Judge Joe Brown for the win!

[RauschPhotography]

Bam!

Oh gosh, she must have an amazing business after this "trial". Gotta love that attitude. Feel so bad for the bride.

 

[Light Artisan]

All I saw was an arrogant Judge who knew a little about photography trying to impress people with his knowledge.

The photographer did herself no favors with her attitude and lack of knowledge in some aspects.

 

[Darkhunter139]

All I saw was an arrogant Judge who knew a little about photography trying to impress people with his knowledge.

The photographer did herself no favors with her attitude and lack of knowledge in some aspects.

The judge still knew more about photograpghy then the so called "professionals" that shot the wedding. They did not even know what speed their lenses were haha.

 

[burgo]

I have seen this before. Got the prints done at Walmart topped it off.

 

[sunlou]

you pay 1 300$ for a whole wedding and prints and you expect the photogapher to show up with a you hasselblad ... come on you get what you pay for...

And I agree ... the judge just mentionned the 4 camera words he knew and did not let the photographer explain..

If a client complained about pictures for no reason... I'd get mad... plus they didn't look that bad...

 

[Overread35]

Also note how the prints are compared to nothing save the "judge's" own opinion. In any "real" case worth its judgement the shots would be compared next to the portfolio the photographer used to advertise to the client. Then one can see if the product delivered was up to the standard that the photographer "promised" through their portfolio.

It might only be for the TV but this (amazingly popular) clip shows that people still keep being highly daft. Many who support this are also oft caught saying "its not the camera its the photographer" yet support a show and judgement which is basically "Yah its all about the gear".

Further notice how heavily biased the "judge" is to the different parties - the best friend to the bride (even a relaxed laid back appearance in his seat) - which quickly turns to the snarky - front of the seat on the offensive to the photographer

 

[Light Artisan]

Exactly.

Thank you!

 

[Darkhunter139]

Also note how the prints are compared to nothing save the "judge's" own opinion. In any "real" case worth its judgement the shots would be compared next to the portfolio the photographer used to advertise to the client. Then one can see if the product delivered was up to the standard that the photographer "promised" through their portfolio.

It might only be for the TV but this (amazingly popular) clip shows that people still keep being highly daft. Many who support this are also oft caught saying "its not the camera its the photographer" yet support a show and judgement which is basically "Yah its all about the gear".

Further notice how heavily biased the "judge" is to the different parties - the best friend to the bride (even a relaxed laid back appearance in his seat) - which quickly turns to the snarky - front of the seat on the offensive to the photographer

The thing that got me was that the photographers appeared to have no idea how the camera worked what so ever. I guess they really did not get a fair chance to explain themselves though, the whole flash thing should have been addressed more.

 

[Chamelion 6]

Also note how the prints are compared to nothing save the "judge's" own opinion. In any "real" case worth its judgement the shots would be compared next to the portfolio the photographer used to advertise to the client. Then one can see if the product delivered was up to the standard that the photographer "promised" through their portfolio.

It might only be for the TV but this (amazingly popular) clip shows that people still keep being highly daft. Many who support this are also oft caught saying "its not the camera its the photographer" yet support a show and judgement which is basically "Yah its all about the gear".

Further notice how heavily biased the "judge" is to the different parties - the best friend to the bride (even a relaxed laid back appearance in his seat) - which quickly turns to the snarky - front of the seat on the offensive to the photographer

This 'bout sums it all up. Case was decided before the first words were spoken. "I don't like your attitude," and ups the judgement... How's that for blatently prejudice.

It's an AF / AE world... I couldn't tell you what F/stop 3/4's of my shots were at without going back to the file... I don't think the photographer's were ignorant, I just think they were flustered... The went in to answer the quality of their work and getting prints from Wal-Mart and got into a squabble about their gear.

I have a hard time with getting the prints from a chain, but the background to that never really got answered.

 

[Blake.Oney]

you pay 1 300$ for a whole wedding and prints and you expect the photogapher to show up with a you hasselblad ... come on you get what you pay for...

And I agree ... the judge just mentionned the 4 camera words he knew and did not let the photographer explain..

If a client complained about pictures for no reason... I'd get mad... plus they didn't look that bad...

It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm pretty sure paid something like $1300 and wanted to still pay the photog for her time, and only wanted to money back for the photo's.

Also note how the prints are compared to nothing save the "judge's" own opinion. In any "real" case worth its judgement the shots would be compared next to the portfolio the photographer used to advertise to the client. Then one can see if the product delivered was up to the standard that the photographer "promised" through their portfolio.

It might only be for the TV but this (amazingly popular) clip shows that people still keep being highly daft. Many who support this are also oft caught saying "its not the camera its the photographer" yet support a show and judgement which is basically "Yah its all about the gear".

Further notice how heavily biased the "judge" is to the different parties - the best friend to the bride (even a relaxed laid back appearance in his seat) - which quickly turns to the snarky - front of the seat on the offensive to the photographer

This 'bout sums it all up. Case was decided before the first words were spoken. "I don't like your attitude," and ups the judgement... How's that for blatently prejudice.

It's an AF / AE world... I couldn't tell you what F/stop 3/4's of my shots were at without going back to the file... I don't think the photographer's were ignorant, I just think they were flustered... The went in to answer the quality of their work and getting prints from Wal-Mart and got into a squabble about their gear.

I have a hard time with getting the prints from a chain, but the background to that never really got answered.

I could probably tell you what f stop almost all of my shots were at. Shutter speed, probably not haha. In my opinion the photographers were marketing themselves as professional wedding photographers, but had an entry level camera with only the kit lens, and didn't know how to use it more or less. It's not about whether they remember their settings, it's that they clearly didn't know what they were doing, and that's fine too, but don't market yourself as something that you clearly are not. The judge was biased as soon as the photogs pissed him off, and that's wrong. I can agree with that.

 

[phiya]

The judge was biased, partial but not ignorant.

Come on, you're a professional photographer but don't know the speed of your lenses? She had an 18-55 and a 70-300, sounds like the kit lenses from the package she bought on e-bay. I'm not saying she was totally in the wrong, but if you go into court and can't even tell the judge the Fstop range on your 18-55 kit lens, you're asking to get screwed.

 

[j-dogg]

18-55 and 75-300 are the entry level Wal-Mart kit glass, the 75-300 isn't too bad but there are much better telephotos out there. I learned the basics on both.

honestly, my entry level Rebel XTi on the kit glass has made some decent images, but I would burn it before I shot a wedding professionally with it. I sold my kit lenses and am in the process of upgrading my glass.

I have a wedding next year and I'm renting a 1ds Mark III and some L glass, if I don't already own those by then.

 

[Chamelion 6]

The judge was biased, partial but not ignorant.

Come on, you're a professional photographer but don't know the speed of your lenses? She had an 18-55 and a 70-300, sounds like the kit lenses from the package she bought on e-bay. I'm not saying she was totally in the wrong, but if you go into court and can't even tell the judge the Fstop range on your 18-55 kit lens, you're asking to get screwed.

But as other threads demonstrate, "professional" is a rather vague term. If the bride really did any pricing, and I'm willing to bet she did, she knew these weren't the best in town -- not at that price. Is it fair to compare a Focus to a Ferrari? They were hired because they were cheap over the quality of their work.

How well the photogs answered the questions about the equipment is completely irrelevant IMHO... The question should have been whether the finished product was comparable to what she should have expected at that price. Was the quality of the finished product comparable to the portfolio the bride saw before she hired them? The one that the bride found to be of acceptable quality and presumeably shot with the same gear by the same incompetant photogs...

And what was the deal with the prints from Walmart???? That part bothers me a lot. The judgement might have been right (I don't know), but for none of the reasons given. The whole thing went way off track and and really proved nothing except Joe Brown fancies himself a qualified photography critic.

 

[Overread35]

I suspect it was only because the bride saw the prints came from Walmart that she complained. Notice how she doesn't even have a complaint about the photographers work or professionalism until its where the prints come from.

 

[phiya]

The judge was biased, partial but not ignorant.

Come on, you're a professional photographer but don't know the speed of your lenses? She had an 18-55 and a 70-300, sounds like the kit lenses from the package she bought on e-bay. I'm not saying she was totally in the wrong, but if you go into court and can't even tell the judge the Fstop range on your 18-55 kit lens, you're asking to get screwed.

But as other threads demonstrate, "professional" is a rather vague term. If the bride really did any pricing, and I'm willing to bet she did, she knew these weren't the best in town -- not at that price. Is it fair to compare a Focus to a Ferrari? They were hired because they were cheap over the quality of their work.

How well the photogs answered the questions about the equipment is completely irrelevant IMHO... The question should have been whether the finished product was comparable to what she should have expected at that price. Was the quality of the finished product comparable to the portfolio the bride saw before she hired them? The one that the bride found to be of acceptable quality and presumeably shot with the same gear by the same incompetant photogs...

And what was the deal with the prints from Walmart???? That part bothers me a lot. The judgement might have been right (I don't know), but for none of the reasons given. The whole thing went way off track and and really proved nothing except Joe Brown fancies himself a qualified photography critic.

I agree to an extent... If I were judge Joe Brown, I would have compared the pictures she received and paid for, to the portfolio pictures presented to her to see if they were comparable. Also, they don't address whether or not $1300 was the full contract price. If she was unhappy with the proofs she may not have made a final payment on the contract which could have been any amount they agreed upon. So I don't think we can accurately infer any reading between the lines that should have been done on the "you get what you pay for" front.

The question about the equipment however, is not irrelevant. Someone claiming to be a professional, whether or not they are a top professional, should at least be able to tell you what they are using to take photographs beyond the model of the camera body. If she was put up on a stand by a lawyer he would have likely asked the same questions to demonstrate incompetence by the "professional".

And I agree about the Wal-Mart part... there's no reason proofs can't be printed cheaply if they're just going to be thrown away later. But they never really address whether or not they are proofs, final prints, etc. beyond his initial speculation. That is kind of troublesome indeed.