Dialogue: Photographic tyranny on the wedding day

The photographer was lying face down, spread-eagled on the road, his feet extended towards the town's water tanks, his head towards the open sea.

Twenty metres below him, fanning out across the tarseal and walking slowly up the hill in formation, came the wedding party. The camera was clicking at a furious rate. Thank God a car didn't come hurtling around the corner. There could have been a disaster.

My thought as I drove a longer route to avoid them was for the wedding guests. Would they be waiting three or even four hours for the bridal party to arrive at the reception so the meal could start?

Would they all be half-drunk by the time it started? Would the old people present last the distance?

I am all in favour of photographs being taken of weddings and any other memorable occasions. After all, didn't my grandparents get a photo taken after their wedding in 1897? And their marriage bore nine children and lasted until death did them part.

That their photograph was taken a year after the event merely reflected the distance they were from any sizeable town.

They also had this old-fashioned idea that the photographer wasn't the most important person on the wedding day, but that it would be nice to have a picture to hang on the wall.

Regrettably, their view is now out of date. For many, photographs of weddings are seen to be as important as the vows, the service, the meal, the gathering itself. It seems that every little movement on the day has to be recorded for posterity - from the first yawn in the morning to the last sigh at night.

This dominance of the photographer is a relatively new phenomenon. Partly it reflects the fact that wedding photographs can cost nearly as much as the rest of the day combined. Photographers can charge anything from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand for their efforts.

Rightly, for such inflated sums, they feel obliged to do the job properly. They don't want complaints afterwards. So they load up their equipment, pack in 1000 films and sail off to cover the big day.

My problem with the emergence of the photographer as a star performer is that, since most photographs are usually taken between the wedding and the reception, the guests can be left without the company of the bridal party for several hours at the very time they should all be mingling.



So by the time the wedding party arrives at the reception, having been photographed hanging from gliders, walking on precipices, doing handstands in the botanic gardens and walking up tarsealed hills, most guests are famished and half full of booze.

For a few, this is a desirable thing. But it spoils the event for many. At some weddings I've been to, the mutterings of guests about lateness have temporarily replaced the goodwill and bonhomie that weddings evoke.

And I blame the photographers. Ever since it became imperative that every sneeze be photographed, they have been taking an increasingly dominant role. In some instances, they conduct almost a tyranny; at times, they can hold the whole wedding to ransom.

I am all in favour of photographers covering weddings. I always welcome them and tell them they are free to take photos from wherever they wish provided they don't intrude on the ceremony or disrupt the guests. Most are friendly and accommodating.

But how many photographs are needed? Do people really need thousands? My grandparents needed only one. Times, of course, have changed. So I propose that maybe 20 or 30 or even up to 50 photographs should be taken.

This should provide a good record of all the major moments, including one of Uncle Harry making his speech and one of the flower girls dropping ice cream and pavlova down their fronts.

But it's the missing three hours after the ceremony that really needs to be addressed. I suggest a maximum of 30 minutes' driving time and 30 minutes' photography should be an acceptable span for any wedding party to be away from the guests.

Such a schedule would be respectful of the occasion and would enable guests to sit down and eat much earlier.

It would also enable the bride and groom to spend a lot more time mingling, would still give them enough photos to sink a small ship and would enable the wedding dance to start at a reasonable hour. All of which should save them a lot of money.

Who knows? It might even help the marriage to last longer.

* Father Jim Consedine, a Lyttelton parish priest, has been a marriage celebrant for more than 30 years.