Priest meltdown over photographer at wedding. Ouch!! :O

[CR00]

Most photographers would blame priests and most priests would blame photographers. Both were trying to do their jobs, but I think the photographer is more to blame. Both bride and groom were standing still, why was the photographer shooting in burst mode and standing so close and behind the priest.

 

[tphillips63]

To me, that close right behind his ear with the machine gun rate going off, I'm sure it was extremely distracting for the priest. It could have been handled better but I blame the photogs the most.

Shouldn't they have tried the silent shutter option if they wanted to set up that close?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I don't have a lot of experience in wedding photography, but is it a common practice to "spray and pray" like that one photographer was doing?

 

[Casey]

My hunch is that the priest was having a bad day and did not expect to hear the constant CLICK CLICK CLICK behind him that just eventually got to him and he just couldn't concentrate on the ceremony. If someone is REALLY annoying sometimes you can hold it in too long and then when you let them know it comes out really bad. He doesn't look like a rookie priest so perhaps he just never had to deal with the constant clicking before and assumed that they knew what they were doing so he gave little direction.

My first hunch on watching the video was that they tried to save money by hiring the friend of a buddy that happened to have a DSLR and assumed they knew how to photograph a wedding. Linking into the blog I am rather surprised that a professional would keep clicking the shutter so close without realizing how annoying it was. But it is also possible that the annoying person was not part of the crew that was hired to take the photos. The priest wouldn't know.

I thought that the blog seemed to concentrate heavily on the rings and shoes and not much on the couple.

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

Wouldn't the "silent shutter mode" of the 5DIII have prevented this mess. Just another reason why the 5DIII is a must

 

[Botts]

The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."

cayenne

I'd be this groom, my fiancé and I are planning our wedding right now, and good photos are priority 1. We are also ensuring that our contracts have substantial penalty clauses in case one of our service providers, yes service providers decides to get uppity at some point.

I work in a business where I'm dealing with contracts, and unfortunately breach of contract on a daily basis, I sincerely hope our wedding goes smoothly, but sometimes having a stiff financial penalty looming can prevent issues from arising in the first place. We are being fair, and ensuring that contracts protect our service providers in case we do something outlandish.

In my opinion of the youtube video, it was not a meltdown, but it was extremely unprofessional, and showed that the officiant felt he was the most important person in the room. He put the couple in a bad situation, and it showed. I would be asking him for a full refund if I were the couple.

 

[Sporgon]

I watched the video and have read most of the comments made here. I think when the priest turned on the photographers he took them quite by surprise, it was totally unexpected, which is why the photographers appears to 'argue' - "where do I go ?". Yes he should have just moved, but was dumbfounded and started garbbleing. Mistake !

I doubt there was any chance of him refusing to move. Where I think the priest started to loose the plot was in saying 'I will stop the ceremony'. The guy clearly has a temper, and he has a responsibility to keep it under contol in such a situation.

Maybe the photographer will re equip with 5D mkiiis now ;D

Anyway, who's to say God doesn't like a bit of clicking ?

If God had a camera I bet it would be a 1Dx

 

[Joe M]

I don't have a lot of experience in wedding photography, but is it a common practice to "spray and pray" like that one photographer was doing?

As for others, I can't say. I would suspect for most no, not at this point in the ceremony. You would have to talk to the photographer in this video as to why he chose to do it at that time. For myself "spraying", is definitely not something I do during the ceremony and of course I usually shoot in silent shutter mode. It's amazing how loud a shutter can be even outdoors under the right circumstances. There will be exceptions though. "Spray" without the "pray" (shooting done deliberately) is useful for certain times such as the bouquet toss and certain other animated moments.

 

[distant.star]

The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."

cayenne

That's exactly what he should NOT have done. The master of ceremonies had already lost his temper so he was out of control. Pouring lighter fluid on his little bonfire would have been explosive.
.

I'd be this groom, my fiancé and I are planning our wedding right now, and good photos are priority 1. We are also ensuring that our contracts have substantial penalty clauses in case one of our service providers, yes service providers decides to get uppity at some point.

I work in a business where I'm dealing with contracts, and unfortunately breach of contract on a daily basis, I sincerely hope our wedding goes smoothly, but sometimes having a stiff financial penalty looming can prevent issues from arising in the first place. We are being fair, and ensuring that contracts protect our service providers in case we do something outlandish.

In my opinion of the youtube video, it was not a meltdown, but it was extremely unprofessional, and showed that the officiant felt he was the most important person in the room. He put the couple in a bad situation, and it showed. I would be asking him for a full refund if I were the couple.

This is one of the reasons I'd never do a wedding today. When I shot a wedding 40 years ago there was no written contract. You told the people what it was going to cost. They agreed. You showed up and did your job. They did what they were told so you could get decent pictures. They got good pictures. You got paid in full. End of story.

Today you've got 20 people vying to make it clear they are the impresario. And if someone tried to foist a contract on me, I'd suggest places where they might store their contract.

 

[Codzilla]

Let us also not forget that in today's societies many couples do marry out of a sense of tradition or pleasing their parents or just making a big show out of their marriage, only to make up in advance for facing divorce only a couple of years later, but this does not in any way make them buy into medieval church practices or the like, so the comparison with joining the army is not valid here.

Seriously? To paraphrase, you're saying that "if their heart's not in it, the rules don't really apply to them"??

My point was that THEY (B&G) chose the denomination. In a lot of cases they must "buy into medieval church practices" in order to get the wedding they want. By choosing the church, they sign up for those rules, whatever they may be. If they don't like the rules or wanted something a little looser, then pick another denomination. If they are trying to please their parents or other relatives, that is NOT the officiant's (nor the church's) problem. And in a lot of cases, if he detects this, he'll send them packing.

It is EXACTLY like joining the army. Armies can have some pretty medieval practices too.

 

[bleephotography]

Let us also not forget that in today's societies many couples do marry out of a sense of tradition or pleasing their parents or just making a big show out of their marriage, only to make up in advance for facing divorce only a couple of years later, but this does not in any way make them buy into medieval church practices or the like, so the comparison with joining the army is not valid here.

Seriously? To paraphrase, you're saying that "if their heart's not in it, the rules don't really apply to them"??

My point was that THEY (B&G) chose the denomination. In a lot of cases they must "buy into medieval church practices" in order to get the wedding they want. By choosing the church, they sign up for those rules, whatever they may be. If they don't like the rules or wanted something a little looser, then pick another denomination. If they are trying to please their parents or other relatives, that is NOT the officiant's (nor the church's) problem. And in a lot of cases, if he detects this, he'll send them packing.

It is EXACTLY like joining the army. Armies can have some pretty medieval practices too.

I don't think he's saying that "their heart's not in it" or that "the rules don't...apply". Some couples endure the ridiculous cost and stress of a wedding to show, before their family and not necessarily God, that they are committed to one another as is customary or traditional to do. My point is that some people don't look at it like a religious practice, but rather a more meaningful representation than merely going into a courthouse and signing some papers. In this respect, the Priests and couples then have different intentions and that is why many of us differ in our reaction to or blaming of one or the other.

 

[Codzilla]

I don't think he's saying that "their heart's not in it" or that "the rules don't...apply". Some couples endure the ridiculous cost and stress of a wedding to show, before their family and not necessarily God, that they are committed to one another as is customary or traditional to do. My point is that some people don't look at it like a religious practice, but rather a more meaningful representation than merely going into a courthouse and signing some papers. In this respect, the Priests and couples then have different intentions and that is why many of us differ in our reaction to or blaming of one or the other.

I take no issue with what you are saying here. I agree. It happens.

But a few people have pointed out that this was an Episcopalian wedding. If you look up the process, there is a series of personal meetings/interviews you have to undertake with the priest before he says "you're ready". If the B&G go into those meetings and don't say the right things, chances are the priest won't marry them in the church.

If they do say the right things, regardless of whether they mean them or not (I understand people do this all the time), and then it hits the fan later on, whose fault is it? Is it the couple's fault because they thought they were just jumping through the hoops and not really aware of what they were committing to? Or is it the priest's fault for letting the wedding go ahead by not ensuring the couple meets the spiritual requirements for marriage within the church he represents? Maybe it's Mom's and Dad's fault, for wanting little Susie to get married in the same church they were married in.

If the church remains fairly unchanging over time, and communicates their stance, you can't really blame them because "they're medieval". Blame yourself for choosing something medieval. Or better yet, rent an abandoned church and dress Uncle Festus up like a minister. The cameras won't know the difference. You could even talk him into wearing a GoPro on his head.

 

[Botts]

If the church remains fairly unchanging over time, and communicates their stance, you can't really blame them because "they're medieval". Blame yourself for choosing something medieval. Or better yet, rent an abandoned church and dress Uncle Festus up like a minister. The cameras won't know the difference. You could even talk him into wearing a GoPro on his head.

There's a lot of abandoned churches around here now that are maintained for the sole purpose of being non-denominational wedding venues.

I guess that's the benefit of not having a church, I can choose an officiant I know will follow what I want in a wedding, not what the church has been doing for centuries.

I like your GoPro idea. I'll definitely pitch this to my fiancé. That said, GoPros in some of the bridesmaids' and bride's (ninja edit to add) bouquets are definitely happening at my wedding.

 

[bleephotography]

If the church remains fairly unchanging over time, and communicates their stance, you can't really blame them because "they're medieval". Blame yourself for choosing something medieval. Or better yet, rent an abandoned church and dress Uncle Festus up like a minister. The cameras won't know the difference. You could even talk him into wearing a GoPro on his head.

I like your GoPro idea. I'll definitely pitch this to my fiancé. That said, GoPros in some of the bridesmaids' and bride's are definitely happening at my wedding.

Umm...just to clarify...did you mean in some of the bridesmaids...or on? Because if it's the first, you might want to look into the new HERO3+ with improved WI-FI

 

[Botts]

If the church remains fairly unchanging over time, and communicates their stance, you can't really blame them because "they're medieval". Blame yourself for choosing something medieval. Or better yet, rent an abandoned church and dress Uncle Festus up like a minister. The cameras won't know the difference. You could even talk him into wearing a GoPro on his head.

I like your GoPro idea. I'll definitely pitch this to my fiancé. That said, GoPros in some of the bridesmaids' and bride's are definitely happening at my wedding.

Umm...just to clarify...did you mean in some of the bridesmaids...or on? Because if it's the first, you might want to look into the new HERO3+ with improved WI-FI

Totally forgot to add bouquets originally

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I think the priest could have handled it better, e.g. request that photographers respect his personal space, but agree with I agree with takesome1 - it is annoying to have a couple of guys standing right behind you when you're trying to concentrate and do your thing.

Beyond that, I don't think it was a meltdown. He was stern and evidently a bit pissed off, but remained in control of himself.

 

[Pandypix]

I am really surprised the B & G ( mainly B) were able to contain their feelings, the Priest may be the one running the proceedings
but the whole day belongs to the B & G. I hope they have a wonderful honeymoon and life together with some great photos to
remember the day with.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

In my opinion of the youtube video, it was not a meltdown, but it was extremely unprofessional, and showed that the officiant felt he was the most important person in the room. He put the couple in a bad situation, and it showed. I would be asking him for a full refund if I were the couple.

I think it would have been funny if the groom took the mike off the priest and then announce what just happend..."Hey guys...you'll never belive what this Priest just said...." and then let the priest watch the scorn from the congregation....I'm pretty sure it would be the last time he did that!

Seriously, this priest has misrepresented himself and really needs to get a grip on his place and his ego. What would Jesus do? Probably not that....

 

[Codzilla]

"What would Jesus do?"

Interesting question. Google "moneylenders in the temple". It's mentioned in all four Gospels. Jesus was a man of principle, and probably had the odd meltdown to prove his point.

To paraphrase the story, the people of the time (including the priests, obviously) allowed more and more non-religious activity to occur on temple property, even inside the temple. The Bible is pretty clear on this being a no-no. The envelope probably got pushed a little further every year (this happened at Passover) until the temple looked more like a bazaar than a house of worship. Jesus saw this and flipped out in a major way, evening making a whip of cords to drive them out of the temple, along with their livestock. Doesn't sound too Jesus-y, does it?

If the event at the temple happened a few weeks ago and got posted to YouTube, I bet the reaction from news agencies (and on discussion threads) would be similar; i.e., that Jesus fella has anger issues, ego issues, and should have handled things better. In fact, he should be sued. After all, those are people's livelihoods he's messing with, and their temple sales at Passover represent the high point of their fiscal year.

I think how much people respect the religious wedding ceremony determines which side of the fence they land on this one.

 

[Northstar]

at the end of the day, the priest was wrong to deliver the message with the words he used, the look on his face, and the tone of his voice. it was all very unpleasant when it didn't need to be..

a smile, a firm yet polite request, and a gentle tone is what I would expect in that setting. I think that's what most people would expect from a priest, and that's why it's uncomfortable for many to watch.