For newbie wedding photographers..

chammer · Mar 3, 2010

in relation to not knowing what her lenses were capable of, she also didnt seem to have a clue what iso was either. i cant watch the youtube video (im at work) to refresh my memory, but i believe he also asked her about flashes and she didnt have/use any, and it was quite obvious a couple of the shots could have used at least some fill.

to me she came off as the stereotypical "mom with a camera" that thought she could get by with a consumer camera and a kit lens because it was a "dslr" and thats professional in and of itself...right? just put it on the green box, point, and click. $1300 richer...or maybe not.

that said, however, i would love to see the images either on a website or in person. im curious what they really looked like. there were a couple on tv that looked fairly decent, but its impossible to tell at that resolution.

Derrel · Mar 3, 2010

Wow--who knew Judge Joe Brown knew about photography??? It was almost comical to see the way he took command. I was shocked to hear the Judge grilling the photographer and her assistant with phrases like ,"Canon Digital Rebel XTi with an EF-S 18-5 lens on this?" and later , "that's just about the cheapest lens you can get,"

When the hapless photo said she also brought the, " 70-300 that we have too," and the judge asked her, "What speed is it," and the photographer answered, "I don't know," I knew she was sunk.

"Where is your 28-70?" "What happened to your 1-series?" Wow, the judge knows his stuff!!! He knew what would have really helped in tough, indoor low light.

The $2,500 judgment against a $1,300 wedding was a slight surprise to me. When the defendent did not know what speed her 70-300 lens was, I knew she was headed for trouble, but when the judge started throwing around Canoj product names like "7D, five D" and asking questions like "What aperture did you use?" I knew he knew more than the "photographers" who were being sued. When the Judge later said that he has shot weddings, and that, "I publish photography", it was pretty clear that he was aware that indoor,low-light work is beyond the province of entry-level cameras and lenses used by novice shooters...him chastizing the photographer for not having more-capable equipment was startling to me...

Overread · Mar 3, 2010

As I recall the photographer said that the minister had said no flash photography, however the acuser countered that the minister had said no flash photography for the guests so that the working pros could take their shots (I think I recall that right) and that she (the acuser) thus assumed flash could be used.

However again its such a grey area and the judge hammers in quickly after that to say that all ministers allow flash photography these days, a fact many well know is not true. Again its an area that I would have wanted someone other than the acuser and defendant called in about - the minister and his word or even that of other attending officials or guests.

the judge did drop in where's you 1D, 7D, 5D, 10D - not quite sure if he meant the 10D, got confused or was throwing them the line of at leat having one semi pro (if old) camera model instead of an entry level setup. I also missed the part where he said he had shot weddings and had worked published in the past (he was going rather quick...)

DerekSalem · Mar 3, 2010

I saw 2 problems less than 4 minutes into the video:

She's using a single camera body...the XTi. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the XTi...but her primary lens was the EF-S 18-55/3.5....which is the *KIT LENS*.

The other lens is a 70-300mm which she didn't go into detail about but I'm going to guess is a Sigma or Tamron (the base models without any type of stabilization are around $150-$200 used). I'm basing this on the fact that they're using a base-model DSLR with kit lens so chances are they're not going to go big on one lens...especially if they only have 1 body. Oh, and the fact that she didn't even know what speed it was is a dead giveaway.

The other problem? She said they've done "Hundreds" of weddings. Excuse me? Someone with an XTi with kit lens and one other mediocre lens is going to do *HUNDREDS* of weddings? The shutter life on the XTi is only around 100,000 shots I believe...assuming she took around 1500-2000 shots per wedding she'd be looking at around 50 weddings before the shutter would start having trouble. No chance on Earth they've shot hundreds of weddings.

Oh, and the fact that she said "many churches don't allow flash photography anymore" but didn't come prepared with any type of lighting? Hrm...

chammer · Mar 3, 2010

it was a surprise for sure, derrel. staged or not, it was extremely entertaining. even if it were staged and joe was reading off a script, the sad thing is...this happens all the time. hopefully it reached out to a few people who just bought their cameras (here on this forum or otherwise in tv land), however, and curbs their thoughts of going straight to shooting weddings.

Derrel · Mar 3, 2010

I don't know how staged those shows are or are not...but it seemed like the judge might happen to be a serious or semi-serious Canon hobbyist, familiar with fast pro-grade lenses, Canon's 1 series and the 5D and 7D and their excellent High-ISO capabilities,etc.

But the one thing that the judge said that was outside the scope of the equipment was that the woman represented herself as a "professional", and that the client would look at the camera as a "black box", basically nailing the photographer for trying to use entry-level gear under demanding, indoor wedding conditions, while presenting herself as a "professional". I think had the woman been a true professional photographer, she would have had the right equipment but more importantly the skill and knowledge to shoot the job right.

On another forum, I saw a similar issue,with the same gear--kit lens, bad indoor light, and awful results from an inexperienced shooter. There are thousands and thousands of beginners like this, booking low-end weddings, running the prints off at WalMart,and really under-delivering. The fact that the "photographer" told the bride the prints were run off at WalMart was a big mistake--even though they have $100,000 Fuji printers at WalMart, you can't let a client know where you are buying your prints or enlargements from if it's perceived as a bargain shop...that just shows how inexperienced the "photographer" is.

Johnboy2978 · Mar 3, 2010

This case is tried on here on a daily basis as well and it always comes down to the same argument that you're not a professional unless you have brand X camera with X, Y, and Z lenses. I don't defend the defendants ignorance and she should have been better versed and better prepared before hiring herself out. The print doesn't know or care what brand of camera it came out of nor what lens captured it. That's my point. What I saw in that video is "I'm smarter than you and therefore you're wrong b/c you should've used what I would've used". It had very little to do with the end product that the planitff was paying for.

DerekSalem · Mar 3, 2010

Johnboy2978 said:
This case is tried on here on a daily basis as well and it always comes down to the same argument that you're not a professional unless you have brand X camera with X, Y, and Z lenses. I don't defend the defendants ignorance and she should have been better versed and better prepared before hiring herself out. The print doesn't know or care what brand of camera it came out of nor what lens captured it. That's my point. What I saw in that video is "I'm smarter than you and therefore you're wrong b/c you should've used what I would've used". It had very little to do with the end product that the planitff was paying for.

I'm only assuming (as you are), but it would appear that the judge was only asking the questions like that to see what she knew. He wasn't grilling her at all until he read off the specs she was using (XTi and kit lens) and even after she replied that she had another lens and he asked her about it...she had no idea what speed it was.

*THAT* is when he started judging her (as he rightfully should). I've seen weddings shot with an XSi or XTi that come out looking fantastic. Granted, they don't use the kit lens for the most part...but none the less. The thing is, even an idiot that's only been playing around for a month will know what speed the lens is that they use if they hope to use photography as some type of money-gaining activity.

His point was that she shouldn't represent herself as a professional if she's not *acting* like one. Whether that means using professional gear is irrelevant...she acts like a rude jerk to both the judge and the couple that was married. Not coming prepared, not knowing anything about her equipment, telling the couple that she's printing it off at Wal-Mart and even having the wife meet her in the parking lot? Not professional.

Once again, none of those things would have been happening if she had truly shot the "hundreds of weddings" she said she did.

chammer · Mar 3, 2010

Johnboy2978 said:
This case is tried on here on a daily basis as well and it always comes down to the same argument that you're not a professional unless you have brand X camera with X, Y, and Z lenses. I don't defend the defendants ignorance and she should have been better versed and better prepared before hiring herself out. The print doesn't know or care what brand of camera it came out of nor what lens captured it. That's my point. What I saw in that video is "I'm smarter than you and therefore you're wrong b/c you should've used what I would've used". It had very little to do with the end product that the planitff was paying for.

johnboy: yea, i recall one such post last year resulting in countless posts. many were on the side of its not the gear its the photographer, yet many more were posts about camera X being able to deliver better results under those same conditions. there were some great points about if you saw their portfolio and liked what you saw it shouldnt matter what gear they were using, yet in the end it does seem to matter. why i dont know.

i see many people here taking shots i could only dream of, and with "lesser" and older gear which tells me that its not my gear thats the issue. could they deliver better quality under the same conditions with newer and better gear? perhaps...but did they deliver exactly what the customer wanted? for sure. in the end i believe thats all that really counts, and i think what this case showed is that regardless of judge joe's rants on what gear she ought to be using, she ultimately delivered garbage and thus was liable to pay.

as i stated earlier, however, i would still love to see what was delivered. it was impossible to tell from the tv screen the quality of the shots.

Overread · Mar 3, 2010

You might find these interesting to read (the last is a rant but I find that I am agree with much of what is said - especailly having viewed agood few other cases by this TV Judge - often the defence gets little to no chance to pitch their take and they are generally heckled (SP) by the judge the whole time)

http://www.abanet.org/dispute/essay/syndicourtjustice.pdf
Throwing Other Photographers Under the Bus May be Great Fun, But Is It a Good Thing? | LIGHTING ESSENTIALS For Photographers

grabbed them from the canon flickr group
Flickr: Discussing Judge Joe Brown knows his photography!! in Canon DSLR User Group

manicmike · Mar 3, 2010

Here's her website. Judge for yourself.

Midland Michigan Portrait Photographer - Remember When Photography

srinaldo86 · Mar 3, 2010

I would be really interested in seeing the portfolio presented to the plaintiff at the 'Bridal Show,' and then compare it to the images taken at her wedding.

srinaldo86 · Mar 3, 2010

manicmike said:
Here's her website. Judge for yourself.

Midland Michigan Portrait Photographer - Remember When Photography

ask and you shall receive i suppose.

Overread · Mar 3, 2010

manicmike said:
Here's her website. Judge for yourself.

Midland Michigan Portrait Photographer - Remember When Photography

But its not a case of if she is able to meet "pro" standards in her work (with pro standards having no clear defining guidlines and thus effectivly being a null value to compare against).

The question is if her results from the shoot involving the bridge in the case are similar to the quality of work that she has performed up to that point. Since the bride have no case of a lack of professional level work if the photographer has delivered work similar to the quality of their dispaly portfolios that the client saw.

Thus I repeat that the quality of her work is not what is in debate here - it is if she delivered images of a similar professional level to her profile work (as shown to the client) to the client. If she did then I can see no argument against her as the client got what she had been shown and thus agreed to pay for; if there is a clear difference and the images captured for the clients wedding were of significant lesser quality then there might well be a case against her