# "Turn Off Your Shutter!"



## rachlynn17 (Apr 20, 2009)

Okay, so at my wedding this weekend, the minister spoke with me before hand to ask if I could "Turn my shutter off."  Yes, I'm serious!
The bride warned me of this, so when I met him, I let him talk 1st.  He went on for about 8 minutes on how distruptive photographers are at weddings, and how loud their cameras are. He said that he was aware that digital cameras are only made to act like film cameras, but their really is no shutter, and they just make that noise to sound like a camera is supposed to sound!  He didn't have a problem with me walking around or using my flash during the ceremony, nope!  He just had a problem with me using my shutter!
I very politely explained that he was wrong, and if he wanted to ask all of the congregation to turn the sound off of their cheap digital point & shoots, he could, but my shutter would be making noise.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 21, 2009)

Instead of saying "you're wrong", possibly explaining (and showing) that your camera actually has a mirror box with mechanical parts, so you physically _couldn't _turn it off.


----------



## Overread (Apr 21, 2009)

sounds like he is just ahead of the times 
whilst DSLRs have physical shutters at the moment I am sure that we will oneday have only digital shutters - that is to say no physical shutter - as part of the construction. Heck many cameras already have a silent shooting mode where the shutter curtain is lifted up and the shot taken by the sensor turning on then off.


----------



## rachlynn17 (Apr 21, 2009)

I didn't say, "You're Wrong", I just _explained_ why he was.


----------



## JE Kay (Apr 21, 2009)

Yaaaaaa.... I have a big problem with _*that*_! It's not his wedding, it's the bride and groom's. What he likes or dislikes is irrelevant. Sorry, he's not paying the invoice, they are. He's there to do a job. As are you. It's not his church, not his wedding, not your client. 

This is the main reason I don't shoot weddings anymore period. I got sick and tired of the BS that comes from dealing with churches and 'those' who work in them. 

_Pious self absorbed son_.....whew!  Wow... now I need another cappuccino... :mrgreen:


----------



## Overread (Apr 21, 2009)

errr but it IS their church!
That is the point - they do have control over the building and it is their service that you are taking part in - if they don't want flash being fired into their face every 2 seconds then that is their choice. I think its a rule made even more common these days with the number of people with small digi cams - its not a football stadium your in and I bet he does not want to feel like that with everyones digicams going off - along with your strobes and what not in the background.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 21, 2009)

> It's not his church


I'm sure he would disagree.

As photographers, our client is the couple and we hope that the officiant allows us to take photos during the event that takes place in their building.  It's their building, they can set the rules.  If I'm not mistaken, photos are not allowed at all inside a Mormon temple, for example.


----------



## 45mphK9 (Apr 21, 2009)

I totally agree that the minister should allow what the bride & groom want. If only they would consider how important the ceremony shots are down the road. 

However, I think it depends on whether the bride and groom are members of the church or are they just renting the church space. If they're members then they "own" part of the church. If they're not members then they have to go along with the rules just like at the reception hall. IMHO.

I used to shoot wedding videos many moons ago & this is a lot of why I don't do weddings at all. Yea! We had one priest rip us a new one for going into the church without him inviting us in. He said, "You wouldn't expect me to just walk into your house uninvited, would you?" I just told him that, "_At my Catholic church, anyone is invited to just walk in". _That wedding didn't go so well. :er: Hmmm.

Good point on the temple.  I guess it depends on whether it's a minister's preference or religious regulation.


----------



## usayit (Apr 21, 2009)

Overread said:


> errr but it IS their church!



Overread is right....  It is his church and most photographers I have seen do their best to work within their comfort zone.  This includes bringing the parties together prior and discussing what is permitted and not permitted.  Remember, religious marriage is a privilege extended to the couple by permission of the church.  The church is NOT the bride and grooms servant or hired service.  This is a holy church not some paid chapel in Las Vegas. 

One wedding I shot did not allow ANY photography during the ceremony... it was considered disrespectful.  The head photographer worked it out with the church to finish the ceremony without cameras and then perform a reenactment afterwards.  It actually worked out wonderfully as the photographer had full control during the reenactment and even was allowed to set up some lighting (umbrellas and strobes).


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 21, 2009)

> If only they would consider how important the ceremony shots are down the road.


To some people, nothing is more important than their religious beliefs...photography is likely a long way down the list.  

It's up to the couple to decide what is important to them.  If their officiant does not allow photography or has strict rules that they disagree with, then it's up to them to rectify the issue.  Maybe they find a different officiant or maybe they find a new venue.  

This is something I discuss with the couple during a consultation that happens well before the wedding.  I also try to meet with the officiant, either the day before (during rehearsal) or before the ceremony if there is time.


----------



## Primo (Apr 21, 2009)

Overread said:


> errr but it IS their church!
> That is the point - they do have control over the building and it is their service that you are taking part in - if they don't want flash being fired into their face every 2 seconds then that is their choice. I think its a rule made even more common these days with the number of people with small digi cams - its not a football stadium your in and I bet he does not want to feel like that with everyones digicams going off - along with your strobes and what not in the background.


 
That may be true but then again, the couple could have also chosen a different church.


----------



## Dwig (Apr 21, 2009)

rachlynn17 said:


> I didn't say, "You're Wrong", I just _explained_ why he was.



The smoothest and least confrontational approach was to start by saying that he was right, but right about the wrong class of cameras.

Most digital cameras do have shutters but they are so quiet that users don't know when they've fired. Many "cure" this by adding an artificial shutter sound which, sometimes, can be disabled. A minority sub-class of digital cameras, the DSLRs that most pros use, have normal sounding shutter/mirror systems just like film cameras. His error was only in thinking your DSLR was like the much more common digicam.


----------



## 45mphK9 (Apr 21, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> This is something I discuss with the couple during a consultation that happens well before the wedding. I also try to meet with the officiant, either the day before (during rehearsal) or before the ceremony if there is time.


 

This is EXACTLY what everyone shooting a wedding should do & then you know up front what can happen & what can't.  It's smart too so that the couple doesn't come back on you disappointed that you didn't get a certain shot.  Showing the officiant the respect of discussing their point of view ahead of time goes a long way to getting your way.

It's just my personal wish that all officiants would value photography like we do.  Not gonna happen.  It's just a wish.


----------



## 45mphK9 (Apr 21, 2009)

I also wish other photographers & videographers would not ruin it by being disruptive for the rest of us.  (Oh yeah, I'm not doing weddings!)  So, I guess I mean for the rest of you.


----------



## JE Kay (Apr 21, 2009)

It is _not his_ church, he simply works there. Period. He has no vested financial interest nor does he own any part of it, unless it's a small rural very old church and then he very well may own it. That's pretty rare though.

Again, he's there to do a job as requested by the bride and groom, as am I. 

I'll tell you this much as I've been told by numerous family members and others who were receiving or requesting photo albums as a gift or some package, they most defiantly side with the photographer. They want good photographs, they don't care how you get them. I have had people back me when I got into disputes on this subject. Some were subtle, some not. I've also walked away from wedding contracts because there was simply no way to shoot it properly. In those cases you are better off refunding and moving on. :thumbup: 

I give you ****ty photographs because of some stupid imposed limit on how I can shoot, who you gonna blame? Damn right. I'm not there shooting the church for any reason, I'm there shooting the wedding. You do your job and I'll do mine.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 21, 2009)

> Most digital cameras do have shutters but they are so quiet that users don't know when they've fired


They don't have mechanical shutters...as in something that physically blocks light from the sensor.  That is why most digital cameras allow you to see the scene on the LCD screen in real time....because light is always hitting the sensor.  

When you press the 'shutter release button', the camera just records the image for the specified amount of time...but there is no physical shutter moving around.  AFAIK.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 21, 2009)

> It is not his church, he simply works there. Period. He has no vested financial interest nor does he own any part of it


Well then, he would say that it's "God's church".
And why do the officiant's financial interests have anything to do with it?  

From the Church's point of view, they are allowing the wedding to take place there...and the couple are making a donation to the church.  It's a privilege to get married there...not a right...paid for or not.  



> Again, he's there to do a job as requested by the bride and groom, as am I.


He's there to perform a religious ceremony, he's not there to do whatever the clients want.  

I'm not saying I like or agree with the system...but this is just what I've seen and heard from many photographers from all over the world.  

It's getting to be quite common to just have a marriage commissioner perform the wedding ceremony, rather than a religious officiant.  In this case, the couple are probably more likely to have a say in how the wedding is run...but it is still largely up to the person officiating the wedding.  If they don't want to do what the client wants, they don't have to 'take the job'.


----------



## 45mphK9 (Apr 21, 2009)

Back to the original post . . . Rachlynn17 . . . seems odd that he has a problem with the shutter sound & not people wondering around or flashes going off.  

So, were there any problems???


----------



## tirediron (Apr 21, 2009)

usayit said:


> *One wedding I shot did not allow ANY photography during the ceremony...* it was considered disrespectful...


 Just did one of those; or at least that's the way it was supposed to be until the Bride & Groom talked to the Deacon (I'm not sure, but I think a hammerlock and a half-nelson may have been involved) and I was finally allowed to shoot only from the very back of the chapel - got some great 'back of the head' shots...  :er:


----------



## Dwig (Apr 21, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> They don't have mechanical shutters. ...



Actually a reasonable percentage of the better models do have mechanical shutters. They are often used as both the shutter and the iris. Any that have a means of adjusting the aperture have some form of mechanical blade system that snaps closed to a particuar aperture and reopens after the exposure which will make some slight sound. Its only the very inexpensive cameras that work at a fixed aperture that can function with a purely electronic "shutter".


----------



## epp_b (Apr 21, 2009)

> whilst DSLRs have physical shutters at the moment I am sure that we will oneday have only digital shutters - that is to say no physical shutter - as part of the construction.


I don't think so. Firstly, because electronic shutters are more complicated than you think.  Secondly, because the mirror still has to slap up and down, which also contributes to the sound.



> Heck many cameras already have a silent shooting mode where the shutter curtain is lifted up and the shot taken by the sensor turning on then off.


What specific DSLRs have this functionality?


----------



## KmH (Apr 21, 2009)

Ding  Ding  Ding  Ding..........

epp_b wins the prize. Most of the noise is from mirror slap, not the shutter.


----------



## skieur (Apr 21, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> I'm sure he would disagree..



Actually the religious Catholic point of view is that the church belongs to the community of parishoners and not to the priest.  The priest should be co-operating with the wishes of the bride and groom.  I have been in situations where a knowledgeable couple told the priest that there would be photography and flash during some parts and that if necessary they would take it up with the diocese or the bishop, or move the wedding to another church.

skieur


----------



## Overread (Apr 21, 2009)

I can't give specific DSLR makes - I have read about silent shooting mode and its featuring on some released models, but I honestly can't remember which ones!

50D and 5DM2 as well as the 1D line (some at least) might be possible models with the feature and as I understand it it still has some teething problems with it (mirror slapping down again after some shots and such). From what I gather its rather like mirror lockup mode, but because of liveview the user can still keep an eye on the subject through the LCD screen (I don't think its on the viewfinder - but I am not certain). Also some newer DSLRs (I think a to be released Samsung) are looking to have electronic viewfinders and thus no mirror slap


----------



## rachlynn17 (Apr 21, 2009)

The wedding ended up going okay.  The minister didn't say anything to me after the fact. (Most usually mention that they appreciate how respectful I was during the ceremony or something.)  I did end up having a bit of trouble with "point&shoot"ers getting in my way during the ceremony.  I shouldn't have to take turns going down the aisle to get a good shot, and in the middle of the ceremony it really wasn't the time to explain that to them.


----------



## astrostu (Apr 21, 2009)

What's humorous is that I JUST (10 minutes ago) had this conversation with a friend of mine who's getting married in Sept. and I'm shooting her wedding.  I told her that she would need to talk with the officiant before I got there about whether I could do photography during the ceremony (which she said she wants).  She insisted it'd be fine and that the only issue would be I should shoot without a flash (fast glass, medium ISO I should be good).  I still told her to ask.


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 22, 2009)

JE Kay said:


> Yaaaaaa.... I have a big problem with _*that*_! It's not his wedding, it's the bride and groom's.




This is a popular misconception.  Well, at least at Catholic weddings.  (Sorry. That's really the scope of my background on this.)

The ceremony...  the rite...  the Mass...  it "belongs" to the Church.  Actually, the wedding is a celebration of that parish.  It's not a private event.

And, there are both prescriptions and requirements concerning weddings.  It's not merely a social event to be "made up" by the couple.

*HOWEVER....*  what is allowed of photographers will vary from parish to parish and from priest to priest.  And, just like the rest of us, you'll find a few jerks in that vocation too.  But it's not completely unwarranted.  Have you SEEN how some "photographers" behave at weddings?

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 22, 2009)

JE Kay said:


> It is _not his_ church, he simply works there. Period.



Well...  this is true, if you're speaking of the building.  The physical property is considered as belonging to the bishop and the responsibility of caring for it all falls on the pastor.

But the problem is never about the building.  The problem is conduct within the confines of the ritual, and THAT "belongs" to the presider.  Period.

Sadly, he doesn't even have to be reasonable.  He just gets to say what goes.

And, oh....  going to the bishop with a matter like this is a bit comical.  He has to deal with everything from alcoholic priests to accusations of pedophilia.  I doubt very seriously he'll take much time to deal with a priest who insists that photographers behave properly.  

-Pete


----------



## bdavis (Apr 22, 2009)

I cant believe he thought the shutter sound was more annoying than the flash...


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2009)

"We are gathered here to"
CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK
"witness the"
CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK
"marrage of Holly"
CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK
"SHUTUP AT THE BACK!!!"


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Apr 22, 2009)

Thanks Overread....I needed that !

Best chuckle in a long time.


----------



## rachlynn17 (Apr 22, 2009)

You guys are fun!  I love the replies.


----------



## bdavis (Apr 23, 2009)

Overread said:


> "We are gathered here to"
> CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK
> "witness the"
> CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK
> ...



LOL I love it.


----------



## modlife (Apr 24, 2009)

At a wedding 2 weeks ago I was asked not to move at all - and not to use a flash. I was told that once people were seated I was to stay behind the pews, off to the side, and not to move...

This is precisely why I refuse to get married in a church and will be refusing to do anymore wedding at less than an elevated cost if these things are going to be issues....

..oh, and it was a small Methodist chapel ON THE BEACH - you'd think they'd be more laid back that that


----------



## CrimsonFoxPhotography (Apr 27, 2009)

usayit said:


> Overread is right.... It is his church and most photographers I have seen do their best to work within their comfort zone. This includes bringing the parties together prior and discussing what is permitted and not permitted. Remember, religious marriage is a privilege extended to the couple by permission of the church. The church is NOT the bride and grooms servant or hired service. This is a holy church not some paid chapel in Las Vegas.
> 
> One wedding I shot did not allow ANY photography during the ceremony... it was considered disrespectful. The head photographer worked it out with the church to finish the ceremony without cameras and then perform a reenactment afterwards. It actually worked out wonderfully as the photographer had full control during the reenactment and even was allowed to set up some lighting (umbrellas and strobes).


 
I understand that notion that it IS their church, but much of the rules against photographers has more to do with them responding to a history of a**holes than it does how you individually do your thing.  Re-enactments are nice last resort compromises but then become symbols of the day, not a capture of the day itself.  Yeah, you might be able to get "cooler" shots through re-enactment because of the control, but the photographer's prime agenda is the couple not their own portfolio.  Most people aren't actors, so having them redo their emotions likely won't be nearly the same.  Whether it's okay has more to do with what style the couple is looking for.


----------

