For newbie wedding photographers..

[JayLPhoto]

wow....

 

[manicmike]

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

I agree. If the quality of work she showed the bride was the same as that on her website, the bride has no one else to blame but herself.

 

[Derrel]

This case is filled with troubling issues, at multiple levels. Looking at the "web site" the studio maintains, they do not even have their own site, but are merely part of an umbrella site listing Midland,Michigan-area "professional" photographers. In the defendant's on-line portfolio is an image of her partner, holding a digital bridge-type camera, as one of only a handful of sample photos...that in itself is telling, and suggestive of huge inexperience. It's the same when we see a portfolio of a new pro with only photos of his or her spouse and kids in all the sample photos--in the case of this woman, she has two photos out of five samples with the same teen girl as the subject. That screams "inexperienced!"

The whole concept was that the bride contracted with a so-called professional photographer who was hired to produce professional grade photos. It seems that on both counts, the photographer was judged to have failed. She was inexperienced, and took the wedding officiant's admonishment to the *guests* not to use flash,so as not to interfere with the professional photographers' efforts; that to me means the officiant assumed there was either video coverage, or more likely, optical slaves in use, which would fire every time a gues would pop off a shot with a P&S digicam. So, the "pro" and her "assistant" both thought they were barred from shooting flash, and showed up with a Digital Rebel and a slow kit lens, AND said that they had not visited the location before hand...

This entire case is a good example of what can happen when a person calling herself a 'professional photographer' shows up to shoot a wedding with not much more than $900 worth of equipment, and cannot deliver satisfying results as per the contract signed with her client. Given the same,exact equipment a truly experienced shooter could have pulled this job off, with some difficulty. But a real 'professional photographer' would have come prepared for a variety of church interiors,especially if she had never before been to the location in question. The bottom line is that for a $1,300 fee, the bride was asking for $1,000 in damages, and was willing to give the defendant $300 for her efforts; the judge instead awarded the bride $2,500 in damages, or 2.5 times more than the bride had sought...

 

[Overread]

She was inexperienced, and took the wedding officiant's admonishment to the *guests* not to use flash,so as not to interfere with the professional photographers' efforts; that to me means the officiant assumed there was either video coverage, or more likely, optical slaves in use, which would fire every time a gues would pop off a shot with a P&S digicam.

Rewatch the case again - that is the construct story by the acuser, but the defender (the photographer) contests that point and states that she was specifically told no flash allowed. She was then shot down by the judge claiming that this is not the case in modern churches - and I hope we all here can know that the judge is very wrong and that there are many cases where flash will not be permitted.
Optical slaves and such I think is a thought a photographer (pro/amateur) might have but not really a church official.

This entire case is a good example of what can happen when a person calling herself a 'professional photographer' shows up to shoot a wedding with not much more than $900 worth of equipment, and cannot deliver satisfying results as per the contract signed with her client. Given the same,exact equipment a truly experienced shooter could have pulled this job off, with some difficulty. But a real 'professional photographer' would have come prepared for a variety of church interiors,especially if she had never before been to the location in question. The bottom line is that for a $1,300 fee, the bride was asking for $1,000 in damages, and was willing to give the defendant $300 for her efforts; the judge instead awarded the bride $2,500 in damages, or 2.5 times more than the bride had sought...

But you're missing the point - the quality of images produced was never debated in the trial, only the gear of the photographer as well as some cheap shots at her understanding of using that gear.
We never see her portfolio nor see the judge see it in the trial so he judges her product unsuitable based on what? Comparing her images to a pro with years of experience and pro line gear? But that was not what was in her portfolio was it now. We can see her images and what she is offering and that is what the bride saw.

All we can contest if if her gear and skills in this wedding matched up to her displayed previous quality. If it is the case that her shots are up to her advertised standard then there is no contesting the contract.

Oh yes we might very well contest her professional conduct and her level of expertise and experience in the field but that is a totally separate debate and argument and it really should not have come up in this trial.

 

[Josh66]

Wow. Really quite surprised with that ruling.

It seems to me that the Judge was personally offended by the defendant, and maybe felt that she was making all photographers look bad.

I think that's why he awarded more money than they were even asking for.

It seems like a very subjective case if you ask me.

We will never know how good/bad the pictures really were...

 

[keith foster]

Wouldn't a professional wedding photographer talk to the minister or church representative and know their flash policy before they showed up for the wedding?
Or at least have a back up plan like fast glass and a camera that takes decently low noise images at high ISO?

 

[outamyway]

He awarded extra to the bride because she will need to hire a better photographer and re-rent tux's etc. My guess is she takes the money and still uses the photos she already has from her actual wedding.

That "trial" by that "judge" was more of a Witches trial. He had them guilty before they entered the room.

 

[gardy90]

wow judge brown knows his lenses!

what speed is it?.....idk.... :lmao:

 

[ghpham]

Her unprofessional decorum and smart mouthing the judge is what got her into trouble.

 

[mdtusz]

A little off topic, but is Wal-Marts prints really that bad when it comes to digital? As far as I know they use those fuji machines and the only human input is adding paper and ink.

I've never been to Wal-Mart, but up here in Canada, I use London Drugs all the time and I know that they have won awards for their photo printing. I'm sure there's better options, but for the price and convenience, they seem to get the job done more than well.

 

[fokker]

Interesting points raised here by both sides. Personally I think the 'pro' was a bit hard done by with the ruling but she is obviously not a knowledgeable professional. The trial seemed like a bit of a joke really.

 

[Arch]

Owned by someone who actually knows something about photography.... i love that.

She was lucky the Judge seemed to have a personal interest in photography tho, others may not have the knowledge to see anything wrong with the transaction.... this is of course assuming that it isn't fixed.

 

[Shocknawe]

Quite interesting, I personaly think the defendant did herself in with not being able to answer simple questions about her gear thus portraying herself as an exteme novice bluffing photo ignorant clients. Also her demeanor and attitude is probably what "cut her own throat" with the ruling. There's some situations where a person's use of tact with a higher athority is paramount....a court room is one of them.