Have you ever been sued?

[Overread]

cgipson1 - remember you're arguing from the point of the professional servicing the average to high-end client. You forget that there is a whole bottom end to every market where even the professionals can't really afford the best of the best because their prices and market are lower. Its a cost divide in the social structure and whilst some high-end pros might donate time to lower cost clients, the overall number serviced will be met with the lower end pros - who will be using lower end gear.

As for the number of shots - heck most top end pros I see on their professional sites they only show a handful of photos and yet I'm sure many will take far more during and event. So it doesn't matter what level or skill, any pro delivering a small section of high quality shots from an event like a wedding should be normally expected. Its the ones that do deliver 500 or more that do themselves a disservice when they let the average quality lower by showing and selling so many.

 

[bazooka]

Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images? That is like putting Mario Andretti in a VW bug in a Formula One race.. has he really got any chance of winning? Hell NO!

This is all relative. Those people using large format cameras might look at your so-called "pro" dslr and see you as an amateur because you don't use real professional equipment. People driving Corvette's are comparing themselves to people driving Impala's.... but people driving Diablo's are comparing themselves to people driving Corvette's.... F1 to Nascar... everyone has someone lower than them to compare themselves to. There is no line in the sand that delineates "pro" and "non-pro" equipment. It's all relative to the price you are willing to pay, right? Any "pro" piece of gear you own, I bet someone out there can show you a piece of gear that can outperform it.

 

[cgipson1]

cgipson1 - remember you're arguing from the point of the professional servicing the average to high-end client. You forget that there is a whole bottom end to every market where even the professionals can't really afford the best of the best because their prices and market are lower. Its a cost divide in the social structure and whilst some high-end pros might donate time to lower cost clients, the overall number serviced will be met with the lower end pros - who will be using lower end gear.

As for the number of shots - heck most top end pros I see on their professional sites they only show a handful of photos and yet I'm sure many will take far more during and event. So it doesn't matter what level or skill, any pro delivering a small section of high quality shots from an event like a wedding should be normally expected. Its the ones that do deliver 500 or more that do themselves a disservice when they let the average quality lower by showing and selling so many.

I would still argue that a real PRO.. even with low end gear, should be able to offer decent shots. And hopefully you will concede that isn't usually the case with many of the ??PROS?? that work the low end market?

I do agree that no decent photographer in their right mind is going to offer 500 photos on a CD with all rights... for the extremely low prices that many of the wannabe's offer! ( I can't even imagine doing the PP on that many shots for those prices.. lol!)

Would you say that it is reasonable for a client to expect that the photos that ARE delivered be roughly equal to the ones that were displayed on the site.. the shots that attracted the client in the first place?

If the contract says 40 shots delivered.. shouldn't all 40 shots be of roughly equal quality, and equal to what was expected, and promised (even though that promise may have been implied?)

 

[Overread]

Would you say that it is reasonable for a client to expect that the photos that ARE delivered be roughly equal to the ones that were displayed on the site.. the shots that attracted the client in the first place?

If the contract says 40 shots delivered.. shouldn't all 40 shots be of roughly equal quality, and equal to what was expected, and promised (even though that promise may have been implied?)

Yes I fully agree with this, excluding exceptional circumstances which you can then debate about if the pros gear/understanding were up to an expected standard.
Which is why the JJB case is poorly presented or constructed. It argues everything only on the "rebel" and nothing else; whilst quality isn't compared to the promised product but JJB's own idea of what a pro should be able to produce.

 

[nmoody]

Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images? That is like putting Mario Andretti in a VW bug in a Formula One race.. has he really got any chance of winning? Hell NO!

This is all relative. Those people using large format cameras might look at your so-called "pro" dslr and see you as an amateur because you don't use real professional equipment. People driving Corvette's are comparing themselves to people driving Impala's.... but people driving Diablo's are comparing themselves to people driving Corvette's.... F1 to Nascar... everyone has someone lower than them to compare themselves to. There is no line in the sand that delineates "pro" and "non-pro" equipment. It's all relative to the price you are willing to pay, right? Any "pro" piece of gear you own, I bet someone out there can show you a piece of gear that can outperform it.

As with most arts although high end equipment helps its not the thing that sets the picture, its the photographer. Mario Andretti im sure can still drive the VW bug and impress the hell out of people even with the inferior product. Its his talent that really make him. You also don't need an F1 car in all races, sometimes the bug is better suited or would suffice for the job at hand.

That all said, if you can afford the equipment, get it. Because it sure is not going to hurt you if you know how to use it correctly, and in the right situation.

 

[PapaMatt]

Just watch Judge Judy or any Small Claims Court, It is done all the time

 

[12sndsgood]

you are right mario andretti could drive the hell out of a bug. but if your budget is $500 or even $1000 do you really think your going to stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting Mario to come out and race for the day? nope not a chance. so you have to go with a lower quality racer. there are people that spend $20,000 on a photographer for the day and there are people that give guests disposable cameras for the day. chances are the equipment and the quality are going to be vastly diffrent from a $20k wedding and a $500 wedding.

 

[Netskimmer]

Don't go knockin' the bugs! Drop in a supercharger, modify the suspension, and put some respectable tires on one and it will rock your world!

 

[HughGuessWho]

People get what they pay for. Many people go to the Walmart "Portrait Study", get their FREE 8X10 and 10 wallets for 19.95 and are happy as can be.... Those photogs use Rebels (at best) and have had 1 week of training. Everyone is so hung up on Pro this, Pro that and Pro the other.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

People get what they pay for. Many people go to the Walmart "Portrait Study", get their FREE 8X10 and 10 wallets for 19.95 and are happy as can be.... Those photogs use Rebels (at best) and have had 1 week of training. Everyone is so hung up on Pro this, Pro that and Pro the other.

This "pro" wedding photographer charged $1,300.00. A far cry from $19.95 at Walmart.

 

[HughGuessWho]

People get what they pay for. Many people go to the Walmart "Portrait Study", get their FREE 8X10 and 10 wallets for 19.95 and are happy as can be.... Those photogs use Rebels (at best) and have had 1 week of training. Everyone is so hung up on Pro this, Pro that and Pro the other.

This "pro" wedding photographer charged $1,300.00. A far cry from $19.95 at Walmart.

Where I am from, $1300 for a complete wedding is pretty low rent.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images? That is like putting Mario Andretti in a VW bug in a Formula One race.. has he really got any chance of winning? Hell NO!

This is all relative. Those people using large format cameras might look at your so-called "pro" dslr and see you as an amateur because you don't use real professional equipment. People driving Corvette's are comparing themselves to people driving Impala's.... but people driving Diablo's are comparing themselves to people driving Corvette's.... F1 to Nascar... everyone has someone lower than them to compare themselves to. There is no line in the sand that delineates "pro" and "non-pro" equipment. It's all relative to the price you are willing to pay, right? Any "pro" piece of gear you own, I bet someone out there can show you a piece of gear that can outperform it.

Kind of.

But it isn't really a "line in the sand". When you're the hired photographer, and you'll be shooting at a dimly lit church that doesn't allow flash, you need a certain a level of equipment to get good photos. Fast glass and hopefully a camera that handles higher ISOs well. This photographer wasn't prepared and did not have the right equipment. There is no arguing that.

You guys arguing for this photographer, or at least against JJB, keep ignoring the specific circumstances of this particular wedding.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

People get what they pay for. Many people go to the Walmart "Portrait Study", get their FREE 8X10 and 10 wallets for 19.95 and are happy as can be.... Those photogs use Rebels (at best) and have had 1 week of training. Everyone is so hung up on Pro this, Pro that and Pro the other.

This "pro" wedding photographer charged $1,300.00. A far cry from $19.95 at Walmart.

Where I am from, $1300 for a complete wedding is pretty low rent.

Still. Wal-Mart studio photography vs. hired wedding photographer is Apples and Oranges. It's a weak correlation at best.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images? That is like putting Mario Andretti in a VW bug in a Formula One race.. has he really got any chance of winning? Hell NO!

This is all relative. Those people using large format cameras might look at your so-called "pro" dslr and see you as an amateur because you don't use real professional equipment. People driving Corvette's are comparing themselves to people driving Impala's.... but people driving Diablo's are comparing themselves to people driving Corvette's.... F1 to Nascar... everyone has someone lower than them to compare themselves to. There is no line in the sand that delineates "pro" and "non-pro" equipment. It's all relative to the price you are willing to pay, right? Any "pro" piece of gear you own, I bet someone out there can show you a piece of gear that can outperform it.

You guys arguing for this photographer, or at least against JJB, keep ignoring the specific circumstances of this particular wedding.

Im not arguing for either one, actually. I am just saying that there are far too many people out there that search out the lowest price they can find, then complain because they didnt get a top quality product.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

You are saying the Rebel is adequate to produce a wedding. That is just not true in this case.

Tell me why not. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand your reasoning.

Thanks!

-Pete

Tell you why not? Well, I already have, at great length. So my stance on the matter is no secret.

But if you're going to completely ignore the specific circumstances of this particular wedding, you could argue that a rebel and kit lens would be adequate for some weddings. But you'd still be ignoring the specifics of what we are discussing.

This has never been about the client expecting too much. It's been about the photographer delivering too little. .

Right, right, right. I say the same.

But I'm just as certain the gear had nothing to do with it. The "judge" made equipment the case. He was wrong to do so.

-Pete

Sure, a lot of the focus was about the equipment. But for good reason: the equipment was inadequate to shoot in the church. The "pro" didn't have a clue about her equipment, indicative of a lack of basic understanding necessary to her profession. The "pro" wasn't prepared. None of you guys have acknowledged that not only did she lack the equipment necessary, but also that her lack of preparedness is equally destructive to her case. JJB had all the grounds to make the judgment he made .