Woman sued, shot wedding on Rebel XTi

[Sw1tchFX]

A woman got sued for shooting a clients wedding with a Canon Rebel XTi kit and was accused of delivering "inadequate results". The judge concurred. I think this is pretty funny, the photographer didn't even know how slow her 70-300 was.

This is why alot of people shouldn't shoot weddings...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs]YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer[/ame]


And the best part is that i'm pretty sure we've all seen worse!

[TPF Sponsor]

[NateWagner]

I've seen this before, but I also want to say that clearly Judge Brown doesn't really know what he's talking about.

I mean, her attitude was terrible, but what is with him talking about how most churches allow flash, and also, what was with his comments about using a tripod?

Pretty much everything he said was silly.

Obviously though she was not prepared for the wedding, and did a bad job, but also, what is with him giving 2500 when she only asked for 1k?

[O|||||||O]

but also, what is with him giving 2500 when she only asked for 1k?

Punitive damages I guess ... even though she didn't ask for it. That's probably the maximum amount that can be awarded in that court.

[NateWagner]

yeah, I guess, it's just that qualitatively all he could say about her shots that was wrong was that they looked soft (maybe) and that they wouldn't blow up bigger than 8x10.

This is for one, highly unlikely considering they were outdoors in plenty of sunlight. They were composed terribly, but I'm not sure the clarity had problems. and secondly who cares if the image can't be blown up bigger than 8x10, is that something that matters in this case?

Thirdly, they never mentioned a contract. Not once. Where is the contract saying, this is what I am giving you, and this is when I will be there etc.

Although I did find her lack of knowledge appalling, her main problem was her attitude. I did not see any problem with her photography that would give the judge cause to give her money, let alone 2500. Now, had they shown the terrible images of the ceremony then yes, I could see it, but otherwise the only complaint was not being able to blow up the images, and not using flash indoors.

[O|||||||O]

Well, it's not like we can really judge picture quality based on the video. We just have to take the judges word for it.

[BKMOOD]

Too funny. Lesson here: don't go into court acting like a damn fool -- it'll cost you. And it did. Whatever case the photographer may or may not have had was ruined by her big freakin' mouth! I would have awarded the maximum $5000. Dumb ass!

[NateWagner]

BKMOOD: oh, she was definitely an idiot.

Josh: yeah, we do have to take the judges word for it, but what I hear is that when she asked him about the images and what was wrong with them, all he could say was that they wouldn't blow up well.

[Dominantly]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (5 members and 1 guests) Dominantly, Cruisn, Dao, ekool , ghache


Yeah i have seen this video before, and I even posted it in that thread about the Nikon D40 being used to shoot weddings. I would be willing to bet that if a customer is dissatisfied with a wedding shoot, and the gear list is divulged showing a cheap consumer camera was used, the judge no matter the experience; will take it to the "pro".

[O|||||||O]

Looked it up, lol. I guess it's not actually a court, so there's no telling what the maximum might be. He is a real Judge though.

The photographer would have probably had a much better chance in a 'real' court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Brown_(judge)

"Judge Joe Brown" cannot properly be referred to as small claims, contrary to the show's setup. Like all television 'Judge shows', it is actually a form of binding arbitration.

[NateWagner]

Yeah, I would think you're right. It would probably be like if a person claimed to be a roofer and only did the roof with hammers and nails etc, and then charged by the hour instead of using good equipment. (I'm not sure that's a good example, but it's what I'm getting off the top of my head)

[KmH]

Judge Brown impressed me with his posturing.

[matfoster]

''A...S...A" lol

[Eco]

Granted it's a f'ing TV show but how about calling some expert witnesses and not some TV judge to see if the work is that of a professional.......only if the contract stated that professional pictures were part of the contract.

IMHO, it was a fun video to watch and maybe it's a warning lesson to some starting off but it's not the law or how it's really done in court.

[NateWagner]

Granted it's a f'ing TV show but how about calling some expert witnesses and not some TV judge to see if the work is that of a professional.......only if the contract stated that professional pictures were part of the contract.

I don't really think that you would need any sort of expert to tell if the images were those of a professional. Any professional work should look reasonably polished to the eye of someone who is not a photographer. In addition, the photographer should be able to easily produce images showing that what they provided was similar to what the client should have expected considering their prior portfolio.

The problem was that Judge Brown thought he knew (or acted like he knew) more about photography, and camera equipment than he obviously actually did. That or the fact that he knew more than the photographer was the problem.

I think that in a civil court like that, you should only have to prove to an average person that your photos were professional. I thoroughly believe for example that I would have no difficulty doing so with any wedding of mine, because I provided examples and the final images were similar in quality to the ones they had already seen.

[Dominantly]

These are also not held to the standard of "without a shadow of a doubt", more of "reasonable belief". The same goes for traffic court when you explain your side to the judge.