Woman sued, shot wedding on Rebel XTi

[PhotoXopher]

Like this one?
Canon 28-70 F2.8 L USM Lens - $1,075.00

A review:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/28-70

No I don't, but one does exist and it's an f/2.8 L series - so Mr. Brown does know his glass, at least up to when he stopped his hobby. She really should have had a comparable lens to counter his question. Judge Brown, I do not have a Canon 28-70 but I do have 'insert comparable lens here'. But no... 2 kit lenses, both f/3.5-5.6 probably. I'm going to be an unpaid second shooter this summer for 2 weddings and even I wanted better glass than she has had for 100's of weddings. - Just saying.

[TPF Sponsor]

[Overread]

lol @ "where is your 28-70?"


I know there is a 28-70mm lens, but it's made by Sigma. I'm guessing that he meant to say 24-70?


All I know is that if someone is charging $1300 for a wedding shoot, they'd better have gear that costs at least as much.

Prices grabbed from amazon.com
Sigma 70-300mm - $209.00
Canon XSi plus kit lens $649.99 (assuming most rebel camera bodies are of similar price upon release)

So around $850 so far without adding in a tripod - ok its only another $15 I suspect. But add in that those are webprices not highstreet (which I would expect at least another $50ish on top). So she is almost there in pricing matters.

She said she's done hundreds of weddings without any complaints. quick math: 200 x $1,300 = $260,000. I would think she could afford some better gear.

Oh yes true and one would have expected her to have learnt a lot more over that time (like to bring a reflector at least) and things like the 50mm f1.8. One can quite easily take apart her setup with basic points. However it was not for the judge to do at that point in the case - he jumped the gun (like most hotfire people on a forum would) and went straight into gear attack mode

[NateWagner]

Robert: Both Canon and Nikon have made a 28-70. Canon's (as shown in the post above) was the precurser to the newer 24-70. That focal length was the industry standard until the 24-70 came along.

[bennielou]

Ok, I'm gonna get a lot of guff, but you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment. And what does she mean she doesn't know her settings?????

[robertwsimpson]

I stand corrected.

The point remains... professional status requires professional equipment. Sure, you can take great pictures with an XTi. I used that exact camera/lens setup and took photos that I shocked myself with once I really learned how to make it work for me. I would never have shot a wedding with that camera (even as a backup), let alone charged that kind of money to do so. The problem is that you can take consistently decent photos with an XTi under good conditions. You might luck into just the right situation to make a really great photo. That is why it is a great hobbiest's camera. With a full frame camera, you're making the limitations of the equipment less limiting. With L glass, you're guaranteeing that all of your photos look good (I'm assuming the person behind the camera knows what he's doing) and the really good ones even better. This is what people expect when they contract with a wedding photographer. No matter how much they spend, they're expecting drop dead gorgeous photos. If they spend $1300, they're expecting even a little bit more.

[Overread]

Robert that is certianly a very valid point and its one that many would agree with in the photographic world. However there are those (who live outside of internet photography forums) who do and will work with lesser gear. Some are amazing and others are not - whichever kind they are they are still only able to be measured against the quality of their output.

Ask yourself if the photographer had been using a 1D and a 24-70mm heck even a 50mm f1.2 and a full set of strobes would people be so quick to bash against her - even if she still didn't know the aperture of her lens? I guess some would flip the coin and say its a rich fool with good gear - but so far most of what people (And what the judge) have said is use pro gear

My argument is only that the judge didn't measure the previous output against the current in the trial - that is all anyone in a similar position could be measured upon based upon the complaint raised against her.

[astrostu]

Okay, first, the photographer was in the wrong, I think to hold herself as a pro and shoot with a Rebel and not know what settings she used and for not coming prepared for no flash in a church. She's wrong to do that.

That said, I do not like JJB. I think his posturing is closer to Springer than what you should see in a court room. I tried to watch him once and around the 4th case I saw he just sat back and laughed while the defendants and plaintiffs had a shouting match for about 30 seconds. In this case, I don't think he actually allowed the defendants to give their side of the case, even though I don't think it could have saved them. The claim of the defendants that the corners were blurry because they did that in post-processing could be perfectly legitimate, though they should have offered the shots without that effect as evidence. The Rebels are perfectly capable of producing rather large prints without sharpness issues, and his claim of an 8x10 being pixelated probably had more to do with the printer or the resolution at which they sent the photo to the printer rather than the camera.

Oh, and as for these TV judge shows - while arbiters and not "real courts," the rulings are still legally binding. They are capped by the maximum amount of small claims courts in the plaintiff's jurisdiction, as well (usually $5k, sometimes $3k and more rarely $7k).

[Hamtastic]

And if she'd used the judge's suggested gear list, or had a $1,000,000 B & H shopping spree does anyone actually think the photos would have been better? Considering that most of the wedding photos ever taken have been made using cameras that are incredibly crude compared to today's entry level DSLRs I contend that if you can't shoot a wedding with an XTi having a 1D isn't going to help you.

[Christie Photo]

...you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment.

uhhhh... I bet I could. AND, I bet you could too!

I'm presuming the camera has a manual mode. If so, I think most of us here with any mileage could pull it off.

-Pete

[robertwsimpson]

...you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment.

uhhhh... I bet I could. AND, I bet you could too!

I'm presuming the camera has a manual mode. If so, I think most of us here with any mileage could pull it off.

-Pete

Do you think you could provide $1300 worth of results?

[Christie Photo]

Do you think you could provide $1300 worth of results?

Really... yeah.

Like Hamtastic was saying, I've shot a bunch of weddings with a lot less when you consider today's equipment.

For me, photography has always been about lighting... having the right kind of light and using it properly.

I will confess.... I would REALLY RESIST shooting a wedding with a 35mm film camera.

-Pete

[Joves]

...you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment.

uhhhh... I bet I could. AND, I bet you could too!

I'm presuming the camera has a manual mode. If so, I think most of us here with any mileage could pull it off.

-Pete

Do you think you could provide $1300 worth of results?

Sure most of us could who know how to use equipment. It is the case of if you gave a real pro a cheap camera and, a novice the best, the pros shots would look great, while the novices would still be mediocre at best. Hell you could probably hand somebody who knew what they were doing a P&S and, their images would still look better.

I saw this one awhile ago and, the supposed phtotgrapher was stupid and, got what she deserved. I saw her website and was amazed people booked her after seeing that.

[Aayria]

Do you think you could provide $1300 worth of results?

Really... yeah.

Like Hamtastic was saying, I've shot a bunch of weddings with a lot less when you consider today's equipment.

For me, photography has always been about lighting... having the right kind of light and using it properly.

I will confess.... I would REALLY RESIST shooting a wedding with a 35mm film camera.

-Pete

Oh my goodness.. This is completely off subject, but you actually had a bride and groom WATER SKI on their wedding? LOL! Your website is beautiful I especially loved the one of the bride twirling with her boquet- where you achieved a faint blur in a circle around her, but still kept the bride in perfect focus!

Hope I'm not embarassing, but I had to comment, gorgeous work!

[ghpham]

lol @ "where is your 28-70?"


I know there is a 28-70mm lens, but it's made by Sigma. I'm guessing that he meant to say 24-70?


All I know is that if someone is charging $1300 for a wedding shoot, they'd better have gear that costs at least as much.

Prices grabbed from amazon.com
Sigma 70-300mm - $209.00
Canon XSi plus kit lens $649.99 (assuming most rebel camera bodies are of similar price upon release)

So around $850 so far without adding in a tripod - ok its only another $15 I suspect. But add in that those are webprices not highstreet (which I would expect at least another $50ish on top). So she is almost there in pricing matters.

She said she's done hundreds of weddings without any complaints. quick math: 200 x $1,300 = $260,000. I would think she could afford some better gear.

If I could perform 100's of wedding with the same gear without complaints, I wouldn't be buying better gear either. After all, it's just a mean to achieve the end result.

[Live_free]

I would counter sue the judge himself for excessive charges and ask for a new judge due to obvious personal bias... js

Also with no signed document saying they would deliver a "Pro" job there is no proof of that promise.