I’ve not quite heard… sorry, I’d like to start this post again. Photographers, I’d be genuinely interested to receive your feedback on this one. Tweet me, post a message here, or just plain old fashioned DM me through the various social media outlets I have. So, to continue. I’ve not quite heard either the legally appropriate or correct reasoning for not allowing photography during the register signing. To date, here are the reasons; you could jog the signatory, your clicks will put them off, it’s a data protected document (which doesn’t work at all in that I photograph on the plain), it’s illegal to photograph during signing of a document like this. Actually I’m not sure that Chinese whispers haven’t conspired to muddy the waters on what the real reasons are for the prohibition of register pictures. For instance, today I was permitted to sign the whole process of the signing. In a church only a week ago, the vicar invited me to make photographs during the signing. In London the relaxed attitude to photography during this moment is well documented. If you think about it, the most important signatory pictures are well documented. I give you ends of wars, showbiz monikers and peace agreements. So the idea of not being able to make a picture of two people signing their agreement to spend a life together is somewhat odd. So why, the mixed messages? I don’t know? I’d like to share this though. For me, this is indicative of the reason for photographing the ACTUAL signing, and not the recreated moment that features a document that is brought in as the ‘stunt item.’ I can’t understand why photographers of reasonable standing can’e be trusted to just, do their thing. This is gold. This is reality, authenticity. And it simply can’t be recreated.
Shot data: focal length 35mm, f2, 1/125, ISO 1600, under-exposed by a stop