Let's stir the pot!

[athomasimage]

Check out this Judge Joe Brown video. Bride sues photographer. It takes about 10 minutes.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs]YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer[/ame]

 

[srinaldo86]

That was posted about 4 days ago, but thanks for sharing. It is pretty funny.

 

[FemFugler]

haha... thanks for posting It's good.

 

[Josh66]

Where is your 28-70?
What happened to your 1 series?

:lmao:

Sounds like the Judge knows a lot more than the photographer does.

That was great.

 

[sinjans]

That was excellent. Shows what can happen when you dive without checking below the surface. Thanks for the great post.

judge; "how fast is the lens?" (referring to the 70-300)

pro; " i dunno"

good lord!

 

[Big]

That is one amazing judge and one dumb photographer! Can we make this a sticky for future wedding photographers!? haha

 

[Soocom1]

This is funny!!!! The judge knows his stuff eh?

The photos even on the tv screen is low quality. And man, talk about hitting the photographers...

 

[manicmike]

Original post

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lery/195924-newbie-wedding-photographers.html

 

[craig]

You have got to be kidding me. I barely made it past the first minute. Who in their right mind would agree to this media circus? Does anyone think that justice was served?

Just a bunch of sensationalism and a lot of negative energy. Pretty much stands for everything I dislike about mainstream television.

If you want to stir the pot check out this classic. Again; a lot of negative energy. Somehow the message is a lot clearer.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE[/ame]

 

[Christie Photo]

Does anyone think that justice was served?

Not me.

The guy was chompin' at the bit to show off his knowledge of photography equipment. So much so, he didn't allow the "photographer" to answer the charge being made.

He should open a camera store and leave both photography and law to professionals.

Just to be clear, I didn't find her work to be professional. But the results had nothing to do with the equipment she used.

-Pete

 

[bennielou]

Ok, this is a real hot button right now with photogs, as well as it should be.

Can a person take pro shots with a rebel? Yes. I've seen them do it on a cell cam. Amazing shots. OUTDOORS. And this is the exception on not the rule.

And also, how the hell does she not know what her lenses are? Really? I can rattle mine off in my sleep. Do I remember what ap I shot at? Not always, but show me a photo and I can get pretty close on all the settings.

But here is the bottom line, in my opinion. Bride wanted el chepo photographer. She found el chepo photographer. She didn't do her homework regarding refererences and full work studies. Photographer was probably a good salesperson, and cheap for sure (did you see all those damn albums included in her $1300 album??????).

So half the blame, IMO, goes to the bride and groom. Pay for nothing. Get nothing. What the hell did they expect?

We never saw the shots from the church and the outdoor shots were marginal, so I can only imagine. They must have been horrible. But again to the bride....aren't you paying attention? No. The money was the issue. And for $1300 bucks and that pile of albums, what did you expect?

It's not always the crappy assed photogs. Sometimes it's the el cheap brides.

 

[MrRamonG]

Does anyone think that justice was served?

Not me.

The guy was chompin' at the bit to show off his knowledge of photography equipment. So much so, he didn't allow the "photographer" to answer the charge being made.

He should open a camera store and leave both photography and law to professionals.

Just to be clear, I didn't find her work to be professional. But the results had nothing to do with the equipment she used.

-Pete

:thumbup: Agree

 

[indeedies]

Does anyone think that justice was served?

Not me.

The guy was chompin' at the bit to show off his knowledge of photography equipment. So much so, he didn't allow the "photographer" to answer the charge being made.

He should open a camera store and leave both photography and law to professionals.

Just to be clear, I didn't find her work to be professional. But the results had nothing to do with the equipment she used.

-Pete

:thumbup: Agree

I go along with these guys.

 

[bennielou]

Not me.

The guy was chompin' at the bit to show off his knowledge of photography equipment. So much so, he didn't allow the "photographer" to answer the charge being made.

He should open a camera store and leave both photography and law to professionals.

Just to be clear, I didn't find her work to be professional. But the results had nothing to do with the equipment she used.

-Pete

:thumbup: Agree

Well, it did have a bit to do with the equipment or lack thereof.
First of all, the sensor is completely different on a D1 vs a Rebel XTI. Simple fact.
The mp doesn't matter when you factor in the sensor. Sure she can blow the photo up to whatever the heck she wants to, but it's going to look like crap. And the noise, even in daytime is going to totally overtake the photo.


And hey, I was on the Judges side. Good thing he knew a thing about photography. What photographer doesn't know the ap of a lens? I mean, seriously! They don't know what ISO they were using? Really? Can't even fathom a guess?

And apparently, part of the lawsuit was the claim that the photog used "the best equipment". Sorry, but the Rebel isn't the best equipment. It's fine for taking photos of flowers and your kid's birthday party, but that camera, paired with a kit lens and a pop up flash is not worthy of taking no flash shots in a back of a church. Even on a tripod. Sorry, but it isn't. The judge was right in saying, that they should have showed up at the church with a cell phone. Not to far off, I'd say.