Although the relationship of ministers and organists is often the brunt of bad jokes (as in likening the latter to a terrorist), it is in my experience the relationship of ministers and wedding photographers that is more fraught. The minister is trying to create, amongst all the kerfuffle, nerves, and formal dress, a sacred moment of meaning and commitment. The wedding photographer is trying to get the best shots possible. Not infrequently any way they can.

I’ve walked down the aisle to commence a service under the full glare of spotlights suddenly turned on bathing everything in white and whirring camera-clicking dervishes darting to and fro. Which would be tolerable if it just stopped with aisle walking. But those occasions often have the clicking brigade hanging out of the pulpit to get a better angle, or coming in close (thus blocking anyone else’s view) as a ring is placed on a finger. I cope by plastering on my resilient authentic-looking smile.

Of course, most wedding photographers are better than that, and I’m sure they havegot lots of stories to tell about grumpy ministers.

I’ve worked for the last 30 years in neo-Gothic churches, which are favoured by wedding couples. Nearly 40 years ago I too was married in a neo-Gothic church and I remember, with a touch of amazement, that the professional photographer we had did not enter the body of the church. He stood at the door and with a zoom lens took two photos – one of us exchanging rings, and one of us walking down the aisle afterwards. Most couples these days would be astounded, and probably appalled. Back then it was the norm.

Since those days I’ve worked with crews of five photographers at a time, tripods on wheels going up and down the aisles, all dressed in black with their converse sneakers, and shirts partially hanging out. I’ve taken weddings where I’ve been literally encircled by a dozen or more self-styled paparazzi flashing away, and where everyone loves it and I feel like a Martian.

Although different cultures and families understand photography differently, there has been over the decades a major cultural shift. There seems now to be a prevailing wisdom that for an event to be an event it needs to be photographed. Whether that event is sacred or solemn it still needs to be photographed. Social media too is part of this new milieu.

Of course, photographs are important. They can be shared with people who aren’t there. They can help us remember our feelings at the time. In the years ahead they can trigger memories and bring much joy. But would the event, the sacred occasion, still be rich without the photos?

Speaking of riches, photographers of the bright lights, tripods, and dervish variety don’t come cheap. After the reception venue they are probably the next biggest expense.

Well, something amazing happened the other week. I took a wedding. It was a normal looking wedding for 2025. Family, friends, children. Yes, probably half the couples getting married now have children. Everyone dressed up bright. Bridesmaids. Quite a few this time. Amicable parents. A dog present in the church, and at the reception. They'd booked an Irish pub for the after-match.With an Irish band to boot.

What was amazing is they didn’t have a photographer. Amateur or professional. Or a videographer. (Although there were phones out when they were dancing at the pub).

This couple had decided to step outside of what is now culturally expected. They leaned into a way of understanding sacredness as something unique, and in its uniqueness not to be captured in digital form. I did not influence their decision, and – despite what I’ve said above - if it was my wedding I probably would have had photos. But I was surprised and challenged by their decision. It made me ponder.

Then the next wedding I took there was a total power cut. So, no electric lights, heating, microphone, or organ. That too, in the cold and candlelight, was a memorable occasion.

 (Photo:Sean Molin www.seanmolin.com )

‍