Flash in churches

[elsaspet]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Nossie,
We need to talk offline.

 

[LaFoto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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