# Have you ever been sued?



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

It seems every time it's asked, "I'm ready to begin charging for my work...  how should I proceed?", the first advice is to draft releases and contracts, hire an attorney, buy insurance, etc.

This got me thinking about my career.  I started out at age 16 shooting a job here and there, the occasional wedding, and so on.  I worked at two other studios for a total of 6 years before starting my business in '83.

I've never be sued.

In fact, I don't personally know any photographer who has been sued.  Am I just lucky?

-Pete


----------



## CCericola (Mar 20, 2012)

Yes, and it never made it to court because I had a good contract.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 20, 2012)

I know of two others... one a real pro, that was sued in the 80's... and it didn't go anywhere.. thanks to a solid contract.

One other early 90's.. a wannabe pro..  that totally destroyed a wedding shoot. Ended up costing that person about 50k with damages, etc.. and the resulting IRS audit that came about.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 20, 2012)

I do not know any photographer who has been sued. There were complaints, yes, but it never went as far as sueing.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 20, 2012)

No, I haven't, Knock-on-wood (*Ouch!*), and nor do I know anyone who has, at least not first-hand.  I think a LOT of people started out the way you did*; my own path has been similar, and to be honest, I rather wish I had someone mentior me in the finer details of business way back when.  I think it's even more important these days, since people seem to be getting ever-more litigious day-by-day.  



*Of course at that time, there was only one other Dagureotype to compare it to, so you were pretty safe!


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

Details!  Please!


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 20, 2012)

So you have been eating the cost of something that has never paid off in almost 30 years? 

Seems like a waste of money IMO... What would be the point for new photographers then? Why not spend a little extra upfront to have a really thorough contract made with the help of a well-established attorney?

I am referring to contracts, insurance, and everything else that is being suggested to people creating the posts you mentioned. Seems like a contract is the only necessary part...


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Of course at that time, there was only one other Dagureotype to compare it to, so you were pretty safe!



I was gonna congratulate you for knowing how to spell "Daguerreotype," but...

Oh Well.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

CCericola said:


> Yes, and it never made it to court because I had a good contract.



Not being argumentative...  just want to be clear...

So if you didn't go to court, were you actually "sued?"

Thanks.

-Pete


----------



## tirediron (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Of course at that time, there was only one other Dagureotype to compare it to, so you were pretty safe!
> ...


Oops...  :er:  That's the way Mr. Gates thinks it should be spelled...


----------



## tirediron (Mar 20, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> ...I am referring to contracts, insurance, and everything else that is being suggested to people creating the posts you mentioned. Seems like a contract is the only necessary part...


My house has never burned down, but I spend ~$500/year on home-owner's insurance.  I've never had a car accident, but I have insurance on my vehicles...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 20, 2012)

I have not been sued by a customer, but by a former employer.

Something to think about for anyone working for a photographer, and deciding to leave and go out on your own...whether you have a non-compete clause or NOT, they can also try to get you for "trade secrets", or claim you stole "confidential " customer lists. It applies to any business really.

So, yeah. I've lived all my life thinking it was something I would NEVER have to worry about. Guess what. It happens!

I had no non-compete clause of any sort, but that doesn't stop a former employer from trying to sue you.
Cost me $23K. $3K of that was to finally settle out of court, the day of the trial.

I believe being sued is having papers served. Not necessarily that it goes to court.
Somebody serves papers filing suit against you.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 20, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> So you have been eating the cost of something that has never paid off in almost 30 years?
> 
> Seems like a waste of money IMO... What would be the point for new photographers then? Why not spend a little extra upfront to have a really thorough contract made with the help of a well-established attorney?
> 
> I am referring to contracts, insurance, and everything else that is being suggested to people creating the posts you mentioned. Seems like a contract is the only necessary part...




20 years ago people didn't sue like they do today. Now people sue you when your coffee is to hot or you misspell there name.  Lets take the above example.  One lawsuit over a wedding cost roughly $50k,  My insurance for liability i'm being quoted is roughly $300-500 a year. so at that rate (we will use $500) if im in business for the next 30 years im out 15 grand.  15 grand spread out over 30 years seems way cheaper to me then one lawsuit that could cost me $50k 


Insurance is no diffrent in this than it is for your car. Do you have car insurance? I have never hit anyone but I sure have it on my car, I have never had an issue with my house but I have it on my house as well.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 20, 2012)

Classic!


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 20, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > So you have been eating the cost of something that has never paid off in almost 30 years?
> ...



Makes sense, thank you.


----------



## CCericola (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> CCericola said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and it never made it to court because I had a good contract.
> ...



No problem. Yes, papers were filed, there was a case number and everything. When my lawyer showed the former client's lawyer the contract (which the client "forgot" they signed) The suit was withdrawn.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 20, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Classic!



Holy crap!  This is Classic!  They didn't have a clue what speed their lenses were or the meaning of f-stop.  Unreal!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 20, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Classic!



:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Proper ownage by Judge Joe Brown. How embarassing for this "photographer". 

Laughed pretty much the whole way through. Judge Joe knows what's up.

Favorite quotes:

"Where's your 28-70?" Silence. 

"What f-stop did you shoot at?" Silence.

"What was the speed of your 70-300mm?" 

-- Defendant "Uhhh, I don't know...."

"Calling yourself a professional is like me walking into a church with my iPhone and calling myself a pro photographer."


:lmao:

Hilarious. This fits perfectly in this thread. And it's a great lesson to all of those who pick up their entry level DSLR and consider themselves "pros".

That photographer was such a joke and she doesn't even know it. Honestly, $2,500 wasn't enough of a settlement. That dingbat needed to cough up more for her defiance of the court and her utmost lack of professionalism.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2012)

This thread is silly. 

_Tax evasion_: This is an intentional violation of tax laws. It is a broad category, encompassing any cheating of the government in taxes. _Tax evasion_ is a _FELONY_ *...*

Related Statutes and Penalties - General Fraud


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Classic!



I've seen this.  I'm not an attorney, but I am a photographer.  If this was a jury trial, and if I was an expert witness, there's no way this bride would have been awarded one dollar.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> This thread is silly.
> 
> _Tax evasion_: This is an intentional violation of tax laws.



Please help.  I'm not grasping the connection.

Thanks!
-Pete


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Classic!
> ...



Care to elaborate? 

To me, that "photographer" is *obviously *an idiot with inadequate equipment and a lack of the basic understanding of photography necessary to charge for her work. For God's sake, she doesn't even know the speed of her own lenses. Not only is that embarassing to her, that is an embarassment to anyone who actually is a true professional. 

The bride didn't get enough, IMHO.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Hilarious. This fits perfectly in this thread. And it's a great lesson to all of those who pick up their entry level DSLR and consider themselves "pros".



What about the all those who spend $5000+ on a camera and lens and believe that alone makes them "pros?"

I made this photo a year ago last fall.  I can't tell you the focal length of the lens or the aperture and shutter speed used.  I think it's a decent portrait (don't look really close).  I'll come back later and explain why this is relevant.

-Pete


----------



## jake337 (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious. This fits perfectly in this thread. And it's a great lesson to all of those who pick up their entry level DSLR and consider themselves "pros".
> ...



I actually watched that episode on TV on a large HD screen.  It wasn't just the equipment used, but the quality of the product the delivered vs what was the perceived product that was expected.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Care to elaborate?    ...she doesn't even know the speed of her own lenses.



I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?

I agree she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but her work looks pretty typical of the majority of wedding "photographers" I've seen.

For the record, would I have her go out and shoot for me?  Hell no.  Not without a bunch of tutelage.  But I say this based on her work and not the equipment she used; which is on what this "judge" based his decision.

Equipment does not make a photographer.

-Pete


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?



Um, yes... Absolutely.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?
> ...



Seriously, I didn't think you believe that.

I suppose it's because I virtually never shoot wide open...  that, and I have something like 30 lenses.  I have to confess I can't remember if my Canon is a D5 or a 5D.  It just doesn't matter.

Oh well.  It seems I'm not too good at this photography gig.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2012)

bump to top~


----------



## Overread (Mar 20, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> To me, that "photographer" is *obviously *an idiot with inadequate equipment and a lack of the basic understanding of photography necessary to charge for her work. For God's sake, she doesn't even know the speed of her own lenses. Not only is that embarassing to her, that is an embarassment to anyone who actually is a true professional.
> 
> The bride didn't get enough, IMHO.



But the question isn't how much does the photographer know, its if her work as delivered to the client was on par with her advertised product. The same for any working professional, if their work upon delivery is equal to that of their advertised product then it doesn't matter if they know their gear inside and out or not, they've upheld what they promised at the time of the contracts agreement.
Now if the finished work was greatly below the advertised product then questions can be asked and its then that you can start to question if the professional knew what they were doing or if it was the situation itself which presented abnormal shooting conditions or conditions beyond the professionals reasonable ability to work within to their normal standard. 

However the JJB case has no such comparison, just a hashing against a specific gear level (the rebel). I'm not defending someone know knowing their stuff or not using the best gear, but honestly its a very poor example and its a little sad how often its touted around as firm proof (mostly just because the "pros" in this case were using entry level gear).


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 20, 2012)

How many pros that turn out good work, use Rebels (entry level gear)?  (very few????)

and yet, how many wannabe's that turn out crap.. DO use Rebels? (one hell of a lot???)

Tends to skew the statistics a good bit, doesn't it?


----------



## Overread (Mar 20, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?
> ...



I can tell you the maximum aperture of all my 35m lenses - does this make me more proficient at using them? What if I can't tell you the minimum apertuers where am I now?


Knowing your gear is good, it helps it really does; but if you can't use it then you're just a gear/tech-head. Nothing wrong in that, but the understanding of the hardware side does not directly mean that one is thus proficient at the use and application of those tools.


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 20, 2012)

She owned one amateur body, one kit lens, and one zoom lens. 

You guys are comparing a hill to a mountain.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 20, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> She owned one amateur body, one kit lens, and one zoom lens.
> 
> You guys are comparing a hill to a mountain.





point is the gear doesnt matter, nor does knowing it,(in this example)    if you go to mcdonalds. you spend $3 for a hamburger and you know your getting a fast food hamburger. if i know that going in. and mcdonalds gives me a $3 hamburger then there isn't an issue   these people went it, new they were getting a cheap photographer. hopefully went in and viewed the work these people had done and paid for that quality of work.   now if they went in. saw the work and thought it was great, but then the photos just totally sucked then there is an issue.  

if your car was broke and  you brought it to me and i fixed the car for you. would you sue me if you found out i used a single pair of vicegrips and not some high dollar tool?  the judge should have been looking at the photos and quality of work. what f/stop they were at or how wide an apature they could go to is pretty irrelevent.


id gaurentee that some of the pros here could go in with an amatuer body, a kit lens and turn out better work then me and my D7000 and 70-200f/2.8


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 20, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> *id gaurentee that some of the pros here could go in with an amatuer body, a kit lens and turn out better work then me and my D7000 and 70-200f/2.8*



That is the Point!! A real pro can turn out wonderful work with a crappy camera!!!!! BUT.. a wannabe FB Pro (without the knowledge the real pro has) cannot typically turn out even halfway decent work.. even if they were using the best of PRO cameras! (so how the hell are they supposed to do it with entry level gear?????)

and the Wannabe's are not willing to spend a couple of years learning to turn out decent work, before they start charging.. it is like BUY Camera, INSTANT PRO.. Start charging! lol!


----------



## tirediron (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses. It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?


To some degree I think it is. I agree that remembering the settings used for a particular shot aren't necessarily relevant, but knowing the capabilitys of your equipment is. If you don't know the maximum aperture of your lenses, are you going to know which, of if you have appropriate glass when a client asks, "Can you...?" ?



Christie Photo said:


> Equipment does not make a photographer.


No, but I would submit that knowledge does; if you don't know what you have, or how to use it, can you really deliver the best product?


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?



It's an incredibly good indicator. A basic understanding of the equipment you use is incredibly important to be/become a proficient photographer. 



Christie Photo said:


> Equipment does not make a photographer.
> 
> -Pete



Absolutely. Equipment does not make a photographer, but equipment _can limit a photographer. _Not really a problem if it's just a hobby (as long as _you_ don't care that you've reached your equipment ceiling). But where this becomes a problem is when someone calls themselves "pro", charges a client, and brings their Rebel XT and 18-135MM kit lens to a wedding where it is inadequate to produce quality photographs given the lighting conditions. Maybe a real pro could squeeze out some decent shots with this camera. But remember, as depicted in the video, the wedding was in a low light church that did not allow flash. Find me the person who's going to produce good pictures with those set of circumstances and that equipment.

Sorry, if you're charging you need to bring the goods.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 20, 2012)

..edited because I shouldn't say anything about it...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 20, 2012)

Geez, Pete. You got the noobs all riled up!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 20, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> ..edited because I shouldn't say anything about it...



Too late. Already read it.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 20, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> What about the all those who spend $5000+ on a camera and lens and believe that alone makes them "pros?"
> 
> I made this photo a year ago last fall. I can't tell you the focal length of the lens or the aperture and shutter speed used. I think it's a decent portrait (don't look really close). I'll come back later and explain why this is relevant.
> 
> ...




I remember that experiment. I was pretty well brand new to photography when you first posted that and it provided a good lesson.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 21, 2012)

Overread said:


> But the question isn't how much does the photographer know, its if her work as delivered to the client was on par with her advertised product. The same for any working professional, if their work upon delivery is equal to that of their advertised product then it doesn't matter if they know their gear inside and out or not, they've upheld what they promised at the time of the contracts agreement.





First, I understand what you're saying about advertised product vs. product delivered. Your point is taken.

But potential clients for photographers a lot of the time don't know a thing about photography. They see the "highlight reel" that a photographer puts before them; A hand-picked selection of the best of the best of their shots. These clients often base their entire decision on this. They don't often have the good sense to ask to see every picture a photographer took from a couple weddings they have done, to truly evaluate the photographers skill level (they just see the best pictures the photographer provides and expect all their pictures to be this way). They don't understand how lighting works and how some equipment works better in low light. I think it is implied in the photographer/client relationship that the photographer is at the very least prepared and has the proper tools to get the job done. 



Overread said:


> Now if the finished work was greatly below the advertised product then questions can be asked and its then that you can start to question if the professional knew what they were doing or if it was the situation itself which presented abnormal shooting conditions or conditions beyond the professionals reasonable ability to work within to their normal standard.



Why wouldn't a so-called "professional" photographer be expected to have the ability and equipment to shoot across all conditions? If you're going to call yourself "professional", then there should be very few lighting conditions you aren't prepared to shoot in. This requires proper planning, good equipment, and a working knowledge of that equipment. 

Ignorance, lack of equipment, or lack of preparedness is not grounds to blow someones wedding day. 




Overread said:


> However the JJB case has no such comparison, just a hashing against a specific gear level (the rebel). I'm not defending someone know knowing their stuff or not using the best gear, but honestly its a very poor example and its a little sad how often its touted around as firm proof (mostly just because the "pros" in this case were using entry level gear).




Gear _is _an issue and it was very important that JJB spent time learning more about the knowledge (or lack thereof) of this so-called professional. If gear wasn't important, then all pros would shoot weddings with 18-135s and Rebels. JJB had a surprisingly great depth and breadth of knowledge on the topic. He was quite focused on her gear, I'll give you that. But for good reason. Without adequate gear, it is difficult and sometimes not possible to produce quality photos.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 21, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> point is the gear doesnt matter, nor does knowing it,(in this example)    if you go to mcdonalds. you spend $3 for a hamburger and you know your getting a fast food hamburger. if i know that going in. and mcdonalds gives me a $3 hamburger then there isn't an issue   these people went it, new they were getting a cheap photographer. hopefully went in and viewed the work these people had done and paid for that quality of work.   now if they went in. saw the work and thought it was great, but then the photos just totally sucked then there is an issue.



Where in this video was it implied that this woman was hiring a wedding photographer the equivalent of McDonald's quality? If my memory serves me correctly, the client saw good work from the photographer before choosing her. So obviously she'd expect good work at her wedding. Not an under-prepared, inadequately-equipped fauxtographer to show up on her big day. This photographer also charged $1,300 for the wedding, which is probably twice what all of her gear cost _combined_. 


12sndsgood said:


> if your car was broke and  you brought it to me and i fixed the car for you. would you sue me if you found out i used a single pair of vicegrips and not some high dollar tool?



What you depicted isn't really a kosher metaphor for how things went down in this case. It wasn't that she was sued for the equipment that she used, it was that she was sued for not having the proper equipment to get the job done. 
So let's go with your example. Let's say my tires fall off and I take them into you. I trust you to put my tires back on.  

So you decided instead of using the proper shop equipment to securely fasten the bolts, you'll use a monkey wrench. You hand tighten the bolts, and I pay you expecting that the job has been professionally done. A week later I'm cruising down the interstate and my tire falls off. 

Yes, you're going to be accountable for using the wrong tool for the job. Just as this photographer did not have the right tools to get the job done. 



12sndsgood said:


> the judge should have been looking at the photos and quality of work. what f/stop they were at or how wide an apature they could go to is pretty irrelevent.



The judge did look at the pictures that were provided for him to see. The f/stop and equipment conversation (most of it separate from the actual viewing of the photos) were probes JJB used to discover the glaring lack knowledge of this photographer.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 21, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> I made this photo a year ago last fall. I can't tell you the focal length of the lens or the aperture and shutter speed used. I think it's a decent portrait (don't look really close). I'll come back later and explain why this is relevant.
> 
> -Pete
> 
> ...




Sorry, I missed this one. 

It's not about remembering the exact EXIF for every photo you took a year ago. That isn't what's called into question here by JJB. This lady didn't have the _slightest clue_ about the speed of the glass she was using to photograph this wedding, yet she was being paid to shoot this wedding where fast glass was an *absolute necessity*. You don't see her glaring lack of knowledge as a problem?




Christie Photo said:


> What about the all those who spend $5000+ on a camera and lens and believe that alone makes them "pros?"



I don't think it's the amount of money spent on a camera that makes someone "pro", although granted some people are under this illusion. At the very least, they have the right equipment. 

Having the skill but not owning adequate equipment to deliver proper images across all lighting conditions, as depicted in this video, is definitely a problem. 

I think cgipson1 sums it up pretty well:




cgipson1 said:


> How many pros that turn out good work, use Rebels (entry level gear)?  (very few????)
> 
> and yet, how many wannabe's that turn out crap.. DO use Rebels? (one hell of a lot???)
> 
> Tends to skew the statistics a good bit, doesn't it?


----------



## Crollo (Mar 21, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?



Uhh...


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 21, 2012)

Crollo said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?
> ...


Right? Could you imagine if all professions were this laid back on the details? No wonder everyone's trying to be a photographer! That's like a mechanic not knowing whether he has metric or standard (or hopefully both) , or what size sockets he has.


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> It wasn't that she was sued for the equipment that she used, it was that she was sued for not having the proper equipment to get the job done.



How do we know this? 
Yes we know for certain that the photographer didn't have the best gear and didn't have gear of a minimum standard that we would expect of a charging professional. However any professional (be they top end of bottom end) advertises their product. The standard to which they are expected to perform is to the standard of the product that they advertise. If her gear was able to reproduce that standard of product for the given wedding then the pro has done the work that they were hired for -- since that is the same criteria we measure professional photographers against no matter if they are running around with rebels or phase ones. 

IS there better gear? Could better gear have gotten a better result? These are valid points, but they are not really points valid to the case because if you go down the rout of "pros must only ever use the best of the best" then there are a lot of 35mm shooting pros about to be sued for not using medium format gear. 

In the end the case isn't a good one to show I feel because its mostly a JJB powertrip (he likes them from what I see ). The produced product isn't compared to the advertised (at least infront of the audience) so we've no idea if the pro has miss-represented her work or if the bride simply hired someone of a talent less than she was expecting.

I note that there wasn't any problem with the prints, the shooting, the behaviour or anything till the prints came from WalMart and I'll bet if they had just been handed over without that fact being mentioned the bride would have been more than happy with what she got.


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 21, 2012)

They're on a televised court show... Both parties lose at life. Nothing more needs to be taken from that video clip.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 21, 2012)

Overread said:
			
		

> If her gear was able to reproduce that standard of product for the given wedding then the pro has done the work that they were hired for -- since that is the same criteria we measure professional photographers against no matter if they are running around with rebels or phase ones.



Indulge me, who's we?

You and others seem to be hung up on this concept that what you order off the menu is what you're going to get. But it's not as simple as that. What if a wedding photographer doesn't show a proper representation of his work? Clients could be mislead seeing a misrepresentation of his work. What if the clients are to be wed in a dim church with no flash allowed? Well, that's the photographers problem, since he is charging money to take the photographs. 

Is it not the responsibility of the photographer to live up to how he represents himself through his portfolio? Is it not the responsibility of the photographer to properly prepare for each event, by equipping himself adequately and having a working knowledge of said equipment?

It's too easy to say " because photographers work looked like X when client hired him then the client should only expect X as a result". At the VERY LEAST the photographer should produce x, or better, REGARDLESS of all other variables. It is what he's getting PAID to do.

 In this clip, this photographer simply didn't deliver. She didn't have the right tools or knowledge, and most importantly she wasn't prepared. To me, it's as simple as that.


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2012)

Rotanimod - I'm not disagreeing with you in the least - the thing is the case as presented in the video didn't consult what was promised. All it looked at was what was delivered. I agree fully that a professional should deliver the product that they promise to deliver provided that the conditions that they are working in are within sensible tolerances typically expected for the professional (eg in the case of wedding tog, as you say, a dim church and flash restrictions). 

The issue I take is that everyone who watches the video gets hung up on the gear, and its easy to understand why considering the influx of weekend warriors and such using rebels in the, generally considered, faux-professional capacity. I also agree that the gear the pro uses in the video is not what I'd expect nor recommend of a professional wedding photographer.
However I'm able to put that part aside and remember that any assessment of services delivered must first look to the services that were promised. That means looking at what that pro offered and demonstrated as their ability. You can't just pick and choose a photographer and a calibre of work and try and match the two together. Yes if you take that pro in the video and compare her work to a seasoned professional using top range gear (and likely charging vastly more than she is) then yes her work will stand up poor. But she didn't promise the other pro's work - she promised in her contact her level of work.

Now I agree IF we had seen (or at least there had been made a showing of) the proposed work (ie the pros catalogue/portfolio) and if that was vastly superior to the product that she delivered in this case. And if part of that difference was partly to blame upon poor equipment choice and poor performance of the pro then YES there would certainly be a case.
But without that display its just a random pros work judged against Joe Browns idea of what a wedding tog should be able to take


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 21, 2012)

I suppose it's all just speculation without the nitty gritty details. Fwiw I completely agree with JJB based on what I saw.

 Seeing what was "promised" as compared to what was "delivered" I don't feel is an excuse for a professional to be unprepared. Lets put the equipment issue aside since it seems to be your main gripe. There's no excuse for not preparing properly. This "pro" was not prepared.

 And conducting oneself in an unprofessional manner In a court of law is indicative of a propensity to conduct oneself unprofessionally in other arenas. 

We don't know what her "contact level" is. The only variables we know are the equipment used, her unsettling lack of knowledge of the equipment she owns, and the fact that she charged $1,300.00. Those things and her mannerisms taken into consideration just make me laugh out loud, but cry inside at the same time. The word "professional" is used so lightly and freely nowadays, especially in reference to "pro" photographers. It's disturbing.


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2012)

Aye, but that shifts the debate more toward the topic of what a "pro" should or shouldn't know or be able to do. The problem there is twofold for photography;
1) There are a range of pro types - a sports pro wouldn't be expected to know the same skill set as a studio pro just as neither would be expected to have the skill set of a war reporter. 

2) The lack of any national unification or standard setting body. Most areas where we have professional standards are also ones with a regulatory body. For better or worse they set the standard that is demanded of those that take on the mantel. 
The lack of one in photography means any debate tends to get bogged down into personal opinion - and generally by the end of that in a thread people are expecting pros to turn up with Kodak Brownies and taking PhaseOne style photos in pitch black conditions (with no editing of course ). 
In the end I don't think the word Pro has ever really meant "the best" in photography, it gets used for that mention and many professionals of times past people mention are very good. But they miss out on mentioning the many many names of people who were pros who were not that good - or who were rather hopeless. Its just that the net brings it all home to us far far more than was ever the case before. It makes matters way over in Australia things that affect or inform us way over here in the UK (as an example).

There's also a bit of romantics attached to the pro photographer, esp in an amateur community. For many the pro is the aspired dream; to know all there is of light and cameras; to be godlike enough that strangers turn over big sums of money to hang the pros work on their walls. 

As for questions on professional conduct, eh its JJB far as I can tell he doesn't really set that much of a pro standard to behave to himself. I mean just look at the body language he uses its clear the choice is made before the puppet show on the telly - he'll sweet talk and support the side he's chosen whilst the other side can be silenced or harassed - even his manner of seating and tone of voice shifts as he changes which side he's talking to. 

Its cheap entertainment and not much more (plus its not really a court its a civil settlement or somesuch other body, not really a proper lawcourt).


----------



## CCericola (Mar 21, 2012)

I always wonder about the true motives of both the plantiff and defendant on those TV court shows since as part of their appearence, the TV show pays any fines/judgements. They both know going in that neither has to pay a dime.


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2012)

Aye but the risk is public humiliation for at least one party in the game. Even if the show covers costs its still a big exposure on a less than upstanding kind of show.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 21, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious. This fits perfectly in this thread. And it's a great lesson to all of those who pick up their entry level DSLR and consider themselves "pros".
> ...



I want to say I recall you shooting this with a 135 f/2. Could be wrong. Nice image though.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Mar 21, 2012)

Josh220 said:
			
		

> So you have been eating the cost of something that has never paid off in almost 30 years?
> 
> Seems like a waste of money IMO... What would be the point for new photographers then? Why not spend a little extra upfront to have a really thorough contract made with the help of a well-established attorney?
> 
> I am referring to contracts, insurance, and everything else that is being suggested to people creating the posts you mentioned. Seems like a contract is the only necessary part...



Contracts are vital but so is insurance and biz licensing and taxes. I let my insurance lapse when I was having a rough time financially and just my luck, my studio was vandalized! It cost me thousands out of pocket to repair the damages. Also most of the high end vendors require proof of liability insurance. Most of the modeling agencies require proof of liability insurance also. As far as licensing and taxes ... Uh peace of mind is nice  I don't want to be looking over my shoulder worrying about legal trubs.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Mar 21, 2012)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> I can't tell you the maximum aperture of my lenses.  It that really a measure of one's proficiency as a photographer?
> 
> I agree she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but her work looks pretty typical of the majority of wedding "photographers" I've seen.
> 
> ...



No but knowledge of your equipment helps a lot! Most pros know their equipment inside out! And hell no I'm not gonna go out and shoot a wedding with a d5100 and a kit lens. Equipment doesn't make me a pro .... But a pro knows to use the right equipment for the job! Otherwise we'd all be out shooting with our iPhones


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 21, 2012)

CCericola said:


> I always wonder about the true motives of both the plantiff and defendant on those TV court shows since as part of their appearence, the TV show pays any fines/judgements. They both know going in that neither has to pay a dime.



WHAT???  Where did you hear that?  Is that true?


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 21, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I made this photo a year ago last fall. I can't tell you the focal length of the lens or the aperture and shutter speed used. I think it's a decent portrait (don't look really close). I'll come back later and explain why this is relevant.
> ...



Well, there is no EXIF for the family portrait.  I used a disposable film camera and had Walgreen's do the processing and scan.  I wanted to demonstrate that equipment need not be the best available.  A Rebel with a kit lens is adequate for producing a wedding.



Rotanimod said:


> ...she was being paid to shoot this wedding where fast glass was an *absolute necessity*.



A bright lens can be useful, but certainly not essential.  Again, I RARELY shoot wide open.  I know I'm not a stellar photographer, but I think my work is up to par.  Maybe not.

-Pete


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 21, 2012)

Balmiesgirl said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Right, thats why I make sureIi have two ipones. You  have to have backup.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> CCericola said:
> 
> 
> > I always wonder about the true motives of both the plantiff and defendant on those TV court shows since as part of their appearence, the TV show pays any fines/judgements. They both know going in that neither has to pay a dime.
> ...



It is true.  Read the fine print at the end of the show.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 21, 2012)

Overread said:


> I note that there wasn't any problem with the prints, the shooting, the behaviour or anything till the prints came from WalMart and I'll bet if they had just been handed over without that fact being mentioned the bride would have been more than happy with what she got.



Very likely.

And what's wrong with Fuji?  They make a fine product.

-Pete


----------



## bazooka (Mar 21, 2012)

I agree with Overread.  It is an entertaining video, but we don't know what the photog was offering in the first place.  We only get a vague idea of what the final result was, and even that is difficult to tell without seeing it in person.  Using the McD metaphor, I'm not going to sue them for giving me their version of a cheeseburger when I was expecting a $50 restaraunt burger.  The buyer should take some responsibility... otherwise it opens the door to the court systems running our lives and deciding who is capable of charging for their work and who isn't.  Let people live and learn and stop with the handholding.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 21, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> Well, there is no EXIF for the family portrait. I used a disposable film camera and had Walgreen's do the processing and scan. I wanted to demonstrate that equipment need not be the best available. *A Rebel with a kit lens is adequate for producing a wedding.
> 
> *




If that was the case, then everyone would be shooting weddings with a rebel and kit lens. Why spend the extra money on better equipment when an entry level DSLR's and cheap glass is "adequate"?

If the rebel is adequate to shoot a wedding, maybe you also feel that my 6 year old's KODAK Easy Share point and shoot camera is adequate to shoot a wedding? 

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

I mean, really. 



Christie Photo said:


> A bright lens can be useful, but certainly not essential. Again, I RARELY shoot wide open. I know I'm not a stellar photographer, but I think my work is up to par. Maybe not.
> 
> -Pete




Context. Context. Context. 

Whether you shoot wide open or not, is largely irrelevant. A lot of people do shoot wide open, especially on zoom lenses and such. In this case, the photographer did not come with adequate equipment to photograph the wedding. She _needed _faster glass to shoot in the church. It wasn't that it would of been "useful" to have the fast glass, it was _necessary_.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 21, 2012)

I have never been sued. I have, however, sued a couple clients 

Getting sued in the photo world is the equivalent of crime in the political world. Every time an election is coming up, we see crime more and more on the front page of newspapers. But do you actually know anyone who was the victim of a serious crime?

When I ask this question I usually get no answer.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 21, 2012)

bazooka said:


> I agree with Overread. It is an entertaining video, but we don't know what the photog was offering in the first place. We only get a vague idea of what the final result was, and even that is difficult to tell without seeing it in person.



It keeps going back to this, and to me it doesn't really matter a whole lot what she was offering. When you pay somebody to do something, you expect them to do it. She showed up with a knife at a gun fight when she brought her rebel and kit lens to a wedding at a dimly lit church that did not allow flash. 

There is no excuse for not being prepared. What's difficult to see in this video that you'd need to see in person? What I saw was a self-proclaimed "pro" photog whom was borderline incompetent. She accepted pay for a job she was ill-equipped to complete. 




bazooka said:


> Using the McD metaphor, I'm not going to sue them for giving me their version of a cheeseburger when I was expecting a $50 restaraunt burger. The buyer should take some responsibility...



Let me get this straight: You think it is okay for someone to pay a photographer, expect a certain level of work, and be okay with receiving sh#! in return? So it's the buyers responsibility to accept sh#! when they expected a certain level of quality that lead them to hire the photographer in the first place? 

Your wording is pretty peculiar: 
"I'm not going to sue them for giving me their version of a cheeseburger when I was expecting a $50 restaurant burger"

This has never been about the client _expecting too much. _It's been about the photographer _delivering too little. _Where does your expectation originate from? How does a client form expectations? From the images they are shown by the photographer. They expect at least that level of quality. It was never about being shown X images and expecting Y images, where Y > X. And what does "their version of a cheeseburger" even mean? That's not what the client is buying. They are buying what they've been shown, what they've been lead to expect. "Their version of a cheeseburger" is just an excuse waiting to happen; It's an easy out to produce quality less than what the photographer promised.  



bazooka said:


> otherwise it opens the door to the court systems running our lives and deciding who is capable of charging for their work and who isn't. Let people live and learn and stop with the handholding.




Court systems get involved ALL THE TIME when a business over-promises and under-delivers. Court systems are involved in cases EVERYDAY when a consumer purchases a service and those who render the service are ill-prepared or inadequately equipped to perform the service. 

A photographer is no different.


----------



## Overread (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Let me get this straight: You think it is okay for someone to pay a photographer, expect a certain level of work, and be okay with receiving sh#! in return? So it's the buyers responsibility to accept sh#! when they expected a certain level of quality that lead them to hire the photographer in the first place?



If the preview photos that the buyer saw were of the same or similar quality to the ones that were delivered by the photographer. Then yes its the buyers responsibility because of all the photographers out there they chose that one based upon that portfolio. The level of quality that they expect to get should be the same level of quality presented in the portfolio.
There is little more to it than that, there is no overarching reflationary body for professional photographers to apply to for the title; there is no mentioned group or body or association that the professional in the video claims to be a member of (and thus expected to perform to that bodies set standards). 

Otherwise you're just repeating what JJB did in the video - imposing your idea of what the product should be without first seeing the standards to which the product that was produced was attempting to aspire to.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:
			
		

> If that was the case, then everyone would be shooting weddings with a rebel and kit lens. Why spend the extra money on better equipment when an entry level DSLR's and cheap glass is "adequate"?
> 
> If the rebel is adequate to shoot a wedding, maybe you also feel that my 6 year old's KODAK Easy Share point and shoot camera is adequate to shoot a wedding?
> 
> ...



I agree... A rebel and a kit lens is not appropriate equipment for a pro wedding photographer to shoot a wedding with!!!   But perfect for uncle bob or one of the guests to snap away with.  not tryin to diss those with less equipment, but as a pro I have put a huge investment in my equipment and my TRAINING ! If you don't believe that better glass makes a difference , rent a high end lens and try it out. You will have a hard time returning it !


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 22, 2012)

Just my .02. Going back to the McDonalds theme, I dont go to McDonalds for a filet mignon. The buyer has to take some responsibility for those they hire.  This logic follows in all things in life. You cant hire someone do do a job for you, excpect them to be much cheaper BUT expect the quality of work to be that of the most expensive. My guess is that the buyer suspected that the photog wasnt they best available, but was willing to ignore that fact in hopes of saving a few bucks.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> If the rebel is adequate to shoot a wedding, maybe you also feel that my 6 year old's KODAK Easy Share point and shoot camera is adequate to shoot a wedding?



Well, that's a bit of a leap.





Rotanimod said:


> 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


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> 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


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


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



I would assume because of the OBVIOUS lack of knowledge on the part of the Rebel user in question. YOU (Pete) and experienced pros, have the knowledge and skills needed to produce good images, and compensate for lack of equipment capability (as best anyone can, hopefully). The person in the video does not appear to have either the skill or knowledge needed to do that. lack of decent equipment can be compensated for, to a degree.. but it does require experience... which most wannabe's lack!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > This has never been about the client _expecting too much. _It's been about the photographer _delivering too little. _.
> ...



Maybe.. but many people do that. Judgements are often made based on what we drive, what we wear, what music we listen to, etc! It is part of the society we live in.  

I remember once back in Texas... I had been invited to shoot the Texas and USA All Stars game (exhibition game for charity). I asked a buddy to come along as a backup shooter. He was shooting a Minolta X700 back then.. and it had stopped working, so he brought his X370 backup with him. The security guards would not let him in the back way, as they didn't believe he was a professional since he had a entry level camera (apparently one of the guards knew a little bit about cameras or something). I had talked to the guards earlier.. and told them another "pro" was coming.... and they were supposed to give him a badge. I had to go and vouch for him... lol!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 22, 2012)

to me it comes back to did she produce photos that were the same quality as those she showed to the client to get the job. thats what should matter.   if i promote a $50 product and i deliver a $50 product, it should't matter what i used to get the procuct deliverd as long as i delivered what was promised.   if the defendant had known all the answers and was profesional, would that have suddenly made those pictures better?  no.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

The thing is.. VERY FEW pro's (or NONE) would use LOW END equipment like that... it is an indication that they are NOT a pro! 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!  

 I am sure the images backed up the Judge's decision about the lack of skill on the part of the photographer.. but it is useless to argue about, since we don't have access to the images.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

Something I see often on Wannabe's PRO's Photography sites.. is one or two  images from a shoot.. and one or two images from another shoot....  etc..etc! Basically they go on ten shoots (as an example) and shoot say  500 images at each of those shoots. They get two decent shots from those  500 images per shoot... and post those a representative of their best work! But  out of 5000 total images they only got 10 decent photos.  

So prospective  client goes to their site.. and see those 10 photos.. and they look  good! 

They hire the wannabe.. and get 500 shots.. but guess how many good photos they got?     lol! 

And the client would expect all 500 to look as good as the  "Best" that were posted on the wannabe's site since that was the implied  quality.. right?

Poor client.. gets screwed! Royally!


----------



## Overread (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Overread said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

bazooka said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 22, 2012)

bazooka said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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 (Mar 22, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > HughGuessWho said:
> ...



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


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> bazooka said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


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






Christie Photo said:


> 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. 






Christie Photo said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > This has never been about the client _expecting too much. _It's been about the photographer _delivering too little. _.
> ...



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 .


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 22, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> 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.



Well, given the hoardes of Facebook fauxtographers out there $1,300 isn't necessarily chump change to charge for a wedding. My photographer was our states Bridal Magazine photographer of the year for 2 out of the last 5 years and charged $1,000 for 3 hours of his time. Sure he had plans that ranged from $1k - $5k, we chose the least expensive since we weren't the ones paying for it (photographers fee was a wedding gift from parents). 

If your argument is that this lady sought out a cheap photographer and got what she paid for, I don't think that's a strong case here. I think the client saw work she liked, hired this photographer, and was blindsided by her glaring lack of professionalism and preparedness.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 22, 2012)

Overread said:


> If the preview photos that the buyer saw were of the same or similar quality to the ones that were delivered by the photographer. Then yes its the buyers responsibility because of all the photographers out there they chose that one based upon that portfolio. *The level of quality that they expect to get should be the same level of quality presented in the portfolio.
> *.



I think you are taking my rhetorical question out of context, given your point is more or less _verbatim _of what I said:




Rotanimod said:


> This has never been about the client _expecting too much. _It's been about the photographer _delivering too little. _Where does your expectation originate from? How does a client form expectations? *From the images they are shown by the photographer. They expect at least that level of quality. It was never about being shown X images and expecting Y images, where Y > X.*






Overread said:


> There is little more to it than that, there is no overarching reflationary body for professional photographers to apply to for the title; there is no mentioned group or body or association that the professional in the video claims to be a member of (and thus expected to perform to that bodies set standards).



Still, not an acceptable excuse for being unprepared.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> 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.



The "Wal-mart" type studios are prefabbed.... they are designed by a professional and locked down. The "photographers" that work there can seldom move or change anything.. they are merely pushing the shutter button. And most of those studios DON'T use Rebels.. and they do have decent studio flashes and modifiers. So they do usually turn out decent quality "soul-less, art-less" work en masse... and the prices are so low, because of two things. #1 The studio is a draw to get customers in the door.. who will shop while waiting for the studio, or the pictures.. it isn't really supposed to make a profit. #2.. sheer quantity of customers allows the studios to at least break even.. even make a profit.

So what's your point.. other than  PROs are PROs.. and most wannabe's arent?


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 22, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> When you're the hired photographer, and you'll be shooting at a dimly lit church that doesn't allow flash, you need...




... a tripod.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > When you're the hired photographer, and you'll be shooting at a dimly lit church that doesn't allow flash, you need...
> ...



That works.. as long as everybody holds really still! Any movement... no good!  

If you are only taking pictures of the religious statues and icons.. tripod is great though!


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images?



Ahhh...  this is helping me see what's going on...  maybe.

Are you taking about technical matters like focus and exposure?  I'm trying to imagine the sever limitations of Rebel camera.  I'm thinking we're talking about the size and sharpness of the image.

-Pete


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images?
> ...



Well.. if you are shooting with ambient light in a dark church.. and your body turns images to fuzz above ISO 1600.... it might be difficult to overcome that without getting a better body (especially if you have F4 max kit lens on that body), yes??


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 22, 2012)

We dont know the light in the church. Neither did the judge. We don't know the quality of the pictures versus the quality of what was promised. Neither did the judge. No one here knows how well the rebel could handle in the church. Its not about the equipment.  It's about what was promised versus what was delivered.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 22, 2012)

It is also about stupidity, and a unprepared amateur.. who was not able to deliver what she promised! Why are you fighting that idea so hard! lol!


----------



## KmH (Mar 22, 2012)

I wanna hear about more law suits.

Licensing an image for a LOGO.

Photo Attorney


----------



## tirediron (Mar 22, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > When you're the hired photographer, and you'll be shooting at a dimly lit church that doesn't allow flash, you need...
> ...


If those are allowed.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm not working right now. Gotta fill my time somehow


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 23, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Well.. if you are shooting with ambient light in a dark church.. and your body turns images to fuzz above ISO 1600.... it might be difficult to overcome that without getting a better body (especially if you have F4 max kit lens on that body), yes??



Maybe I'm too old.  The vast majority of my wedding shooting was done on roll film.  FFL lenses...  no zooms.

Many, if not most, churches are relatively dark, appointed with stained glass windows.  I came to expect that.

Whether flash photography was allowed or not, my practice was to never use strobes after the wedding party processed up the isle; nor did I approach the sanctuary.  I shot from the back of the church or the loft using the longest lens I had...  180mm/f3.8

I eventually began to carry a roll or two of ISO 400, but typically did these shots on ISO 160, and 80 for the earlier ones.  Shooting at 1/4 sec did require some anticipation, waiting for a moment when the action paused.  I worked from a tripod and used a cable release with the mirror up.

So I find working with a modern Rebel outfitted with a zoom lens to be adequate...  even novel.  It allows working at a much quicker shutter...  maybe even 1/15 sec.

I would pose a couple of the shots after the ceremony so I could work in closer...  unity candle, first kiss, that sort of stuff.

So again, maybe it's my perspective of what I want to shoot at a wedding.  The shots done during the actual ceremony are just a small segment of all the work done during the course of the day.  The vast majority of the images will not created in the church during the ceremony.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 23, 2012)

KmH said:


> I wanna hear about more law suits.



Yes!  Especially first-hand experiences.

-Pete


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 23, 2012)

I am 100% certain I saw them using a Canon Rebel XTI with a cheap $5.00 Opteka Softbox diffuser that was drooping like a wet rag, last Christmas taking their Santa&#8217;s lap pictures. I was embarrassed for them. The point being, they were taking pictures for paying customers with JUNK equipment.

$1000 for 3 hours? Ok. But I have been an assistant for MANY weddings and have NEVER been in and out of a wedding gig in 3 hours. I have spent 3 hours before the wedding even started.

&#8220;PROs are PROs.. and most wannabe's arent&#8221;&#8230; neither all of  the &#8220;noobs&#8221;, &#8220;fauxtographers&#8221;, &#8220;Facebook Pro&#8217;s&#8221; and all of the other colorful and condescending names that are so popular these days. But that has nothing to do with it, really. Hell, the case in question really isn&#8217;t really about photography at all. It&#8217;s about Right and Wrong, Moral and Immoral, Good and Evil. The world is full of unscrupulous people whether they are &#8220;professional&#8221; business people or some hack selling $200 Rolodex&#8217;s on the Broadway. We have to be responsible enough to know who we are dealing with.

Bottom line is, I am in no way defending this &#8220;photographer&#8221;, from what I see she was amateur at best. But, this was this ladies wedding day. The most important day in most women&#8217;s lives&#8230; a day that cannot repeat. How much effort did she put into selecting her photographer? Before I purchased my first $600 wide angle lens, I read tons of reviews, visited the camera shop numerous times and chatted with several experienced photographers for weeks before I made the purchase. Did this lady even ask for any references from the photographer that was going to archive the most important day of her life? Even if this photographer was an absolute crook, sometimes we have to accept some of the responsibility for allowing ourselves from being crooked.

I&#8217;m done. Over n Out


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 23, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images?
> ...



Poor High ISO, poor Autofocus, poor FPS, No Weather-sealing, less overall functions (equals less control)


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 23, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> I am 100% certain I saw them using a Canon Rebel XTI with a cheap $5.00 Opteka Softbox diffuser that was drooping like a wet rag, last Christmas taking their Santa&#8217;s lap pictures. I was embarrassed for them. The point being, they were taking pictures for paying customers with JUNK equipment.
> 
> $1000 for 3 hours? Ok. But I have been an assistant for MANY weddings and have NEVER been in and out of a wedding gig in 3 hours. I have spent 3 hours before the wedding even started.
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter if he gets all the good pictures in three hours. If they want him for the whole wedding (9 hours?) it's gonna cost 'em 3k.
He's not obligated to stay there for the entire thing if it's in his contract that he's only going to photograph as long as his rate allows.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 23, 2012)

Point being, not many people would purchse such a small contract. This was in reference to my comment that $1300 was a low average price for a wedding shoot. And someone gave the $1000 for 3 hour response. Not many would purchase a 3 hour package and $1300 is VERY low for a wedding.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...




OK. Now I see what's goin' on.

None of these features is of concern to me.  I don't use auto-focus, I shoot one frame at a time and I'm not going out in the rain will my gear.  Fewer functions means more control for me.  I insist that I decide what the camera is doing.  My cameras are set on "M"... always.

The Rebel produces a file large enough for 20x24 prints.  A "kit" lens is OK...  not my choice but doable.

OK.  I get it now.

Thanks!

-Pete


----------



## epatsellis (May 4, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Then I'm really screwed, my Sinars have no autofocus, maybe 1 fpm, if I'm really quick, absolutely no weather sealing.....dear me, how have I existed these last 30 years shooting with it????


----------



## cgipson1 (May 4, 2012)

epatsellis said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Christie Photo said:
> ...



The difference is that you have knowledge and experience.. and prefer to use that system from choice. Most of the  "PRO's" who shoot Rebels (or other entry level equipment) lack knowledge and experience (many of them have had a DLSR/SLR for less than a year.)


----------

