the officiant sets the rules and that's just the way it is.

If you don't like that I think most would say go elsewhere and you'll end up in a place that is not what you wanted in the first place.

Many officiants will tell you exactly that.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 26, 2007)

I think what he was meaning to say (I apologize if I'm reading it wrong) was that if the Priest (or whoever) told them that they couldn't have what they wanted (a photographer using flash, for example) then he would just find a new priest.

Yes, it is a religious ceremony that should be respected...but being able to use flash is not religious...it's a personal call by the priest...so if he doesn't want flash, then they don't want him.


----------



## nossie (Oct 27, 2007)

I want a new photography forum based on Religous reasons! :badangel:

Funny how all those Religious reasons get pushed to one side when the Queen & Co want to use a church. No concerns about saving the art as the Royal film crew takes over with the TV flood lighting. And what special paint did they use in the Vatican to survive all those snaps over the years? I see the pontif himself is holding mass there with giant tv screens and audio systems, fully embracing the use of technology. Mass had a nice rock concert type appeal to me, especially when he started to sing.
And why shouldn't he? Is he breaking any rules of religion there or better serving the people?

What I think is "Live and let live". 

Can't we all work together like on any other job? 
The priest is just a bloke and the few I know are very good company (in fact one is coming to my wedding as a guest), the photographer is just a bloke too (I never met him, fiance did the recon - she is the decision maker for her wedding), and me as a Groom I'm just another bloke. Now can't these 3 men have a conversation like:
Groom: "The bride wants a few snaps of the wedding and I'd like her to have them so that 10 years down the line she's not saying 'Oh I wish we had a better shot of that moment like what (some friend) has'. 
Priest looks at photographer: "Ok but don't cramp my style like the punk photographer that was moving stuff around last time. Stay out of my bubble."
Photographer answers: "Ok will this point and that point do? And I'll need about 5 important closer flash shots?"
Working together everybody's happy, now let's drink! _(Yes I'm a cliche Irishman)_
We're not killing animals or capturing souls here lads! It's just a few snapshots. _(no disrespect to animal killers or voodoo men - added since the loose use of pagan didn't go over well)_

As much as a few words needs to be had with the priest in planning, as a groom I may also need to have a few gentle words with the photographer about "try not to piss the priest off, he could be touchy. And don't upstage the bride".

Am I being unreasonable to ask for that? Am I infringing on religious rules or requirements?

My Fiance (she's Slovak) who has no interest in all this forum stuff just gave me her opinion... "_In Slovakia the priests like good photographs to be taken as it is an advertisement for the church. It puts the church in a romantic light. For the same reasons they also readily accept the videoman that often gets them onto local television._"

So finally going back to the original posted question...


> I'm just curious *what these religious reasons are* *for not allowing flashes?*


I think this thread shows that there aren't any religious reasons, just a few vague opinions from photographers but rest assured the next nice priest I meet will be asked. 

Just be nice to the priest, approach him days before the wedding with respect and no assumptions as you would like to be approached at your home or place of work and start a nice conversation with him about it as part of the planning. If he says no tell the B+G and let them do the decision making.
When doing the shoot be mindful of the photographer's bad actions that elsaspet highlighted. I'm sure the priest would like to be reassured that none of that nonsense will be happening even if he hasn't experienced or even thought of it himself.


----------



## skieur (Oct 29, 2007)

I will take the middle ground here. It is a religious ceremony but for ethnic communities it is also a cultural, social, and traditional celebration. The balance between the two areas varies considerably in different cultures and priests need to be sensitive to this dichotomy and display some flexibility with regard to flashes or photography. To put it another way, the church belongs to the community of parishioners that is served by the priest. There needs to be a balance between disturbing the ceremony and not allowing any flash or photography at all.

As to art, I read a scientific study that flash is of way too short in duration to in any way harm, or fade, paintings or art no matter how old. That is an excuse rather than a reason to ban flash.

The compromise that I have worked with is flash photos when the bridal party comes into the church, during the signing of the registry, the kiss, and walking down the aisle to depart. However, with a fast telephoto lens and a good flash there is no need to be obtrusive and I prefer to be in the background. In some churches available light may permit some shots without flash.

skieur


----------

