Why not to be a fauxtographer

Animaniac888 · Aug 27, 2012

Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer - YouTube

Do you think the verdict was fair? Why or why not?

cgipson1 · Aug 27, 2012

wow.. never seen this before! lol! (it gets posted regularly!)

and I think the verdict was fair.. and deserved! I just wish more of these cases would happen... god knows there are enough of these "Fauxtographers" out there!

Animaniac888 · Aug 27, 2012

cgipson1 said:
wow.. never seen this before! lol! (it gets posted regularly!)

I should have guessed as much. I didn't find anything while searching, but maybe I didn't try hard enough...

unpopular · Aug 27, 2012

it's judge joe brown. the verdict doesn't matter.

zombiemann · Aug 27, 2012

I have issue with this video. The basis of the claim was presented as "she printed on bad stock" and the plaintiff made no mention of the overall quality. The "judge" then rips into the photographer about the level of equipment used. I am not trying to defend the photographer in any way, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me.

In another scenario it would be like me suing an automotive body shop for painting over my windshield, but the judge awarding the case in my favor because he didn't like the color of the paint.

amolitor · Aug 28, 2012

Fair? What does fair have to do with anything? This is showbiz. Nattering on about gear. Feh. Who gives a crap about gear.

The work looked pretty awful, but that hasn't got much of anything to do with the gear. Yes yes, fast lens, yes yes, strobes etc etc.

The "judge" didn't even bother to determine whether flash was permitted in the church or not, because he doesn't care.

KmH · Aug 28, 2012

The judge knew only a little more about photography than the photographer that was being sued. :lol:

2WheelPhoto · Aug 28, 2012

As long as the photographer used the "P" button as the Bestbuy clerk advised, and sprayed at last 1000 shots, the verdict should go his way and he should be paid.

amolitor · Aug 28, 2012

What would be wrong with using the P button, spraying wildly, and then picking out the good ones?

We're entering an interesting era of technology where "photography" much as we understand it can largely be done after the fact, as a process of editing an enormous set of images. I know that on TPF there's a strong sense that if you don't "understand" the camera at such and such a level, then you don't "deserve" to make good work, but that's just a prevailing set of prejudices.

cgipson1 · Aug 28, 2012

amolitor said:
What would be wrong with using the P button, spraying wildly, and then picking out the good ones?

We're entering an interesting era of technology where "photography" much as we understand it can largely be done after the fact, as a process of editing an enormous set of images. I know that on TPF there's a strong sense that if you don't "understand" the camera at such and such a level, then you don't "deserve" to make good work, but that's just a prevailing set of prejudices.

and if there AREN'T any good ones?

(which is likely!)

It almost sounds like you are advocating mass use of AUTO and Spray and Pray (and fix it in post), rather than skill and knowledge, and thought! Where is the ART in that?

2WheelPhoto · Aug 28, 2012

jake337 · Aug 28, 2012

Didn't click the link but my opinion on the subject is most people have a very skewed opinion on the subject.

A photographer who charges very little or nothing for below average work is NOT a fauxtographer.

A photographer with equal talent who charges that of a very skilled professional IS a fauxtographer. But may be very good at marketing....

I don't get why peoples arm become a flailin' when someone has low prices for their sub quality work.

If you want McDonald's, eat at McDonald's.

But don't try to charge me 5 star prices for a McDouble with cheese.....

amolitor · Aug 28, 2012

I am not necessarily advocating Auto+Post+Spray&Pray.

I am advocating that we think about it.

Consider the following:

- Let's say we deploy a bunch of technology and capture an ultra-hi-res real time 3D model of the wedding. Then we can create a virtual reality walkthrough, add and subtract lighting, etc. Then we "shoot" the wedding by going through the model and selecting rectangular frames from it, adding and subtracting light as desired. You can probably do this now but it would cost $100M or something. What we're doing inside the model -- in "post" -- is indistinguishable from photography as we know it today. Wait ten years and it might be the standard way to do a lot of things.

- Let's say instead we deploy a team of four people with very hi res video cameras to shoot the thing, and then select our photographs from the footage, cropping and processing as necessary. It's not the same thing, but it's an interesting special case.

- Let's say we deploy a team of four people with good quality medium format digital cameras, and tell to spray and pray. We select our images from the 20,000 output frames, cropping and processing as necessary.

- Let's say we deploy a single person with a good quality DSLR on Auto. Same thing.

The point is, it's a spectrum. Even now the "pros" shoot wayyyy more frames digitally than they ever did with film, and far more of the "photography" takes place as a process of curation and editing after the shoot itself.

Where's the ART in that? Well, excellent question, isn't it? The ART appears to be on the move, from being centered in the moment the shutter button was pressed to.. somewhere else. Wanting it not to move, and wanting your knowledge of how Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO interrelate to remain relevant (in fact, to ever have been relevant), won't change that.

2WheelPhoto · Aug 28, 2012

My assistant with the spare cam does all the spray and pray, and I like to shoot manual.

Don't like the spray and pray but I can't claim she doesn't take spapshots.

Spray and pray she took on our last wedding shoot: