Woman sued, shot wedding on Rebel XTi

[NateWagner]

yep, so all you have to do is show that one could reasonably expect these images to be of professional quality, and that it is what one would expect of your work. This should be easily done with most anyone.

 

[Actor]

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.

The original "People's Court" with Judge Wapner had a statement in the credits that all awards and costs were paid by the producers, no matter who "won." Probably the same with Judge Brown, so he can award the plaintiff anything the producers are willing to pay and the defendant does not lose anything but face (and future customers).

 

[Actor]

Judge Brown impressed me with his posturing.

This show is entertainment, not a court. That's what the "judge" is paid to do: posture.

 

[Double H]

I actually was impressed by several things the Judge asked. He knows a lot more than the average joe, and certainly more than you would expect a judge to know. The flash in churches comment was a little off, but he railed that photographer with many questions she couldn't answer, simple questions even a student would know. And who the hell uses a tripod during the ceremony?
I hope that "photographer" uses Genuine Fractals.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I think the tripod comment was because she had slow glass and he knew it (she didn't seem to get it). Granted all that would do is cause blurry photos (from subject movement), but it would be better than handheld.

Just a guess.

 

[Double H]

I think the tripod comment was because she had slow glass and he knew it (she didn't seem to get it). Granted all that would do is cause blurry photos (from subject movement), but it would be better than handheld.

Just a guess.

Agreed, he asked a very simple question and she couldn't answer it. She probably shot everything in Auto. If proper, professional level lenses are used, and with current pro-bodies' ability to shoot at high "ASA", a tripod is not necessary. I will use a monopod when needed, usually during Catholic weddings, but dragging a tripod around is distracting, noisy, and time consuming. Think of all the shots missed because you were busy moving your clunky tripod.

 

[robertwsimpson]

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.

 

[PhotoXopher]

"She doesn't know. It's a black box, it's a Canon Rebel." Insert 'fist pump' smiley here.

Found one:

 

[robertwsimpson]

This is why you should never hire someone to do something without doing research first. Luckily, there are TV shows in place to protect the growing number of stupid people in America. Take this woman, for example.

 

[Overread]

Oh not this again (3rd time here I think now).

Seriously go back and rewatch the vid 2 or 3 times and start to really listen to what is said and not get caught up in the "Judges" words.

Firstly the case in question is that the Bride felt that she had not been given what she paid for - so the images from the wedding (a scant 3 or 4) are shown to the judge, but at no point do we see him openly comparing their quality to that of the photographers portfolio. Thus on what basis is the judge judging? His own? That of a 35 year experienced pro wedding photographer?
Who knows - but the end result is that the photographer was not judged nor assessed upon her own output. At this point the gear she uses, her understanding of that gear and her practice are not in question at all.

Those aspects would come into question after a comparison of the images and if the images produced for the wedding in question were significantly lesser than those she uses to advertise her services. Further those portolio images must also be the same ones used at the time to advertise to the bride. IF however the image quality was similar then the bride has no case, she agreed to the services of the photographer; paid her fees and got her services. It's not a defence of bad photography nor bad pratice but one of upholding the same rights we would accord to any level of professional photographer - from the top of the game through to the lower levels.

Further note how many points are never clarified - the matter of if they were proofs or not as well as a few other facts are quickly glossed over. One could also note how the defence gets very little time nor freedom to pitch an effective defence - whilst the acuser gets time and assistance from the judge

As for the judges understanding of photography - meh - you could learn all that he showed of modern understanding (listing out camera models) in around 10 mins whilst his background understanding is clearly a lot more limited and probably a little out of date (due to him not being a current active photographer -by his own admission as well).

 

[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.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Yeah, but he's not paid to be a judge. He's paid to be entertaining on TV. I'll bet his bosses were super impressed with this show, because he pretends to show comprehension on a subject that he clearly only has a novice understanding of. With questions like "what is the speed of your lens?" I wouldn't have even really known how to respond. 20mph? No one asks that. "what is the max aperture?" That's more like it. The thing that is most entertaining about this (and let's face it, it's a TV show, not a court room) is that he tries to sound like he knows what he's talking about and messes it up.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I still think had she acted like a professional she might have been treated like one.

"What's the speed?"
I don't know.

"Where's your 28 to 70?"
I don't know, didn't have it I guess.

Wrong answers, answered in a rude manner. She knew she didn't know her stuff and tried being a ***** to make up for it, not smart.

When you go to court, be prepared - don't just show up thinking you're god's gift to everyone, and even if you think you are - don't act that way.

 

[robertwsimpson]

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.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I still think had she acted like a professional she might have been treated like one.

"What's the speed?"
I don't know.

"Where's your 28 to 70?"
I don't know, didn't have it I guess.

Wrong answers, answered in a rude manner. She knew she didn't know her stuff and tried being a ***** to make up for it, not smart.

do you know anyone with a 28-70?