Woman sued, shot wedding on Rebel XTi

[bennielou]

Ok, basic question....
So why is your xti your THIRD camera of choice? And why do you thank God you've never had to use it on a shoot?

You can type all you want, but you have answered your own question. If it's not good enough for you to use, why do you expect it to be good enough for a client?

I'm not taking photos of my daughter and daisys. I am doing this for a living, and my very life depends on the photos I give to clients. They trust me to do the best job I can, at all times. And without my clients, I would have no business, no nice home, no money. I invest in them, so that they invest in me.

And not just that, I don't want to be sued to hell and back. It's completely different if you are using an XTI for taking photos of everyday, do overable stuff. It's NOT ok, if you have a client paying you good money to act like, be like, and produce like a pro.

Member of: WPPI, PPA, WPJA, DPPA, NAPP, TPPA (and all those letters don't make either of us right.

 

[bennielou]

If you would actually READ my posts, I'm not talking about the crop sensor. I am talking about the ability to crop into photos with a reliable result. And AGAIN....the 10,20,30,40,50Ds are all fine. But the numbers get bigger when the camera gets better. Simple. Simple Dimple. When you get into the Marks, even better still.

And that's just the facts. You want people to know the facts, right? Those are them.

Again, you can shoot kids and flowers all you want in the daytime with a Rebel XTI set on P mode. It would be pretty hard to screw that up. What you CAN'T do is a wedding with a Rebel is stand a football field away, with a no flash rule, in the back of a dungenous dark church, and take photos with a Rebel and a 5.6 lens.

Well you can, but I think we can all agree that it would suck.

We aren't talking about anything other than a Rebel. Used for a Wedding. With a Pop up flash, and a crap lens. That is what the gal was sued over. Not a 30D, not a 5 of 7 D. Not a rocking lens....

I'm not saying that a Rebel isn't a wonderful camera to take on vacation to Mexico. I'm not saying everyone with a Rebel is a jerk. They aren't. But it's not the type of tool you use at a paid job.

Can you imagine Annie Lebowitz showing up at a Vanity Fair shoot with a freaking Rebel and kit lens? No, of course not.

In the end, it's about using the best tools for the best results.

 

[rufus5150]

Ok, basic question....
So why is your xti your THIRD camera of choice? And why do you thank God you've never had to use it on a shoot?

You can type all you want, but you have answered your own question. If it's not good enough for you to use, why do you expect it to be good enough for a client?

My XTi is my third camera of choice because I have two better ones.

Fortunately your livelihood relies on taking purdy pictures and not reading comprehension, because I didn't say 'I thank god I've never had to use it, what I said was':

with an XTi as a 2nd backup camera (3rd camera) for those 'holy ship!' situations. I trust it implicitly because I know its limitations, but I've yet to need it.

If Camera 1 died, and camera 2 died (the 'holy s#!*' situation) I would actually trust the XTi to get suitable results.

I'm not taking photos of my daughter and daisys. I am doing this for a living, and my very life depends on the photos I give to clients. They trust me to do the best job I can, at all times. And without my clients, I would have no business, no nice home, no money. I invest in them, so that they invest in me.

I've yet to have a dissatisfied customer where portraits, product shots or events are concerned. Granted my life or death doesn't depend on it, but that doesn't keep me from doing 'the best job I can'. (FWIW, I assuredly don't have the body of work you or any of the other pro wedding shooters here do, though.)

And not just that, I don't want to be sued to hell and back. It's completely different if you are using an XTI for taking photos of everyday, do overable stuff. It's NOT ok, if you have a client paying you good money to act like, be like, and produce like a pro.

And I'm not arguing that. Have I argued that? I don't think I've argued that. The XTi is not built for the rigors of pro work. It's not a good idea to take it to a thousand gigs in a year and hope it holds up.

Member of: WPPI, PPA, WPJA, DPPA, NAPP, TPPA (and all those letters don't make either of us right.

I'm not saying those letters make it right. Did I? Useless attack? I put those in my signature because those are my memberships which have pertinent references to this board. I'm not appealing to authority.

 

[rufus5150]

If you would actually READ my posts, I'm not talking about the crop sensor.

To quote you in your earlier post, of the XTi:

The sensor is just way too small. The shots just won't be right, no matter who takes them.

The XTi has the same sensor size as the 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, and 7D. We can safely conclude from your statement, then, that the shots from a 7D won't be right no matter who takes them.

Nate actually questioned this!

now you can't do a wedding on any crop sensor?

And you clarified!

Sorry but it's a simple fact.

And then mysteriously you go on to say you've actually done weddings with a 20D, 30D and 40D:

I started out with a 20D, went to the 30D, then the 40D, and finally to the 5D and 5D2.

So you see, obviously you can't do the weddings that you did!

Silly contradiction hunting aside...

Since I answered your basic question, allow me to do the same. I have two though:

#1. Does the sensor size matter/can a crop-sensor camera adequately be used for a wedding?

#2. Given everything else is the same (L-quality glass, great and adequate lighting), can an XTi produce images that rival the quality of a 20D or 30D?

Now if you read really carefully, you'll notice these questions differ from the assumptions in the initial video. It's called 'proposing a new hypothetical'. For discussion purposes, ya know.

Listen -- I admire your work; I think it's a quality to strive for. I agree with you on the principles you've brought up regarding the video as well as the gear necessary for a pro photographer to carry out his or her job. But you've made some broad sweeping generalizations about the quality of images capable of a camera that I don't believe are true. That is all.

 

[bennielou]

Ok, I think we have both given our arguments. Again, we are not talking about a rebel with killer glass and great lighting. Let's just go off what what was in the video, and the ruling.

And I'm not downing you about your affiliations. At all. I admire that you are stiving towards being better. A lot of us are.


Let's just agree to disagree. Ok?

I haven't made a generalization about the camera. I stated a fact. And that is what I really think.

 

[webmaster705]

i think he should have agreement that he will pay after seeing the owrk, there is no use to pay her for such dumb work, should seen other work before hiering instead of just increaseing your blood pressure at the end when your special moments are ruined

 

[FrankLamont]

On a similar note, I received an email from a local (pro) lab - a newsletter-type thing.

'Wedding Photographer needed', was the title. Needless to say, I was intrigued by this rare occurance; I was severely disappointed in the lab.

They asked, for $500 (AUD), a photograhper for a wedding that would be 'from about 1pm to 7pm'... a photographer who was 'competant' and using a '10MP or higher DSLR', a photographer who 'must have 2 years experience', and that 'conditions apply'.

A fantastic deal, really. :er:

 

[bennielou]

Wow, FriedChicken. That's nuts.

I know people have their budgets and all, but they really need to stick to the type of stuff they can afford.

I can promise you I can't walk into a jewlery store and say, "I'll give you $500 for that $3000 ring. And while you are at it, throw a few more diamonds on."

There is nothing wrong with having a budget. Nothing at all. And I guess there is nothing wrong with the e-mail either. You can't blame a bride for trying to naw down the pricing. And sadly, there was probably someone who jumped on the offer.

I suspect the photographer will find he/she bit off way more than it was worth.

 

[ironsidephoto]

Walmart and a kit lens? ha.

 

[skieur]

All churches that I have been in, allow flash, but in some cases not during the main part of the ceremony. Nevertheless that should have been known well before the wedding and planned for by the photographer. Using a 1.4 lens and/or auxilliary lighting would have certainly helped. The fact that the prints were processed at Wallmart does not suggest professionalism and neither does the Rebel Xti when these two factors are considered together. The judge did comment that it was an old camera, which is certainly true, too. A tripod would have been somewhat useless since any motion would still produce softness or action blur.

Judges can set the amount of the award, so he was within his legal rights to set it at $2,500.

skieur

 

[NateWagner]

My only point of disagreement skieur is that during a wedding ceremony a tripod would have been useful. I mean, seriously, how much action is there? with the exception of the processional/recessional you should be able to get relatively sharp images down to 1/15 or 1/8 easily.

 

[Christie Photo]

... during a wedding ceremony a tripod would have been useful. I mean, seriously, how much action is there?

Very true. That's the way I've always done it.

In fact, it doesn't matter at all to me if the church allows flash... I don't. It's not necessary to photograph every second of the day, and if I can't do it without flash, oh well.

It's just my personal feelings. I know many (if not most) photographers do it. That's fine. I just don't want to do it. It's a distraction (draws attention). I'll respect the moment, even if the minister says it's OK.

-Pete

 

[epp_b]

The right party won for all the wrong reasons; but, this case was completely stupid because everyone involved was an idiot.

The plaintiffs are idiots for thinking that there was something wrong with the print quality. The only real difference between Walmart prints and professional prints is that the latter will stand up to time. With the right processing, cheap prints look just as good. If they'd had made a case about the artistic quality versus the quality of the portfolio they reviewed when choosing the defendants as their photographers, that may have made for a plausible case.

The defendants are idiots for not owning or renting better equipment for the situation, for not knowing basic information about their own gear and for not being able to produce any results that aren't cliched crap (and poorly-executed cliched crap, at that).

The judge is an idiot for thinking he knows everything about everything because "Ah didz fertogafie yeerrs ago hurrr hurrr rebelz can only mak crappz0r pictars yoo needz da 1D!!"

Ever heard the phrase, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? The judge probably spent five minutes looking up some random photography terms online and deemed himself an instead expert.

 

[iamcombat]

This is pretty funny to me because my ex girlfriends sister had a photographer for her wedding and she was using the old Canon 300D....the camera I had at the time was better than what she was using and I was just taking a few pictures for fun.

 

[skieur]

My only point of disagreement skieur is that during a wedding ceremony a tripod would have been useful. I mean, seriously, how much action is there? with the exception of the processional/recessional you should be able to get relatively sharp images down to 1/15 or 1/8 easily.

There is definitely not much action, but even head movement is sufficient to soften the sharpness. One fifteenth of a second can easily be handheld with body or lens stabilization as can 1/8 with a little more effort, but I admit that it depends on your style and what you are used to using. You can also time it just right whether you are using a tripod or doing the handheld approach.

So, I will backtrack and admit that a tripod works for some photographers and handheld for others.

skieur