Can we discuss requests for an “offline/unplugged” wedding?

[EmseB]

Just now, Quill said:

I agree with that, but I do think Aunt Maude has a right to have her own pictures of the event. Certainly not getting in the way of the paid photographer or jumping the important moment to be the first one to get it on FB or whatever. But just the fact of taking a picture? I think Aunt Maude is allowed. 

The problem is when everyone is Aunt Maude and there are 100 Aunt Maudes wanting pictures of every special moment at the wedding. And there's a professional photog whom Aunt Maude can patronize, or the actual wedding couple whom she can contact for the photos she wants.

I think this would be different than Aunt Maude asking for a quick selfie or something with the B&G or other family at the reception. It's all the Aunt Maudes trying to take a photo of the bride coming down the aisle or the first kiss or whatever. I don't think she has a right to that as a guest at their event if they've asked for photos of those things to be left to the photographer specifically so that they don't have a bunch of photos of their guests trying to take photos of their important moments at their own wedding.

[Shoeless]

I kind of understand the "No phones, no pics during the wedding!" rule.  My sibling is one of those people that takes a zillion pics at other people's events and then immediately posts them on line.  She is forever stealing someone else's thunder because she wants to be the first to "congratulate the new couple!" and splash their photos all over facebook.  Same for new baby pics, engagement announcements, etc. 

Not everyone wants to live their life on social media. Some people are very careful and selective in what they want posted on social media because of security reasons (crazy ex, crazy relatives, etc).  They also may have jobs that require a low profile.  Twenty-five years ago, no one would have been the wiser if you acted a fool at your cousin's wedding, but thanks to social media *everyone* will know immediately.  I don't need my co-workers seeing me shoveling in wedding cake and doing the chicken dance.  

[TechWife]

21 minutes ago, Quill said:

I wasn’t saying the photos were staged to look that way, I said they were framed to make it look worse than the actual experience is likely to be. I’ll see if I can post my Mona Lisa photos because that is a good example of framing that shows the absurdity of the problem. But if I had been willing to wade through the people to get my turn right in front of the famous art, the photo I took would not have captured the absurdity of the scene.

Professional photographers take hundreds of photos that people never see. They do this to make sure that they get good shots - that they don't miss the "moment" and so that they can make camera adjustments as the event unfolds.  For example, the newly married couple coming back down the aisle? They start shooting photos when the couple turns around and starts down, not just when they are nicely framed in the aisle. I have no doubt that these photos were not "framed" to look worse than the actual experience, but were just taken in the normal course of the photographer's work. The photographer saw Aunt Maude's behind through the lens, then had to jockey with Aunt Maude to get a good shot. A professional photographer shouldn't have to wade through a crowd of amateur photographers to do the job he/she was hired to do.

[Katy]

I'm 100% on the side of the couple on this.

[Shoeless]

And as for Aunt Maude's "right" to photos: Aunt Maude can do whatever she wants with photos of herself, but other people are not props in Aunt Maude's production of "Family Wedding 2019".  She's not entitled to photograph, (and post on social media; because that's where these photos are headed, and not to an album to sit on an end table), everyone around her.  

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I don’t think anyone has the right to a photo of any private event that they are not hosting. If Aunt Maude wants pictures, she can get a business card from the photographer and buy them, just like the bride & groom are doing. 

I think that’s harsh. I bring my camera to weddings and want pictures of the event in my own collection of photos. I’m a good photographer and have nice equipment and I intend to have several pictures of the wedding in my own collection. Of course I would never block or hamper the paid photographer(s). But to be *unable* to have any momento photos from a niece or nephew’s wedding, except by purchasing them from the photographer? I really think that’s yucky. 

[TechWife]

Just now, Quill said:

I think that’s harsh. I bring my camera to weddings and want pictures of the event in my own collection of photos. I’m a good photographer and have nice equipment and I intend to have several pictures of the wedding in my own collection. Of course I would never block or hamper the paid photographer(s). But to be *unable* to have any momento photos from a niece or nephew’s wedding, except by purchasing them from the photographer? I really think that’s yucky. 

But you aren't the decision maker. It isn't your event, you are not the host/hostess, so you don't get to decide whether or not you get to take pictures. You are a guest, there for the purpose of celebrating a marriage, not for the purpose of taking pictures. You can purchase pictures from the professional photographer if you want your own collection of photos. As my mom told me "Wanting something doesn't mean you're getting something."

[TechWife]

7 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

...other people are not props ...

This is a great way of putting it.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, TechWife said:

But you aren't the decision maker. It isn't your event, you are not the host/hostess, so you don't get to decide whether or not you get to take pictures. You are a guest, there for the purpose of celebrating a marriage, not for the purpose of taking pictures. You can purchase pictures from the professional photographer if you want your own collection of photos. As my mom told me "Wanting something doesn't mean you're getting something."

Well, it’s food for thought. I will be thinking about this conversation the next time I attend a wedding, but it does seem unimaginable to me to have zero pictures of my own that I took at a nephew or niece’s wedding. I think those that I already have are absolutely precious. There have been instances where someone loved one of my photos very much and asked for copies which would be very expensive from a pro but are not when your aunt took it. 

[Kassia]

25 minutes ago, Quill said:

Well, it’s food for thought. I will be thinking about this conversation the next time I attend a wedding, but it does seem unimaginable to me to have zero pictures of my own that I took at a nephew or niece’s wedding. I think those that I already have are absolutely precious. There have been instances where someone loved one of my photos very much and asked for copies which would be very expensive from a pro but are not when your aunt took it. 

 

We have no candid pics from our wedding and I wish we did.  I'm not happy with the ones our professional photographer took and think guests could have taken some fun or special pics that we would have treasured.  

[happi duck]

I have always found it strange when other people are trying to take the "official" type photos for themselves.  I can only imagine it is so much worst now.

I'm sure people with true phone needs could keep their phone on and duck out to check on the babysitter etc.  They wouldn't need to sit there angry and not checking on their kids.  

[GoodGrief]

I've definitely had people jump in front of me in the aisle when I am photographing a wedding. I think they just get excited and forget. Grandpa with a phone totally blocked the cool shot of the bride coming down the aisle with mountains in the background at the last wedding.

It's pretty ugly too to see all the phones out in the photos of the bride/wedding party coming up the aisle. Sign of the times, but not attractive. I get it when if the couple getting married wants to avoid that.

[GoodGrief]

47 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Also, as the wedding photographer, I never ever had any problem going to anyone and gently saying "Um, excuse me, you are in my way" and waving my camera at them if necessary.  Most often, it's not even necessary.  Most often, a simple "excuse me" is good enough to make people sheepisly shrink back into their seats, realizing they are in the way and their niece/nephew/aunt/whoever is going to be irked if they totally ruin a shot.

 

ETA: don't get me wrong, there are totally times where a guest jumps in at JUST the wrong moment, or all the phones are distracting the bride/groom/ring bearer/maid of honor/whoever and you end up with shots that have everyone's eyeballs all over or someone is *just* in the way of the shot of slipping the ring on the bride's finger or whatever.  But most of those shots in that link aren't really like that.  

 

I don't know, I think it's pretty tough to get people to move quickly during the processional. The other time that I have problems is during the first dance. People blocking the photographer, or just the glowing phones everywhere. Again, it's a sign of the times, and some people like that. It looks "real". But it does take away from the romantic look of those images.

I'll add one more thing. For group photos, it's tough to get everyone looking the right way when there are multiple cameras in play. I had no idea what a problem this was until I got involved with weddings. People really get distracted and unsure where to look.

Edited October 20, 2019 by GoodGrief

[LMD]

6 hours ago, Quill said:

I can see that being a sensible instance, but the contexts I have seen it so far is sort of more Luddite - down with tech! Let’s be old-fashioned! Kind of like that. 

It's very hipster, often goes with a bearded* and sockless (cropped pants) groom...

My sister had no phones for photos at her wedding last year. They say it in a nice way 'we are just so thrilled to share the day with yoooouuuu' so I didn't take any photos. It was okay, in the realm of minor eyebrow raise but not actual annoyance. All the extraneous people in my life who know my sister but didn't go (my children and inlaws) were quite disappointed that I had no photos to share.

It did seem to involve the photographer, though I have no idea if it was a contract. The photographer put all the photos up on a link a couple of weeks later, and we could download any we wanted.

*My (lovely) brother in law doesn't have a beard 😄

Edited October 20, 2019 by LMD

[GoodGrief]

3 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

I disagree, especially if you, a guest at my event, are carrying around a large high quality camera. Your family may be fine with your habit, and we don’t know, maybe ask you to do this? But I’m guessing not every new in-law family member would be happy to see you there doing this. I’m not trying to be mean, just to give you a reality check.

If you take a vacation, go out to a nice location, those are things you do of your own volition and on your own dime. Someone else’s hosted event? Don’t consider yourself an exception to the host’s request. 

Most weddings, there's going to be a family member or friend with the big camera. Sometimes the family is on board with it, sometimes not. It's the big cameras that are most distracting to subjects during the group photos, and it's shockingly common for those family members to shoot over the hired photographer's shoulder.

[Catwoman]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I wasn’t saying the photos were staged to look that way, I said they were framed to make it look worse than the actual experience is likely to be. I’ll see if I can post my Mona Lisa photos because that is a good example of framing that shows the absurdity of the problem. But if I had been willing to wade through the people to get my turn right in front of the famous art, the photo I took would not have captured the absurdity of the scene. 

At performances like Les Mis, I haven’t ever seen that happen and they typically prohibit photos or videoing due to pirating concerns. 

I do agree with you that a courteous guest is not making a nuisance of themselves as you described. So far, though, I haven’t seen that type of thing. I have attended weddings, funerals and events in which people seem to collectively know to silence their phones and that now is not the time for a photo or a SM post. 

 

I guess you and I must know the same people and go to the same places and events, because I haven’t seen any of this horrendous, rude, and inconsiderate behavior that others are mentioning, either. 🙂

And I have never seen anyone try to record a Broadway play. I can’t imagine that the person wouldn’t have immediately been asked to either put their phone or camera away, or leave the theater. 

[Catwoman]

8 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

I disagree, especially if you, a guest at my event, are carrying around a large high quality camera. Your family may be fine with your habit, and we don’t know, maybe ask you to do this? But I’m guessing not every new in-law family member would be happy to see you there doing this. I’m not trying to be mean, just to give you a reality check.

If you take a vacation, go out to a nice location, those are things you do of your own volition and on your own dime. Someone else’s hosted event? Don’t consider yourself an exception to the host’s request. 

 

I don’t think Quill would insist on taking pictures if someone asked her not to do it. I think she was just saying that she enjoys taking pictures, and it would be annoying if a bride and groom had a “no photos” rule. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I don’t think Quill would insist on taking pictures if someone asked her not to do it. I think she was just saying that she enjoys taking pictures, and it would be annoying if a bride and groom had a “no photos” rule. 

Exactly. I would never try to be an exception to the rule, whether with my DSLR camera or with a phone or ipad. So far, I haven’t attended a wedding with that rule. I have, though, attended two nieces weddings in which I didn’t get ceremony pictures because of logistical reasons. (In one instance, the venue was too tiny and even the pro photographer barely had enough room; the other it was too dark for where I was seated.) ETA: opps, I didn’t mean to post yet! I meant to say, it is sad to me to not have photos from those two weddings, none of my own. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Quill

[Catwoman]

11 minutes ago, GoodGrief1 said:

Most weddings, there's going to be a family member or friend with the big camera. Sometimes the family is on board with it, sometimes not. It's the big cameras that are most distracting to subjects during the group photos, and it's shockingly common for those family members to shoot over the hired photographer's shoulder.

 

Wow. I have never seen anyone do that — what a rude thing to do! 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

Wow. I have never seen anyone do that — what a rude thing to do! 

In the most recent wedding I attended, IMO the worst problem with the photographer was he didn’t have strong abilities in directing people. So, after the wedding, when a couple family members wanted pictures of family together at the alter site, the awkward part was people yelling out, “Oh, someone go find Aunt Betty!” Or, “Josh! You gotta be in here!” The photographer was weak on directing the group, so it was chaotic for those few minutes. I don’t yet know how those photos turned out. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

I don’t think Quill is a rude type! But I do think that many of us, in many ways, have habits and practices that we don’t realize may be upsetting to others. Sometimes we need to hear from others that a certain practice isn’t welcome. 

We can tell from her words that Quill loves her family and cherishes their special events! But she specifically asked what we thought about photography at weddings and that’s the opinion I’m sharing about. If Q’s family is fine with her photography, great! But new brides/grooms to the family may feel differently and their wishes should be honored. That’s all I’m saying. 

I appreciate your post. It is definitely a possibility I’m going to be considering the next time I go to a wedding. I wasn’t at all worried in the most recent one because my sister said, for the shower, “oh, I’m glad you brought your camera; I was hoping you would take pictures.” (I grant you, that was the shower, not the wedding, but stilll...it crossed my mind, with my sister’s personality, that she may have thought the same way for the wedding.) 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

One thing I wanted to say too....at my cousin's wedding..............I didn't even bring my big camera.  I didn't want to be a "photographer" I just wanted to have fun (instead, I was "a parent" which is a role I signed up for when I gave birth to my children, but it's also different than "a guest.")

ITA; I have done that with many different parties or events. Unless I knew someone was counting on me to document, I either brought my camera and tripod only for some big group photos along the line, or else just stashed the camera and enjoyed the event. 

[GoodGrief]

21 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

I haven't ever had a problem, but honestly, I find processionals and ceremonies.............well a lot of hurry up and wait.  I mean, a bridesmaid might take 5 minutes to get down the aisle.  I only need ONE of those shots.  Unless there's a very special reason to capture a lot of shots of a particular person, I have a lot of chances to capture each bridesmaid and groomsman coming down the aisle.  Same thing with the bride and groom.  One shot at the entrance to the aisle, one shot from the front coming down the aisle, one shot from the back going down the aisle and one shot at the end....and honestly, that's all anyone's looking for.  Unless the aisle is like 3 steps long....there are a lot of steps for me to capture that and if someone messes up 2 of the 20 I shoot during the 75 step walk (or whatever it is, you get the idea.)  Really, I spend a lot of a ceremony actually looking for shots to take because there are only so many shots to be had in a ceremony.  (and I am a single shooter, I haven't ever hired a second shooter yet.  Not because I don't want to, but because I don't shoot......large enough lol.)

I totally agree about the "multiple cameras" and getting everyone looking.  One thing I learned from the photographer at my own wedding, back in 2002, (which he shot on film ) was to give everyone else a minute to fire their cameras (and back then it was the disposables and the 110s) and then turn around, say something like "Ok, my turn" and then get your own shot.  I wasn't even shooting weddings then, but I have used that technique at every wedding I have shot since then and it works really well.  

 

I think five minutes to get down the aisle would be pretty unusual 🙂 That said, people aren't typically stepping out into the aisle and stepping back in. They are taking video of the processional (or whatever the event is.) They don't mean to be rude, they just aren't thinking. Some moments are truly just a moment. The shot I referenced earlier, with bride perfectly positioned with mountains behind was a brief second. It is what it is, and if the couple doesn't care, I don't mind. But it does bother some of them later.

I'll add too that there are people who think they are fine shooting from the other end of the aisle, forgetting that they become a distracting element in the background of the shot.

Edited October 20, 2019 by GoodGrief

[GoodGrief]

12 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

And while the photographer (also a single shooter) was composing, I was directing people in the details.  

Was it planned with the photographer that you would direct the details?

[Wheres Toto]

55 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I guess you and I must know the same people and go to the same places and events, because I haven’t seen any of this horrendous, rude, and inconsiderate behavior that others are mentioning, either. 🙂

And I have never seen anyone try to record a Broadway play. I can’t imagine that the person wouldn’t have immediately been asked to either put their phone or camera away, or leave the theater. 

Broadway plays are extremely strict with not taking pictures.  You bring your camera/phone out for a quick shot and it's likely to be confiscated.  The ushers often stand to the sides looking for this very thing.   I can't imagine someone managing to hold it up in the air and record for any length of time without being escorted out.

The thing that made me think the pictures in the link were deliberately framed was that in many of them the focus was on the guests, not on the couple.  If the photographer is that bad at focusing, they need a new photographer.  

[frogger]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

Well, it’s food for thought. I will be thinking about this conversation the next time I attend a wedding, but it does seem unimaginable to me to have zero pictures of my own that I took at a nephew or niece’s wedding. I think those that I already have are absolutely precious. There have been instances where someone loved one of my photos very much and asked for copies which would be very expensive from a pro but are not when your aunt took it. 

 

Although I can't help but think of the second wedding I went to last summer where the entire second pew had a phone or Ipad up in the air during the ceremony, I don't think this would be you because you seem considerate. I doubt you'd step out in the aisle and block the professional photographer from getting the bride and groom being presented or something like that.

 

It may be your niece or nephew might appreciate your pictures if you are being considerate. If they don't ask you to do otherwise I don't see why you shouldn't bring your camera. You already stated you would follow the request if asked.

 

A lot of rules get made because there are people who just don't seem able to think about how they are affecting others around them or don't care. Phone use during driving, destruction of farmer's fields due to selfie takers, heck I thought I was going to get trampled last times I was in the lower 48 due to a group stopping point blank smack dab in the middle of traffic as a train car emptied. There was no where for traffic to go since the people wanting on were lining the sides,  and I was literally being shoved from behind while the phone people had no clue they were affecting 70-80 people. Just clueless that they should step away from the doors and move to a wall before stopping and checking their phone.

 

People who have little self control or thoughtfulness for others inspire other people to want to make rules.

[HS Mom in NC]

I get and support no photos during the ceremony because it's distracting to others trying to enjoy the ceremony.  I routinely turn my phone off at movie theaters, church services, music performances amateur and professional, so I think it's well within social norms in the US. (If not, let me know where it isn't, I'm curious about that.) Outside of the actual ceremony it seems to me to be overbearing to dictate what guests do with their phones.

Also, if you have a no kids wedding, you need to allow parents to check in with sitters, and remember that people with fragile elders need to be in constant communication with elders and elder caretakers. They can put it on vibrate for the ceremony, but they need to be able to hear it before or after the ceremony when things are more hustling and bustling.

I don't see any reason to keep photos off of social media before relatives post them in real time.  It's a wedding celebration, not a top secret government project whose acknowledgement needs to be carefully timed.

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Where's Toto? said:

Broadway plays are extremely strict with not taking pictures.  You bring your camera/phone out for a quick shot and it's likely to be confiscated.  The ushers often stand to the sides looking for this very thing.   I can't imagine someone managing to hold it up in the air and record for any length of time without being escorted out.

The thing that made me think the pictures in the link were deliberately framed was that in many of them the focus was on the guests, not on the couple.  If the photographer is that bad at focusing, they need a new photographer.  

 

I agree completely.  🙂

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, Catwoman said:And I have never seen anyone try to record a Broadway play. I can’t imagine that the person wouldn’t have immediately been asked to either put their phone or camera away, or leave the theater. 

Full disclosure, they were quickly told by at least 5 people to turn it off. But the point is, no one should need to be told they aren’t the exception to the rule.

[Murphy101]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

Sure, no one should "need" to be told.

 

But there are eleventy billion people who DO need to be told, whether they "should" need to be told or not.  

Well obviously or we wouldn’t have this thread going. 

The point is not whether we agree with the rule, the point is that the rules are decided by the host and the venue and one should either respect that or not attend.

It doesn’t matter if we agree with how they are handling it or if where we come from it’s done differently - respect the occasion or don’t go.

If doesn’t matter if we agree with their view of privacy  or social media - we don’t get to decide that for other people.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Well obviously or we wouldn’t have this thread going. 

The point is not whether we agree with the rule, the point is that the rules are decided by the host and the venue and one should either respect that or not attend.

It doesn’t matter if we agree with how they are handling it or if where we come from it’s done differently - respect the occasion or don’t go.

If doesn’t matter if we agree with their view of privacy  or social media - we don’t get to decide that for other people.

Well, that’s why I love this forum, because I can bring a discussion question like this here before I have to actually respond to it IRL. I haven’t yet been to a wedding with this request, but the things discussed in this thread give me something to think about whether the request is made or not and, at least now, if the request is made, I have numerous examples of people who think it’s a good idea because = people. So, at least if this request turns up somewhere in my life, I can reflect on the benefits to the couple instead of just feeling disappointed at what that means for me. 

[HS Mom in NC]

Now that I think about it, it's not legal to post images of foster kids online for legal reasons.   Outside of that example, I have a very hard time seeing how anyone at a crowded venue can keep themselves or their kids out of pics.  Notice, this is not a philosophical question, this is a practical one.  With scores of people crowded all around it would be challenging to isolate only my kids or loved ones in a pic.  It's just like at any crowded public venue such as Disneyland, the State Fair,  or the soccer game at the park full of people in the background, you take a pic/vid of your own kid, you're going to get other people in the shot no matter where you stand.  No one would expect you to get permission from everyone in the background before you post it online. Weddings would fall into this category.

I think you just have to get over the idea that you can be anonymous in public venues at all times anymore.  You can't.  I often warn my kids that no matter what they do, anyone nearby with a phone is able to  record and post what they're doing, so don't do anything they wouldn't want going viral. Whether or not you like or agree with it, I don't see how you can expect you or your children to never be in a picture you have no control over.  Now, if someone is trying to make money off of that image, I understand requiring signed release forms and such being required for advertising forums, but regular every day crowded special events are just going to come with cameras in hand.

[Murphy101]

38 minutes ago, Quill said:

I can reflect on the benefits to the couple instead of just feeling disappointed at what that means for me. 

THIS is what would make life a lot more tolerable for everyone - yes?  I think most people who can stop and think like this are usually not going to be the issue.

I don’t know about any of y’all, but I find humans disappointing all the time, so whether I agree or not, barring moral quandary, it just seems the kinder and lower stress thing to do.

[Murphy101]

13 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Now that I think about it, it's not legal to post images of foster kids online for legal reasons.   Outside of that example, I have a very hard time seeing how anyone at a crowded venue can keep themselves or their kids out of pics.  Notice, this is not a philosophical question, this is a practical one.  With scores of people crowded all around it would be challenging to isolate only my kids or loved ones in a pic.  It's just like at any crowded public venue such as Disneyland, the State Fair,  or the soccer game at the park full of people in the background, you take a pic/vid of your own kid, you're going to get other people in the shot no matter where you stand.  No one would expect you to get permission from everyone in the background before you post it online. Weddings would fall into this category.

I think you just have to get over the idea that you can be anonymous in public venues at all times anymore.  You can't.  I often warn my kids that no matter what they do, anyone nearby with a phone is able to  record and post what they're doing, so don't do anything they wouldn't want going viral. Whether or not you like or agree with it, I don't see how you can expect you or your children to never be in a picture you have no control over.  Now, if someone is trying to make money off of that image, I understand requiring signed release forms and such being required for advertising forums, but regular every day crowded special events are just going to come with cameras in hand.

one - weddings, from a state perspective, are not considered public venues. (Now from a catholic one, all masses are welcome to the public, even matrimonial masses.

two - um yes, I can tell my in laws to not post stuff directly about my kids. Not that it matters, they’ve never been interested in being grandparents to begin with. But also, requesting personal identifying info not be shared online is not the same as saying they have to pretend they don’t have grandchildren. If it matters, I’m not very strict about this. *I* share pics of my kids on FB and I used to blog rather frequently.  But there is a line for me and I’m rather firm on it most of the time. I tend to get more strict as the kids get older bc as they leave the cute blandness of early childhood, they should have the right to tell their own story and to decide on their own privacy to the random public. 

Three - no we can’t eliminate all photo opportunities. But there’s a big difference between my unnamed kid in a sea of background faces at a generic event and my kid, their full name, the day and the location of their particular outing and where they live or attend school or church or what all else for the entire world to use.   All all that balancing from A to Z is going to be different for everyone and we do not have to agree with it to respect it most of the time. 

[Junie]

I was just at my cousin's wedding last weekend.  It was my first "unplugged" wedding.  The officiant made an announcement at the beginning of the ceremony that phones should be put away so that we could all "be present with" the bride and groom.  I thought that it was very tastefully done.

Phones/cameras were permitted at the reception.

[marbel]

12 hours ago, Quill said:

<snip>

But, having been to weddings recently with young people, I have started thinking it’s a bit dictatorial and an anachronism. Young people communicate with their peers heavily through digital sharing. It’s just what they do. It actually does start to seem a bit selfish to dictate that nobody can use their phones in the way they are accustomed to and expected to. Many or most young people don’t even own a regular camera and aren’t that likely to even bring a real camera to a wedding; they would expect to use their phones. 

<snip>

I haven't read all the responses yet.  But I  keep re-reading this and my response keeps being:   So what?  So what that young people communicate through digital sharing? So what that a guest at a wedding can't instantly snapchat photos to their friends who aren't there?   If that would hinder their enjoyment of a wedding... well I don't even know what to say about that.  

Yeah, I am old.  But, unless there are some special circumstances, like a relative of bride or groom can't be there and would love to see photos in the moment... but if that were the case, the bride and groom would probably work out a way to accommodate that, right?

My daughter has been to several weddings this summer; I'm going to ask her what she thinks when I see her tomorrow. 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

18 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

one - weddings, from a state perspective, are not considered public venues. (Now from a catholic one, all masses are welcome to the public, even matrimonial masses.
How exactly is that technicality relevant to the practical issues of a large group of people at an event taking pics of their own loved one with yours in the background and posting pics of it without being expected to get the background people's permission to post it on social media? I mean general usage of public as in, "Not a private event at my house." When my cute kids are dancing at the wedding and other cute kids are in the background along with other people, I don't think it's at all realistic to expect me to ask every person in the shot if they're OK with me posting it.  

two - um yes, I can tell my in laws to not post stuff directly about my kids.
That's not the scenario my post is about.  Was it someone else in this thread talking about grandparents posting pics without parental consent?

Not that it matters, they’ve never been interested in being grandparents to begin with. But also, requesting personal identifying info not be shared online is not the same as saying they have to pretend they don’t have grandchildren. If it matters, I’m not very strict about this. *I* share pics of my kids on FB and I used to blog rather frequently.  But there is a line for me and I’m rather firm on it most of the time. I tend to get more strict as the kids get older bc as they leave the cute blandness of early childhood, they should have the right to tell their own story and to decide on their own privacy to the random public. 

Again, you must be responding to another post than mine, as I wasn't talking about personal identifying info.

Three - no we can’t eliminate all photo opportunities. But there’s a big difference between my unnamed kid in a sea of background faces at a generic event and my kid, their full name, the day and the location of their particular outing and where they live or attend school or church or what all else for the entire world to use.   All all that balancing from A to Z is going to be different for everyone and we do not have to agree with it to respect it most of the time. 

Once more, you must be addressing someone else's post because I wasn't talking about identifying info and location.

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, marbel said:

I haven't read all the responses yet.  But I  keep re-reading this and my response keeps being:   So what?  So what that young people communicate through digital sharing? So what that a guest at a wedding can't instantly snapchat photos to their friends who aren't there?   If that would hinder their enjoyment of a wedding... well I don't even know what to say about that.  

Yeah, I am old.  But, unless there are some special circumstances, like a relative of bride or groom can't be there and would love to see photos in the moment... but if that were the case, the bride and groom would probably work out a way to accommodate that, right?

My daughter has been to several weddings this summer; I'm going to ask her what she thinks when I see her tomorrow. 

 

My feeling about that was that it’s simply the normal manner of interacting for people in a young age range so it just seems anachronistic to try and eliminate that. It just seems to me like a constraint that doesn’t serve a purpose except to try and control all the media at a wedding. 

Although I do think a little bit differently about it now than when I wrote that sentence, now that I have seen respectful discussion about it here. But still it seems a little heavy-handed to face a group of young people and ask them to please keep their phones put away and silent for the duration at a social celebration. 

[Katy]

Re the foster care thing...  Group pictures or public pictures of a child in foster care can be posted in non-identifiable ways.  So no names.  No faces tagged.  And if the foster parents themselves post pictures or videos in a way that would make it easy to identify the child they must obscure the face and name.

[GoodGrief]

9 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Planned?  no.

 

Did Kelly say "oh, yeah, I forgot you have done this, yeah, can you ABC and XYZ"

Yeah, I was actually trying really hard NOT to get in her way lol.  I was mostly like "um, are you *sure*?"

 

ETA: We actually do know each other fairly well too....this photographer was a bridesmaid in my sister's wedding, we were friends as a kid, etc etc.  

 

Ah, if it was by the photographer's request, it makes sense 🙂 I was imagining a guest stepping in and trying to pose people to "help" the photographer.

[GoodGrief]

12 hours ago, Quill said:

Well, it’s food for thought. I will be thinking about this conversation the next time I attend a wedding, but it does seem unimaginable to me to have zero pictures of my own that I took at a nephew or niece’s wedding. I think those that I already have are absolutely precious. There have been instances where someone loved one of my photos very much and asked for copies which would be very expensive from a pro but are not when your aunt took it. 

 

FWIW, I do think the shift to unplugged weddings had much more to do with the ubiquitousness of cell phones and not so much about the random Relative-with-a-Big-Camera. In the past, people were unlikely to feel compelled to jump into the aisle, station themselves at the end of the aisle, or surround the dancing bride and groom, because they simply did not carry their point and shoots everywhere. And if the cameras were there, it would be unusual for them to glow in a distracting way.

In the end, if you are bringing your pro-quality camera to the wedding, it is courteous to check ahead of time with the couple to make sure that there is no part of their photography contract that prohibits it. Checking with the photographer directly would be a nice touch. At the very least, make sure you are not distracting wedding party/family by pulling them aside for photos during the time allotted for formals (which are typically run on a tight schedule so that the couple can get back to their guests), and stay out of the background of key shots.

You might find it interesting to read about the topic on various wedding photography forums., especially since you are a photographer yourself.

[mom@shiloh]

Well, I am old-fashioned. We have teen events at our house often and I have a general rule of 'no cell phone use'. I don't make them park their phones anywhere because I'd always want my kids to have access to their phone to call me if an uncomfortable situation arose at someone's house, but my principle is 'be with the people you're with'. In other words, be present. My guess would be that the 'no cell phone at the wedding' rule was there to address that situation more than to address the sharing of photos on social media. 

We had a group of exchange students over for dinner and most of them were glued to their phones the entire time and had no ability to make conversation. (They were all fluent in English.) To me, that's as rude as picking your nose at the dinner table. And, I'd feel the same way about people being on their phones at my wedding.

[Farrar]

I was thinking about this thread. It seems like the primary objection isn't to having cell phones at the event, but rather to taking photos and having them prominently out. Why not ban that instead of saying the whole wedding is "offline"?

Saying it's "offline" feels to me like a moral decision and like if you want to post about yourself at the wedding on social media or need to make a call or check your schedule during the full day typically that you're there, that you've somehow violated that imposed moral code. Saying, "No photos of the ceremony or event itself should be taken or posted on social media," seems beyond reasonable to me.

[Scarlett]

I have enjoyed this thread and learned a few things.  I am thinking I may have been one to take pics at weddings...I really can't remember....it has been a few years since I went to a wedding.  You can bet I will be more mindful in the future.  

If I was involved in a wedding in any way I would certainly encourage an announcement at the beginning to refrain from taking pics during the ceremony or of the bride and bridal party entering or exiting.

I have many many friends with foster kids and many who have adopted from foster.  Usually, once the adoption is final the parents are cool with their kids being on SM.  But a few weeks ago, I posted a pic of a 12 year old child of my good friend and I was asked to take it down.  I did not know but her birth parents had been stalking her, so no sm at all for this child.  

There are so many different situations in life....I think we just have to all be mindful of the individuals involved.

[J-rap]

My personal take on what an unplugged wedding is is that it's actually bigger than the details of it, like taking photos and putting them out there.   I don't mean in a "I am right and you are wrong" type of way, but simply about arranging the ceremony around what is important to them.   So, as I suggested earlier, I might put it in the same category of hosting an event that is environmentally friendly, or minimal.  Other examples might be to host an event that is vegetarian, or with a particular faith emphasis even.   (Or possibly even listing very specific items on a gift registry.)   It's true that putting away one's cell phone for a few hours suggests more of a burden on the guest than some of the other examples, but I don't think it's a very difficult burden.

I think the idea of "unplugged" simply encourages people to be present in the moment with the people you are with.  

If this is something that is important to the couple, I think they have every right to weave that into an event that is one of the most special, personal events they will ever host.  

I also would assume they'd be completely fine with using cell phones for common sense phone needs such as checking in with the babysitter, etc.  Because it's not really about these little random things, but the overall environment.

Anyway, that's how I would understand it, but I haven't read all of the responses in the middle of this thread, so I might be missing something that suggests otherwise.

[Jentrovert]

My thoughts on this (and anything else this morning) are kind of rambly and disorganized. 😁

My views on photos and social media aren't representative of the majority. For example, I kinda wish it were illegal to post photos of another person, or at least minors, online. (Yes, I know that is totally impractical. But I can still wish it. 😅) I allow my children to be photographed in groups, but I have asked friends to remove closeup photos from social media (very kindly, and I have a specific reason for this so friends have been understanding.) One of my children is particularly photogenic, and it greatly annoys me that dc is singled out for closeups by others (sometimes strangers).

It irks me that people can no longer simply enjoy anything; it must all be photographed and shared with everyone they know (and then everyone THEY know, and on and on.) I rarely participate in group photos of any kind. When I am absolutely unable to avoid it, I make sure I am in the back and barely visible. I could tolerate photos much better back when you took them and then got on with enjoying yourself,  3/4 of them were fuzzy, and you brought out the remainder once every couple years to reminisce with a small group of people. 

I don't think anyone has a "right" to be photograph or even be involved in anyone else's event or life experience, regardless of family relationship. 

As far as weddings, I think weddings are primarily about the couple, not family and friends, and if the couple wishes to share their day with others, then others should abide by their wishes or not attend. At the same time, the couple should realize that certain restrictions may mean others will choose not to attend. My wedding was not particularly enjoyable for me, because most of the things we did were for other people. Ideally, I'd get to have the wedding I want, and actually enjoy it, and you'd get to come or not. No hard feelings on either side. But that's not life. 🤷‍♀️

I got married just before social media really exploded. If I were getting married today, I would probably refuse to have a wedding involving more than a handful of people. And those would be people I could trust to respect my desire that no pics be posted on social media. But, I wish we'd had a very small wedding like that anyway. Photos and typical wedding stuff just isn't important to me.

Maybe it is just my area, but I've seen a number of pics of weddings posted by those attending. They all feature a sea of phones, in many cases people stepping into the aisle to get a full straight on shot of the bride walking down the isle, and many videos of the ceremony. Often posted as soon as they finish videoing. 

I realize that I'm very much in the minority, and I don't make a big deal of any of it irl.

I would be pleasantly surprised if an acquaintance requested an unplugged wedding ceremony. (Unplugged to me would mean, no pics.) I think it would be puzzling to most people I know, and I also think that a handful would take pics anyway. It doesn't really seem practical to expect no pics at the reception. Nor does it seem practical to have the ceremony truly unplugged (meaning no texting, nothing), although I personally wouldn't have a problem with it.

[happi duck]

When my nephew married their invite mentioned the type of dress. (Like black tie etc.  I can't remember exactly what it was.)  For reasons, I could not meet that level of formal dress.  I did the best I could but did not meet the level requested.  It was all okay.  I wasn't mad about the request and no one was mad I didn't have a dress etc.

If someone registers for gifts but I have something meaningful in mind I think they'll love I buy it (with a gift receipt).  I don't feel angry and "stuck" with the registry.

If I arrived at an unplugged wedding and had a compelling reason I needed to be reachable I would check my phone and duck out as needed.  If there were friends/family I hardly ever see at the wedding I could step out of the reception to take a photo with them.

I think unplugged is a reasonable request.  All the extreme "what about?!?" things seem to just be trying to make it seem unreasonable, imo.

Just my two cents!

[KungFuPanda]

If you can't get through an event without getting twitchy and longing to touch your phone, you may have a serious problem.  I think it would be sad to see a photograph of a reception with half the people looking at their phones.  I also think it's OK if the bride wants to be the first to post public photos of her own wedding.  Unless it's a wedding that lasts for three days, it shouldn't be a big deal to put your phone away.  

[Annie G]

Popping back to say that I’m wrong that people respect the couple’s privacy and there’s no need to announce no pics on social media during the wedding. A dear friend’s daughter got married Saturday (we now live 1000 miles away and didn’t attend) and I saw wedding pics on Facebook while the reception was still going on. I mentioned it to my friend this morning and  she was unaware the pics had been posted but she didn’t care at all. Said her daughter wouldn’t either.  But some brides definitely would, so I’m rethinking my position...I guess if it matters to the bride she should speak up. It’s impossible to undo after the fact.  

[DawnM]

On 10/20/2019 at 10:40 AM, Catwoman said:

 

It’s kind of funny, though, because before there were cell phones, people used to bring film cameras so they could take pictures. 

Maybe these couples are too young to remember that, though, and think their parents’ generation lived just like the folks from Little House on the Prairie... 😉

 

 

Then I would think they would say, "No drawing sketches or painting watercolors of the bride and groom" or even further back, "No chiseling out replicas of the bride and groom."