# Woman sued, shot wedding on Rebel XTi



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 15, 2010)

A woman got sued for shooting a clients wedding with a Canon Rebel XTi kit and was accused of delivering "inadequate results". The judge concurred. I think this is pretty funny, the photographer didn't even know how slow her 70-300 was. 

This is why alot of people shouldn't shoot weddings... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs]YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer[/ame]


And the best part is that i'm pretty sure we've all seen worse!


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 15, 2010)

I've seen this before, but I also want to say that clearly Judge Brown doesn't really know what he's talking about. 

I mean, her attitude was terrible, but what is with him talking about how most churches allow flash, and also, what was with his comments about using a tripod? 

Pretty much everything he said was silly. 

Obviously though she was not prepared for the wedding, and did a bad job, but also, what is with him giving 2500 when she only asked for 1k?


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 15, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> but also, what is with him giving 2500 when she only asked for 1k?



Punitive damages I guess ... even though she didn't ask for it.  That's probably the maximum amount that can be awarded in that court.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 15, 2010)

yeah, I guess, it's just that qualitatively all he could say about her shots that was wrong was that they looked soft (maybe) and that they wouldn't blow up bigger than 8x10. 

This is for one, highly unlikely considering they were outdoors in plenty of sunlight. They were composed terribly, but I'm not sure the clarity had problems. and secondly who cares if the image can't be blown up bigger than 8x10, is that something that matters in this case?

Thirdly, they never mentioned a contract. Not once. Where is the contract saying, this is what I am giving you, and this is when I will be there etc. 

Although I did find her lack of knowledge appalling, her main problem was her attitude. I did not see any problem with her photography that would give the judge cause to give her money, let alone 2500. Now, had they shown the terrible images of the ceremony then yes, I could see it, but otherwise the only complaint was not being able to blow up the images, and not using flash indoors.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 15, 2010)

Well, it's not like we can really judge picture quality based on the video.  We just have to take the judges word for it.


----------



## BKMOOD (Mar 15, 2010)

Too funny. Lesson here: don't go into court acting like a damn fool -- it'll cost you.  And it did.  Whatever case the photographer may or may not have had was ruined by her big freakin' mouth! I would have awarded the maximum $5000. Dumb ass!


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 15, 2010)

BKMOOD: oh, she was definitely an idiot. 

Josh: yeah, we do have to take the judges word for it, but what I hear is that when she asked him about the images and what was wrong with them, all he could say was that they wouldn't blow up well.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 15, 2010)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (5 members and 1 guests) 		 	 	 		 			Dominantly, Cruisn, Dao, *ekool*

, ghache
:scratch:

Yeah i have seen this video before, and I even posted it in that thread about the Nikon D40 being used to shoot weddings. I would be willing to bet that if a customer is dissatisfied with a wedding shoot, and the gear list is divulged showing a cheap consumer camera was used, the judge no matter the experience; will take it to the "pro".


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 15, 2010)

Looked it up, lol.  I guess it's not actually a court, so there's no telling what the maximum might be.  He is a real Judge though.

The photographer would have probably had a much better chance in a 'real' court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Brown_(judge)


> "Judge Joe Brown" cannot properly be referred to as small claims, contrary to the show's setup. Like all television 'Judge shows', it is actually a form of binding arbitration.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 15, 2010)

Yeah, I would think you're right. It would probably be like if a person claimed to be a roofer and only did the roof with hammers and nails etc, and then charged by the hour instead of using good equipment. (I'm not sure that's a good example, but it's what I'm getting off the top of my head)


----------



## KmH (Mar 15, 2010)

Judge Brown impressed me with his posturing.


----------



## matfoster (Mar 15, 2010)

''A...S...A" lol


----------



## Eco (Mar 15, 2010)

Granted it's a f'ing TV show but how about calling some expert witnesses and not some TV judge to see if the work is that of a professional.......only if the contract stated that professional pictures were part of the contract.  

IMHO, it was a fun video to watch and maybe it's a warning lesson to some starting off but it's not the law or how it's really done in court.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 15, 2010)

Eco said:


> Granted it's a f'ing TV show but how about calling some expert witnesses and not some TV judge to see if the work is that of a professional.......only if the contract stated that professional pictures were part of the contract.



I don't really think that you would need any sort of expert to tell if the images were those of a professional. Any professional work should look reasonably polished to the eye of someone who is not a photographer. In addition, the photographer should be able to easily produce images showing that what they provided was similar to what the client should have expected considering their prior portfolio. 

The problem was that Judge Brown thought he knew (or acted like he knew) more about photography, and camera equipment than he obviously actually did. That or the fact that he knew more than the photographer was the problem.

I think that in a civil court like that, you should only have to prove to an average person that your photos were professional. I thoroughly believe for example that I would have no difficulty doing so with any wedding of mine, because I provided examples and the final images were similar in quality to the ones they had already seen.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 15, 2010)

These are also not held to the standard of "without a shadow of a doubt", more of "reasonable belief". The same goes for traffic court when you explain your side to the judge.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 16, 2010)

yep, so all you have to do is show that one could reasonably expect these images to be of professional quality, and that it is what one would expect of your work. This should be easily done with most anyone.


----------



## Actor (Mar 16, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> Looked it up, lol.  I guess it's not actually a court, so there's no telling what the maximum might be.  He is a real Judge though.
> 
> The photographer would have probably had a much better chance in a 'real' court.
> 
> ...


The original "_People's Court_" with Judge Wapner had a statement in the credits that all awards and costs were paid by the  producers, no matter who "won."  Probably the same with Judge Brown, so he can award the plaintiff anything the producers are willing to pay and the defendant does not lose anything but face (and future customers).


----------



## Actor (Mar 16, 2010)

KmH said:


> Judge Brown impressed me with his posturing.


This show is entertainment, not a court.  That's what the "judge" is paid to do: *posture*.


----------



## Double H (Mar 16, 2010)

I actually was impressed by several things the Judge asked. He knows a lot more than the average joe, and certainly more than you would expect a judge to know. The flash in churches comment was a little off, but he railed that photographer with many questions she couldn't answer, simple questions even a student would know. And who the hell uses a tripod during the ceremony?
I hope that "photographer" uses Genuine Fractals.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 16, 2010)

I think the tripod comment was because she had slow glass and he knew it (she didn't seem to get it). Granted all that would do is cause blurry photos (from subject movement), but it would be better than handheld.

Just a guess.


----------



## Double H (Mar 16, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> I think the tripod comment was because she had slow glass and he knew it (she didn't seem to get it). Granted all that would do is cause blurry photos (from subject movement), but it would be better than handheld.
> 
> Just a guess.



Agreed, he asked a very simple question and she couldn't answer it. She probably shot everything in Auto. If proper, professional level lenses are used, and with current pro-bodies' ability to shoot at high "ASA", a tripod is not necessary. I will use a monopod when needed, usually during Catholic weddings, but dragging a tripod around is distracting, noisy, and time consuming. Think of all the shots missed because you were busy moving your clunky tripod.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 16, 2010)

lol @ "where is your 28-70?"


I know there is a 28-70mm lens, but it's made by Sigma.  I'm guessing that he meant to say 24-70?


All I know is that if someone is charging $1300 for a wedding shoot, they'd better have gear that costs at least as much.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 16, 2010)

"She doesn't know. It's a black box, it's a Canon Rebel."  Insert 'fist pump' smiley here.

Found one:


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 16, 2010)

This is why you should never hire someone to do something without doing research first.  Luckily, there are TV shows in place to protect the growing number of stupid people in America.  Take this woman, for example.


----------



## Overread (Mar 16, 2010)

Oh not this again (3rd time here I think now).

Seriously go back and rewatch the vid 2 or 3 times and start to really listen to what is said and not get caught up in the "Judges" words.

Firstly the case in question is that the Bride felt that she had not been given what she paid for - so the images from the wedding (a scant 3 or 4) are shown to the judge, but at no point do we see him openly comparing their quality to that of the photographers portfolio. Thus on what basis is the judge judging? His own? That of a 35 year experienced pro wedding photographer? 
Who knows - but the end result is that the photographer was not judged nor assessed upon her own output. At this point the gear she uses, her understanding of that gear and her practice are not in question at all. 

Those aspects would come into question after a comparison of the images and if the images produced for the wedding in question were significantly lesser than those she uses to advertise her services. Further those portolio images must also be the same ones used at the time to advertise to the bride. IF however the image quality was similar then the bride has no case, she agreed to the services of the photographer; paid her fees and got her services. It's not a defence of bad photography nor bad pratice but one of upholding the same rights we would accord to any level of professional photographer - from the top of the game through to the lower levels. 

Further note how many points are never clarified - the matter of if they were proofs or not as well as a few other facts are quickly glossed over. One could also note how the defence gets very little time nor freedom to pitch an effective defence - whilst the acuser gets time and assistance from the judge

As for the judges understanding of photography - meh - you could learn all that he showed of modern understanding (listing out camera models) in around 10 mins whilst his background understanding is clearly a lot more limited and probably a little out of date (due to him not being a current active photographer -by his own admission as well).


----------



## Overread (Mar 16, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> lol @ "where is your 28-70?"
> 
> 
> I know there is a 28-70mm lens, but it's made by Sigma.  I'm guessing that he meant to say 24-70?
> ...



Prices grabbed from amazon.com
Sigma 70-300mm - $209.00
Canon XSi plus kit lens $649.99 (assuming most rebel camera bodies are of similar price upon release) 

So around $850 so far without adding in a tripod - ok its only another $15 I suspect. But add in that those are webprices not highstreet (which I would expect at least another $50ish on top). So she is almost there in pricing matters.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 16, 2010)

Yeah, but he's not paid to be a judge.  He's paid to be entertaining on TV.  I'll bet his bosses were super impressed with this show, because he pretends to show comprehension on a subject that he clearly only has a novice understanding of.  With questions like "what is the speed of your lens?" I wouldn't have even really known how to respond.  20mph?  No one asks that.  "what is the max aperture?" That's more like it.  The thing that is most entertaining about this (and let's face it, it's a TV show, not a court room) is that he tries to sound like he knows what he's talking about and messes it up.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 16, 2010)

I still think had she acted like a professional she might have been treated like one.

"What's the speed?"
I don't know.

"Where's your 28 to 70?"
I don't know, didn't have it I guess.

Wrong answers, answered in a rude manner. She knew she didn't know her stuff and tried being a ***** to make up for it, not smart.

When you go to court, be prepared - don't just show up thinking you're god's gift to everyone, and even if you think you are - don't act that way.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 16, 2010)

Overread said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > lol @ "where is your 28-70?"
> ...



She said she's done hundreds of weddings without any complaints.  quick math: 200 x $1,300 = $260,000.  I would think she could afford some better gear.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 16, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> I still think had she acted like a professional she might have been treated like one.
> 
> "What's the speed?"
> I don't know.
> ...



do you know anyone with a 28-70?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 16, 2010)

Like this one?
Canon 28-70 F2.8 L USM Lens - $1,075.00

A review:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/28-70

No I don't, but one does exist and it's an f/2.8 L series - so Mr. Brown does know his glass, at least up to when he stopped his hobby. She really should have had a comparable lens to counter his question. Judge Brown, I do not have a Canon 28-70 but I do have 'insert comparable lens here'. But no... 2 kit lenses, both f/3.5-5.6 probably. I'm going to be an unpaid second shooter this summer for 2 weddings and even I wanted better glass than she has had for 100's of weddings. - Just saying.


----------



## Overread (Mar 16, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > robertwsimpson said:
> ...



Oh yes true and one would have expected her to have learnt a lot more over that time (like to bring a reflector at least) and things like the 50mm f1.8. One can quite easily take apart her setup with basic points. However it was not for the judge to do at that point in the case - he jumped the gun (like most hotfire people on a forum would) and went straight into gear attack mode


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 16, 2010)

Robert: Both Canon and Nikon have made a 28-70. Canon's (as shown in the post above) was the precurser to the newer 24-70. That focal length was the industry standard until the 24-70 came along.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 16, 2010)

Ok, I'm gonna get a lot of guff, but you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment.  And what does she mean she doesn't know her settings?????


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 16, 2010)

I stand corrected.

The point remains... professional status requires professional equipment.  Sure, you can take great pictures with an XTi.  I used that exact camera/lens setup and took photos that I shocked myself with once I really learned how to make it work for me.  I would never have shot a wedding with that camera (even as a backup), let alone charged that kind of money to do so.  The problem is that you can take consistently decent photos with an XTi under good conditions.  You might luck into just the right situation to make a really great photo.  That is why it is a great hobbiest's camera.  With a full frame camera, you're making the limitations of the equipment less limiting.  With L glass, you're guaranteeing that all of your photos look good (I'm assuming the person behind the camera knows what he's doing) and the really good ones even better.  This is what people expect when they contract with a wedding photographer.  No matter how much they spend, they're expecting drop dead gorgeous photos.  If they spend $1300, they're expecting even a little bit more.


----------



## Overread (Mar 16, 2010)

Robert that is certianly a very valid point and its one that many would agree with in the photographic world. However there are those (who live outside of internet photography forums) who do and will work with lesser gear. Some are amazing and others are not - whichever kind they are they are still only able to be measured against the quality of their output.

Ask yourself if the photographer had been using a 1D and a 24-70mm heck even a 50mm f1.2 and a full set of strobes would people be so quick to bash against her - even if she still didn't know the aperture of her lens? I guess some would flip the coin and say its a rich fool with good gear - but so far most of what people (And what the judge) have said is use pro gear 

My argument is only that the judge didn't measure the previous output against the current in the trial - that is all anyone in a similar position could be measured upon based upon the complaint raised against her.


----------



## astrostu (Mar 16, 2010)

Okay, first, the photographer was in the wrong, I think to hold herself as a pro and shoot with a Rebel and not know what settings she used and for not coming prepared for no flash in a church.  She's wrong to do that.

That said, I do not like JJB.  I think his posturing is closer to Springer than what you should see in a court room.  I tried to watch him once and around the 4th case I saw he just sat back and laughed while the defendants and plaintiffs had a shouting match for about 30 seconds.  In this case, I don't think he actually allowed the defendants to give their side of the case, even though I don't think it could have saved them.  The claim of the defendants that the corners were blurry because they did that in post-processing could be perfectly legitimate, though they should have offered the shots without that effect as evidence.  The Rebels are perfectly capable of producing rather large prints without sharpness issues, and his claim of an 8x10 being pixelated probably had more to do with the printer or the resolution at which they sent the photo to the printer rather than the camera.

Oh, and as for these TV judge shows - while arbiters and not "real courts," the rulings are still legally binding.  They are capped by the maximum amount of small claims courts in the plaintiff's jurisdiction, as well (usually $5k, sometimes $3k and more rarely $7k).


----------



## Hamtastic (Mar 16, 2010)

And if she'd used the judge's suggested gear list, or had a $1,000,000 B & H shopping spree does anyone actually think the photos would have been better?  Considering that most of the wedding photos ever taken have been made using cameras that are incredibly crude compared to today's entry level DSLRs I contend that if you can't shoot a wedding with an XTi having a 1D isn't going to help you.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 16, 2010)

bennielou said:


> ...you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment.



uhhhh...  I bet I could.  AND, I bet you could too!

I'm presuming the camera has a manual mode.  If so, I think most of us here with any mileage could pull it off.

-Pete


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 16, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > ...you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment.
> ...



Do you think you could provide $1300 worth of results?


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 16, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Do you think you could provide $1300 worth of results?



Really...  yeah.  

Like Hamtastic was saying, I've shot a bunch of weddings with a lot less when you consider today's equipment.

For me, photography has always been about lighting...  having the right kind of light and using it properly.

I will confess....  I would REALLY RESIST shooting a wedding with a 35mm film camera.

-Pete


----------



## Joves (Mar 16, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


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


 
 Sure most of us could who know how to use equipment. It is the case of if you gave a real pro a cheap camera and, a novice the best, the pros shots would look great, while the novices would still be mediocre at best. Hell you could probably hand somebody who knew what they were doing a P&S and, their images would still look better.

I saw this one awhile ago and, the supposed phtotgrapher was stupid and, got what she deserved. I saw her website and was amazed people booked her after seeing that.


----------



## Aayria (Mar 16, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think you could provide $1300 worth of results?
> ...




  Oh my goodness.. This is completely off subject, but you actually had a bride and groom WATER SKI on their wedding? LOL!  Your website is beautiful   I especially loved the one of the bride twirling with her boquet- where you achieved a faint blur in a circle around her, but still kept the bride in perfect focus!

  Hope I'm not embarassing, but I had to comment, gorgeous work!


----------



## ghpham (Mar 16, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > robertwsimpson said:
> ...


 
If I could perform 100's of wedding with the same gear without complaints, I wouldn't be buying better gear either.  After all,  it's just a  mean to achieve the end result.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 16, 2010)

I would counter sue the judge himself for excessive charges and ask for a new judge due to obvious personal bias... js

Also with no signed document saying they would deliver a "Pro" job there is no proof of that promise.


----------



## newb (Mar 16, 2010)

Ill be honest, I skipped over a lot of this thread, so forgive me if Im repeating a point.

But, I blame the bride for hiring someone with such a lack of knowledge. Is it not the brides (or grooms, or who ever is helping) job to interview the photographer, and determine rather or not their skills are up to par?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 17, 2010)

Bride and Groom aren't supposed to be photography experts, they were shown samples of her work and expected similar results - they sued because they didn't feel as though they got those results.


----------



## Hamtastic (Mar 17, 2010)

My old wedding kit was 2 Nikon FM2n's, 1 Hassleblad 500c/m, 1 Pentax 67II, and Vivitar 285hv flashes.  These days I do my weddings with 5Ds (the old obsolete one, would Judge Joe call me on that?).  I don't want to shoot weddings with a Rebel XS or Nikon D40, but I'd rather use those entry level DSLRs for weddings than my old film kit.  It's like comparing Model Ts to a jet plane.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 17, 2010)

Hamtastic said:


> I don't want to shoot weddings with a Rebel XS or Nikon D40, but I'd rather use those entry level DSLRs for weddings than my old film kit.  It's like comparing Model Ts to a jet plane.



I've tried to make a similar argument in the past with no luck


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 17, 2010)

Aayria said:


> Oh my goodness.. This is completely off subject, but you actually had a bride and groom WATER SKI on their wedding? LOL!  Your website is beautiful   I especially loved the one of the bride twirling with her boquet- where you achieved a faint blur in a circle around her, but still kept the bride in perfect focus!
> 
> Hope I'm not embarassing, but I had to comment, gorgeous work!



You're so nice.  Thanks for the kind words.

The ski photo was done weeks before the wedding to have a print on display at their reception.

I have to come clean on this one...  I shot it with a 35mm film camera.  I was too nervous to take the larger, roll-fill cameras in the boat with me.

I THINK it was a Nikon FA with a 35-135 Nikkor zoom, Kodak EKTACHROME 100 Plus (EPP)

Thanks again!

-Pete


----------



## Overread (Mar 17, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Bride and Groom aren't supposed to be photography experts, they were shown samples of her work and expected similar results - they sued because they didn't feel as though they got those results.



Exactly - and the failing of this "court" was to not compare the sample (portfolio) works of the photographer to her actual product from the wedding.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 17, 2010)

agreed. That is all that the photographer should have been judged on. Whether or not the quality of work that she provided matched what the clients would have expected. 

As to the question about 1300 dollars worth of results, well, it's really quite difficult to say what is worth 1300. I probably would have had difficulty with the wedding ceremony, but at the same time, a lot of those images you can stage immediately after the ceremony (ring on finger, first kiss etc.) Yeah, it may not be the same "first kiss" but it will seem like it when they look back on it in 5 years.

Plus, here is where using a tripod would have definitely helped, in that because everybody is basically standing still as long as you can get shots at 1/30 or maybe even 1/15 you'll get relative clarity if you take a few shots.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 17, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > ...you CAN NOT shoot a proper wedding with this equipment.
> ...


 
The sensor is just way too small.  The shots just won't be right, no matter who takes them.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 17, 2010)

now you can't do a wedding on any crop sensor? lol. oh come on, might as well go back to medium format cause anything less "won't be right".


----------



## Overread (Mar 17, 2010)

Forget medium format - you need large format 
I now predict that we are going to lose the thread to bokeh arguments and sensor size


----------



## matfoster (Mar 17, 2010)

Overread said:


> Forget medium format - you need large format
> I now predict that we are going to lose the thread to bokeh arguments and sensor size



say cheese!!

RAF - RAPTOR


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 17, 2010)

matfoster said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Forget medium format - you need large format
> ...



And that opens up a whole new set of doors for a rather elaborate 'trash the dress' session.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 17, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> now you can't do a wedding on any crop sensor? lol. oh come on, might as well go back to medium format cause anything less "won't be right".


 

Sorry but it's a simple fact.  I started out with a 20D, went to the 30D, then the 40D, and finally to the 5D and 5D2.  I process the images, and there is a HUGE difference in the files.  Crop factors for one.  Noise for another.

I do weddings for a living.  I work on the files for about 60 hours for each wedding.  I see the difference between the cameras. I've used lots of different bodies, all with pro lenses.  I'm telling you guys that it can't be done right with that body.  It. Just. Can't.

But hey, go ahead and shoot a wedding with a Rebel.  It's a nice camera for the family, but in no way is it at professional level.  Even Canon sells it as a consumer camera. It's consumer...not pro level.  

And this is why bride's get pissed off.  I mean if you are going to go pro, you need to INVEST.  Get the right stuff.  You owe it to the couple.

I'm sooooo tired of seeing non invested photogs screw up totally decent weddings.  In the end, it's the bride and grooms fault for being cheap and not doing their homework.

But none the less, every week I get a "help me fix this wedding" e-mail.  No, I won't do it anymore.  I want the bride and groom to be happy, but I'm really sorry they chose wrongly.

I mean everyone with a few bucks to buy a rebel and a kit lens is now a wedding photographer.  It's getting ridiculous already.  I see more couples burned by really crappy photography, with crap equipment.  Pop  up flashes for formals.  Not.  Even. Kidding.

But hey, I'm wanting to see all these FANTASTIC weddings shot with a Rebel, a pop up flash, and a kit lens.  Bring it on.


----------



## Sachphotography (Mar 17, 2010)

1st off you cannot compare film in this debate. Film is way different. You can use a $300 35mm camera and blow away a 1d or d3. Its all about the film you use. Yes Lens are the biggest factor and her choice is the cheapest way. I do agree she charged way to much for the equipment she used. Yes you can shoot a wedding with a Rebel XTI. Would I lol um...no. It is a good hobbiest camera and should stay that. I think if use 2.8 glass or better you could skate by barely. Most church I have shot in do allow flashes. Heck I had the photographer use two flashes at my wedding. Seriously diffused of course. I do agree that the judges bias was not good and that would never happen in a real court. I think that the initial 1000 would be more than fair but this does teach a good lesson. If your not pro and don't have pro equipment. Don't claim it. I think that a 7d 5d and 1d series are fine to be in the "pro bag" the d300,d700,and d3 dseries are fine in the pro bag. Anything else is not good enough for pro these days. Im not comparing to other brands and previous cameras. I am basing off what is on the market today. I do not have enough knowledge of other brands to compare but Im sure the Sony ff series would hold its own just fine.  This kind of thing is going to become more and more common with the amount of amateurs posing as pros........ 

I think her biggest problem was her attitude. her body language alone was annoying as all get out. And while it is true that a pro is some one who is very knowledgeable regarding a subject...her attitude was not very professional at all. I offer 110% satisfaction with all my shoots. I guarantee my work is good for my clients or they get 110% back. Extreme..yes...But I want people to know they are covered. Have I ever had to refunded money... Not one cent.. 

I think we all can learn from this thread.


----------



## newb (Mar 17, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Bride and Groom aren't supposed to be photography experts, they were shown samples of her work and expected similar results - they sued because they didn't feel as though they got those results.


 
I didnt say they had to be experts.



Overread said:


> Exactly - and the failing of this "court" was to not compare the sample (portfolio) works of the photographer to her actual product from the wedding.


 
This is what I was tryin to say.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 17, 2010)

OK...  here are a couple of shots from a wedding I did in 2004 with a Canon 10D and a kit lens.

I feel these are up to pro standards...  or have I outlived my usefulness?

-Pete












BTW... this was in my early digital days and I was shooting JPG.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 17, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> BTW... this was in my early digital days and I was shooting JPG.



Ken Rockwell would be proud


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 17, 2010)

benni: the thing I was hitting on was when you said "the files don't look right" why? because that is such a subjective statement. Personally, I agree with you that full frame camera's do typically provide nicer files than a crop camera. However I don't think that means the only camera that should be used for any wedding is a full frame. 

Do I agree with the investing in quality glass? yes. is there a difference between crop and full frame pics? yes. but does that mean that it's the only "Right" choice? I don't think so. 

If we are going for high enough quality bodies I personally think a 7D is high enough, it handles some noise as well or better than a 5D. Nikon's D300s is also an excellent camera perfectly capable for weddings that is crop. 

Beyond that, what about the 1DIV? wouldn't use that cause it's not good enough (as it's obviously crop)? Well, personally, I would have no problem having a person photograph my wedding using a couple of 1DIV's. 

All I am saying is that although there are advantages to full frame, I don't think that means a crop cannot be used well for a wedding. 

You mentioned show me all the great weddings with an XT, and yet you were bashing all crops. I could show plenty of well shot weddings that were done with 30d 40d 50d and the 1D series. 

Now the question is, do you want to see poorly shot weddings done with a 5D? cause I could definitely provide those as well.


----------



## ghpham (Mar 17, 2010)

*sigh* we are such camera geeks.  A B&G couldn't give a flip if it was a crop sensor camera or not.  The result, ie, the hard copy of a pic is all they will be seeing and as long as they are happy with it, who cares.

Btw, lovely pic Pete!


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

Hey Pete!  Those look great.  Like I said, I started with a 20D, and moved up.  20Ds are great in the right hands.  But that is a pro camera or at least a pro-sumer camera.  The xti is still not to that level.

If it was, don't you think all the pros would be shooting with them?  It's definately cheaper, right?  So why would I spend a few grand more for a better body?  

Because, simply....the files look better.  Less noise, bigger crop ability, and you can blow the photos up to your heart's content.

Don't get me wrong Pete.  I could put a cell phone in your hand, and you would pull off great shots.  But is still wouldn't be the same quality files you would get with a 5d2 or a Mark D.  It just wouldn't.

Nate, again, we are talking about pro or pro-sumer cameras.  There is a HUGE difference.  I'm not talking about the crop vs. full frame.  I'm talking about the ability to crop into the photo.  When you are shooting in a huge church from a football field away with no flash, sometimes you need a close up.  You can't pull that off with an XTI with a kit lens.  You just CAN'T.  Well, I guess you could, but it would look like $hit.  A 10D?  Better.  A 20D?  Better.  And on and on and on.

If we expect people to invest in us, we need to invest in them.

Can it be pulled off in the right hands?  Absolutely.  Could it be better with a better camera in the right hands?  Absolutely.

And yes, I agree Nate.  The camera does not make the photographer.  A wedding I shot back in February was for a wedding photographer, and it was chocked full of wedding photographer friends taking photos.  Some with better gear than I had.  I saw a bunch of the results on Facebook, and quite frankly, the results were not as good as mine.  (if I do say so myself  But much of that had to do with final processing.  

The bottom line is that "would you shoot a wedding with a Rebel XTI?"  I can't think of any pro who would ever do it.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

ghpham said:


> *sigh* we are such camera geeks. A B&G couldn't give a flip if it was a crop sensor camera or not. The result, ie, the hard copy of a pic is all they will be seeing and as long as they are happy with it, who cares.
> 
> Btw, lovely pic Pete!


 

Yes, some bride's couldn't give a flip.  Some brides however, can tell the difference.  And those brides simply pay more.  Those kinds of brides are choosy.  

And if I remember correctly, part of the sales pitch of the photog was that she used Mark Ds.  When she showed up at the wedding with a Rebel and a pop up flash, the bride inquired.  The bride was told that the camera was in the shop.

Whaaaat??????????  That is complete crap!  You can rent a camera from any camera shop from around the county.  If you are a member of Canon Pro services, you can rent them for free as long as they are working on your camera at the time.

It's just unprofessional, IMHO.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 18, 2010)

Bennie: I agree with you that equipment is important. My only contention was that you said a sensor that small (in this case aps-c) could not handle it.

My contention was merely that although the crop size does make a difference, a 50D/7D etc. will be able to shoot the wedding well enough for most circumstances.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

I agree with that, Nate.  But those cameras are a LOT different than an XTI sold at Walmarts all over the universe.

The XTI is simply not a camera a working pro would ever use.  Not for portraits, and definately not for a wedding.

Do some people shoot with them?  Yep.  In this day and age, everyone with a few bucks is a pro photographer who took pictures of their sister's new baby with a rebel.

But that goes back to the question about cameras.  It does definately make a difference.  Much of this argument has involved MUCH superior cameras.  With better sensors.

Those arguments don't hold because we are talking about a whole different breed of camera.  The pro or pro-sumer, vs a consumer camera.

The kit lens opens up a whole other can of worms.  A pop up flash?  Are they insane?

You see what I'm saying?

Bride's aren't that stupid.  In fact, they are pretty bright.  And there is a $hitload of competition out there.  Sometimes a $200 photog with a Rebel will get the backyard wedding.  Sometimes a bride spends more on flowers than her wedding photographer.

But if you want to stay in business....YOU DO NOT SHOOT A WEDDING WITH A REBEL, A KIT LENS, AND A POP UP FLASH.  

It's really that simple.


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 18, 2010)

So let's level the playing field -- assume adequate lighting (proper bounce flash, remote lighting setup, etc) and equal, high-end glass and the same hands using it...

What are the differences between an XTi and a 20D? (The latter which you've already stated is 'great in the right hands').

The XTi has the 30D's AF system which was superior to the 20D's AF system.

They have the _same_ DIGIC II processor, which, let's face it, determines the camera's ability to process an image. Glass is the other factor.

The XTi will outperform the 20D in ISO performance up to 1600. the 20D has a high mode which allows 3200ISO. I'm assuming the 20D has the ability to adjust ISO in 1/2 or 1/3rd stops whereas the XTi does not.

The 20D has a better build quality, longer shutter life, and 1.3 more frames per second due to its larger frame buffer. None of these affect the quality of the image, only the reliability of the device and the ability to burn frames.

So yes, if you set up a straw man with a pop up flash and crap glass, you can conclude only that you cannot shoot a wedding with an XTi. You cannot, however, make a sweeping claim that the XTi isn't a camera capable when you level the playing field in all other elements while simultaneously saying that 'the 20D is great in the right hands'. Those same hands would do just as well or better with an XTi.

You said the crop sensor was the problem yet you say the 20D, 30D, 7D are fine -- obviously it's not endemic to the crop sensor. The XTi has better resolution with the same DIGIC processor as the 20D so obviously it's not the electronics. Build quality affects durability, not image quality. The latter is the only place your argument even barely holds up -- the XTi is probably not the choice if you're chewing through 50,000 frames a year during weddings.



> YOU DO NOT SHOOT A WEDDING WITH A REBEL, A KIT LENS, AND A POP UP FLASH



I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this with your two specific caveats, but as far as being able to deliver image quality, all things being the same, the XTi is a completely capable camera in terms of delivering image quality. It may not live up to the rigors of intense professional work, it may not look as 'pro', but it's a capable machine, adequately suitable to taking advantage of the best glass Canon has to offer and producing stellar prints.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

Oh Lordy.  Is it capable of taking photos of the kids playing soccer? Absolutely.
Is it as capable of taking the same wedding photos as a 7d or a 5d or a Mark?  No.  Just NO.


But we aren't TALKING about pro-sumer, pro cameras, are we?  We are talking about a woman who went to a wedding with an XTI.  Get this....I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY D SERIES.  I AM TALKING ABOUT A REBEL.  And THAT is what the Caveat as you say, was all about.

You don't show up at a wedding with a freaking Rebel.  It's a no no.

This argument is nonsense.

Is it capable of pulling off a crap shoot at a wedding.  Absolutely.  And NO it does not stand the rigors of intense professional work, and NO it doens't look pro.  And NO, we are not talking about fast lenses.  We are talking about a kit lens and a freaking pop up flash for God's sake.

Hey, if you want to walk into a wedding with a consumer camera, and a pop up flash, and a kit lens, God help you.  And God help the poor bride and groom.

You can NEVER convince me that an XTI (remember folks, that is what we are referring to...with a kit lens, and a pop up flash) is as good as a pro-sumer, or pro camera.

It isn't.  It just is not.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 18, 2010)

When it comes right down to it, I have to stand over here with bennielou.  (Yes, Cindy... I'm with you on this one.)

When I think about the quasi trial, the so-called judge showed how totally inept he is when he zeroed in on equipment as a factor in the dispute.

But, really...  anyone who intends to regularly offer wedding photography ought to go out and buy a real camera with a real lens.

The first advice I ever received from a working professional just before I shot my first wedding (circa 1970) was, "Get a bigger a camera."  It was the first words out of his mouth.  He was right.  I feel honor bound to pass along the advice now.  If you intend to hire yourself out for weddings, get a "bigger" (proper) camera.

-Pete


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

Pete, I hope you know I am your biggest fan.  You taught me so much and I will never, ever, forget all your great tips.

Yeah, the judge was a wanna be photographer.  Maybe not, but IMO, he is a hobbiest.  He knew just enough to mess it up.

The photos I saw where fine.  But the lawsuit was about the ceremony shots which we never saw.  The other contention was about equipment.  I can understand someone being upset about a Rebel vs. a Mark D.

Had the wedding photographers contracted correctly, she would have not been sued for more than her photography cost was.  That is another issue. I tell all of my clients, if it is worth a Million bucks to you, you need to pay me a Million bucks.  I also have a contract that I can't be sued for more than I charged.  Thankfully I've never had to use that clause.  But you never know.

But this is more about newbie photographers, IMO.  Hey, I started out somewhere too.  And I'm all game for the newbie.  I will help in any way I can.

But the bottom line is, if you want to be a pro, you need to invest.  In bodies, in lenses, in lighting.

You owe it to the people who hire you.  And you want to stay in business, right?


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 18, 2010)

bennielou said:


> I agree with that, Nate.  But those cameras are a LOT different than an XTI sold at Walmarts all over the universe.
> 
> The XTI is simply not a camera a working pro would ever use.  Not for portraits, and definately not for a wedding.
> 
> ...



I completely agree.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

You are a sweetheart Nate. You do good work and I'm glad we can agree.


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 18, 2010)

bennielou said:


> And THAT is what the Caveat as you say, was all about.


No, I said the caveats were the pop up flash and kit lens. Not the Non-D series.

Because you missed this part of my argument:



> So let's level the playing field -- assume adequate lighting (proper bounce flash, remote lighting setup, etc) and equal, high-end glass and the same hands using it...


 
Because discussions evolve. I really wanted clarification on why you thought it was an inferior body because, obviously, you do have that believe even when you don't consider the glass and flash as factors.



> You don't show up at a wedding with a freaking Rebel.  It's a no no.


By and large you'll really get no argument from me on this when you take into consideration reliability. But that's not what I'm arguing. (FWIW I show up at shoots -- Full disclosure, I don't do weddings, won't ever do weddings and have the utmost respect for people willing to torture themselves in that particular manner -- with an XTi as a 2nd backup camera (3rd camera) for those 'holy ship!' situations. I trust it implicitly because I know its limitations, but I've yet to need it.)




> Is it capable of pulling off a crap shoot at a wedding.



How is its _image quality_ different than a 20D, which you _have already conceded_ is an adequate camera for a wedding?



> We are talking about a kit lens and a freaking pop up flash for God's sake.


I like repeating myself, so I will. Here was my first statement, for sake of setting the argument up for an image quality vs. everything else. I'll even bold stuff, because it makes it easier to read:



> So let's level the playing field -- *assume adequate lighting (proper bounce flash, remote lighting setup, etc) and equal, high-end glass and the same hands using it...*





> You can NEVER convince me that an XTI (remember folks, that is what we are referring to...with a kit lens, and a pop up flash) is as good as a pro-sumer, or pro camera.
> 
> It isn't.  It just is not.


It's not. Again, not arguing that. Read again my assumptions. My fingers are getting tired so I won't re-quote.



> Is it as capable of taking the same wedding photos as a 7d or a 5d or a Mark?  No.  Just NO.


Indeed, I agree. No argument. But if you read *really* carefully, I mean really, like you look at the words and stuff, I said this:



> What are the differences between an XTi and a 20D? (The latter which you've already stated is 'great in the right hands').


I mean boil it down, let's really be honest about why the 20D or 7D or 5D or 1D is a better camera for weddings than an XTi. 

Is it because of inferior image quality? No. Not unless you throw out the 20D,30D,40D. Or if you insist that the XTi be limited to kit lenses and pop-up flash (which I specifically did not).

Put an 18-55 kit on the 20D or the 7D and use an 220EX flash or the 7D's popup how much better would the images be? Not a terrible lot, I'm afraid.

What your argument boils down to is THIS: "an XTi with a popup flash and a kit lens inferior to a high-end camera with adequate lighting and top-end glass" to which I have nothing to say but, "uh, duh?"

Those other cameras are good for weddings or any rigorous shoot because of the build quality, the reliability, the comfort, the extra nice-ity features which make obtaining some shots more difficult with a lesser-equipped camera, and it's 'professional look'. 

The people reading the development of this thread, not merely the reactions to the idiots in the video, at least deserve not to be lied to about the capabilities of the consumer line of cameras. Because if someone took one of your earlier posts at face value, you state that a crop sensor camera cannot shoot a wedding. And as we've seen, per you:



> same wedding photos as a 7d or a 5d or a Mark



Apparently SOME crop sensors are OK. 

The gal in the video was wrong. Again, I'm not arguing _that_. 



> But, really... anyone who intends to regularly offer wedding photography ought to go out and buy a real camera with a real lens.


Again, you'll get no argument from me.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

Ok, basic question....
So why is your xti your THIRD camera of choice? And why do you thank God you've never had to use it on a shoot?

You can type all you want, but you have answered your own question. If it's not good enough for you to use, why do you expect it to be good enough for a client?

I'm not taking photos of my daughter and daisys. I am doing this for a living, and my very life depends on the photos I give to clients. They trust me to do the best job I can, at all times. And without my clients, I would have no business, no nice home, no money. I invest in them, so that they invest in me.

And not just that, I don't want to be sued to hell and back. It's completely different if you are using an XTI for taking photos of everyday, do overable stuff. It's NOT ok, if you have a client paying you good money to act like, be like, and produce like a pro.

Member of: WPPI, PPA, WPJA, DPPA, NAPP, TPPA (and all those letters don't make either of us right.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

If you would actually READ my posts, I'm not talking about the crop sensor. I am talking about the ability to crop into photos with a reliable result. And AGAIN....the 10,20,30,40,50Ds are all fine. But the numbers get bigger when the camera gets better. Simple. Simple Dimple. When you get into the Marks, even better still.

And that's just the facts. You want people to know the facts, right? Those are them. 

Again, you can shoot kids and flowers all you want in the daytime with a Rebel XTI set on P mode. It would be pretty hard to screw that up. What you CAN'T do is a wedding with a Rebel is stand a football field away, with a no flash rule, in the back of a dungenous dark church, and take photos with a Rebel and a 5.6 lens. 

Well you can, but I think we can all agree that it would suck.

We aren't talking about anything other than a Rebel. Used for a Wedding. With a Pop up flash, and a crap lens. That is what the gal was sued over. Not a 30D, not a 5 of 7 D. Not a rocking lens....

I'm not saying that a Rebel isn't a wonderful camera to take on vacation to Mexico. I'm not saying everyone with a Rebel is a jerk. They aren't. But it's not the type of tool you use at a paid job.

Can you imagine Annie Lebowitz showing up at a Vanity Fair shoot with a freaking Rebel and kit lens? No, of course not.

In the end, it's about using the best tools for the best results.


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 18, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Ok, basic question....
> So why is your xti your THIRD camera of choice? And why do you thank God you've never had to use it on a shoot?
> 
> You can type all you want, but you have answered your own question. If it's not good enough for you to use, why do you expect it to be good enough for a client?



My XTi is my third camera of choice because I have two better ones.

Fortunately your livelihood relies on taking purdy pictures and not reading comprehension, because I didn't say 'I thank god I've never had to use it, what I said was':



> with an XTi as a 2nd backup camera (3rd camera) for those 'holy ship!' situations. I trust it implicitly because I know its limitations, but I've yet to need it.


If Camera 1 died, and camera 2 died (the 'holy s#!*' situation) I would actually trust the XTi to get suitable results. 



> I'm not taking photos of my daughter and daisys.  I am doing this for a living, and my very life depends on the photos I give to clients. They trust me to do the best job I can, at all times. And without my clients, I would have no business, no nice home, no money. I invest in them, so that they invest in me.


I've yet to have a dissatisfied customer where portraits, product shots or events are concerned. Granted my life or death doesn't depend on it, but that doesn't keep me from doing 'the best job I can'. (FWIW, I assuredly don't have the body of work you or any of the other pro wedding shooters here do, though.)



> And not just that, I don't want to be sued to hell and back. It's completely different if you are using an XTI for taking photos of everyday, do overable stuff. It's NOT ok, if you have a client paying you good money to act like, be like, and produce like a pro.


And I'm not arguing that. Have I argued that? I don't think I've argued that. The XTi is not built for the rigors of pro work. It's not a good idea to take it to a thousand gigs in a year and hope it holds up. 



> Member of: WPPI, PPA, WPJA, DPPA, NAPP, TPPA (and all those letters don't make either of us right.


I'm not saying those letters make it right. Did I? Useless attack? I put those in my signature because those are my memberships which have pertinent references to this board. I'm not appealing to authority.


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 18, 2010)

> If you would actually READ my posts, I'm not talking about the crop sensor.


To quote you in your earlier post, of the XTi:



> The sensor is just way too small.  The shots just won't be right, no matter who takes them.


The XTi has the same sensor size as the 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, and 7D. We can safely conclude from your statement, then, that the shots from a 7D won't be right no matter who takes them.

Nate actually questioned this!


> now you can't do a wedding on any crop sensor?


And you clarified!


> Sorry but it's a simple fact.


And then mysteriously you go on to say you've actually done weddings with a 20D, 30D and 40D:



> I started out with a 20D, went to the 30D, then the 40D, and finally to the 5D and 5D2.


So you see, obviously you can't do the weddings that you did! 

Silly contradiction hunting aside...

Since I answered your basic question, allow me to do the same. I have two though:

#1. Does the sensor size matter/can a crop-sensor camera adequately be used for a wedding?

#2. Given everything else is the same (L-quality glass, great and adequate lighting), can an XTi produce images that rival the quality of a 20D or 30D?

Now if you read _really_ carefully, you'll notice these questions differ from the assumptions in the initial video. It's called 'proposing a new hypothetical'. For discussion purposes, ya know.

Listen -- I admire your work; I think it's a quality to strive for. I agree with you on the principles you've brought up regarding the video as well as the gear necessary for a pro photographer to carry out his or her job. But you've made some broad sweeping generalizations about the quality of images capable of a camera that I don't believe are true. That is all.


----------



## bennielou (Mar 18, 2010)

Ok, I think we have both given our arguments.  Again, we are not talking about a rebel with killer glass and great lighting.  Let's just go off what what was in the video, and the ruling.

And I'm not downing you about your affiliations.  At all.  I admire that you are stiving towards being better.  A lot of us are.


Let's just agree to disagree.  Ok?

I haven't made a generalization about the camera.  I stated a fact.  And that is what I really think.


----------



## webmaster705 (Mar 19, 2010)

i think he should have agreement that he will pay after seeing the owrk, there is no use to pay her for such dumb work, should seen other work before hiering instead of just increaseing your blood pressure at the end when your special moments are ruined


----------



## FrankLamont (Mar 19, 2010)

On a similar note, I received an email from a local (pro) lab - a newsletter-type thing.

'Wedding Photographer needed', was the title. Needless to say, I was intrigued by this rare occurance; I was severely disappointed in the lab.

They asked, for $500 (AUD), a photograhper for a wedding that would be 'from about 1pm to 7pm'... a photographer who was 'competant' and using a '10MP or higher DSLR', a photographer who 'must have 2 years experience', and that 'conditions apply'. 

A fantastic deal, really. :er:


----------



## bennielou (Mar 19, 2010)

Wow, FriedChicken.  That's nuts.

I know people have their budgets and all, but they really need to stick to the type of stuff they can afford.

I can promise you I can't walk into a jewlery store and say, "I'll give you $500 for that $3000 ring.  And while you are at it, throw a few more diamonds on."

There is nothing wrong with having a budget.  Nothing at all.  And I guess there is nothing wrong with the e-mail either.  You can't blame a bride for trying to naw down the pricing.  And sadly, there was probably someone who jumped on the offer.

I suspect the photographer will find he/she bit off way more than it was worth.


----------



## ironsidephoto (Mar 20, 2010)

Walmart and a kit lens? ha.


----------



## skieur (Mar 20, 2010)

All churches that I have been in, allow flash, but in some cases not during the main part of the ceremony.  Nevertheless that should have been known well before the wedding and planned for by the photographer.  Using a 1.4 lens and/or auxilliary lighting would have certainly helped.  The fact that the prints were processed at Wallmart does not suggest professionalism and neither does the Rebel Xti when these two factors are considered together.  The judge did comment that it was an old camera, which is certainly true, too.  A tripod would have been somewhat useless since any motion would still produce softness or action blur.

Judges can set the amount of the award, so he was within his legal rights to set it at $2,500.

skieur


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 20, 2010)

My only point of disagreement skieur is that during a wedding ceremony a tripod would have been useful. I mean, seriously, how much action is there? with the exception of the processional/recessional you should be able to get relatively sharp images down to 1/15 or 1/8 easily.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> ... during a wedding ceremony a tripod would have been useful. I mean, seriously, how much action is there?



Very true.  That's the way I've always done it.

In fact, it doesn't matter at all to me if the church allows flash...  I don't.  It's not necessary to photograph every second of the day, and if I can't do it without flash, oh well.

It's just my personal feelings.  I know many (if not most) photographers do it.  That's fine.  I just don't want to do it.  It's a distraction (draws attention).  I'll respect the moment, even if the minister says it's OK.

-Pete


----------



## epp_b (Mar 20, 2010)

The right party won for all the wrong reasons; but, this case was completely stupid   because everyone involved was an idiot.

The plaintiffs are idiots for thinking that there was something wrong with the print quality.  The only real difference between Walmart prints and professional prints is that the latter will stand up to time.  With the right processing, cheap prints look just as good.  If they'd had made a case about the artistic quality versus the quality of the portfolio they reviewed when choosing the defendants as their photographers, that may have made for a plausible case.

The defendants are idiots for not owning or renting better equipment for the situation, for not knowing basic information about their own gear and for not being able to produce any results that aren't cliched crap (and poorly-executed cliched crap, at that).

The judge is an idiot for thinking he knows everything about everything because "Ah didz fertogafie yeerrs ago hurrr hurrr rebelz can only mak crappz0r pictars yoo needz da 1D!!"

Ever heard the phrase, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?  The judge probably spent five minutes looking up some random photography terms online and deemed himself an instead expert.


----------



## iamcombat (Mar 20, 2010)

This is pretty funny to me because my ex girlfriends sister had a photographer for her wedding and she was using the old Canon 300D....the camera I had at the time was better than what she was using and I was just taking a few pictures for fun.


----------



## skieur (Mar 20, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> My only point of disagreement skieur is that during a wedding ceremony a tripod would have been useful. I mean, seriously, how much action is there? with the exception of the processional/recessional you should be able to get relatively sharp images down to 1/15 or 1/8 easily.


 
There is definitely not much action, but even head movement is sufficient to soften the sharpness.  One fifteenth of a second can easily be handheld with body or lens stabilization as can 1/8 with a little more effort, but I admit that it depends on your style and what you are used to using.  You can also time it just right whether you are using a tripod or doing the handheld approach.

So, I will backtrack and admit that a tripod works for some photographers and handheld for others.

skieur


----------



## jackieclayton (Mar 20, 2010)

man this is great!!  haven't seen Joe Brown in forever (they don't air it out here) but i'm clapping for him in this segment!!!  she used a rebel with a kit lens and doesn't know what f-stop she shot at.  she blaims that the lighting was poor and that flash photography wasn't allowed.... HELLO??? PREPARE FOR THIS IN ADVANCE DUMBASS!!!!

wow, what a joke... for $1300 and some walmart prints i'd be suing her ass too...

I don't know much about cars... but in the past when I am in the market at buying a new car, i do a **** ton of research before i even drive up to a dealership.  Brides need to do the same.  You're about to throw down tons of money on a priceless commodity such as wedding photos, know the market!!!!  If the bride on this show had no idea what camera body is what or even if she liked what she saw in the portfolio, do the research!!!!!   does she have a business license, does she know how to tackle the lighting situation in the church, what equipment do you have, how will my prints be delivered and on what paper, can i contact some of your previous clients, can we do an on location practice shoot in advance so i know what i'm looking at getting...

The "photographer" in this case so SOOO wrong, but unfortunately as with EVERY scam... buyer beware.  at least the bride is willing to give credit to the photographer's time spent, that was nice.


----------



## jubb (Mar 21, 2010)

It's funny because I watched this right before shooting my first wedding.  It actually made me buy a new body over more glass.  I'd been buying L glass for my Canon XS, but I finally dropped the cash for the 5D Mark II.  Sure am Glad I did cuz I needed the low noise higher ISO as it was dark in the Church I shot.


----------



## Brentles (Mar 26, 2010)

The photographer definately should have done a bit of homework with regards to location and lightning before the wedding day.  Maybe she would have realized that she couldn't pull that off with kit lenses and no flash....The judge _did_ seem overly concerned with the camera body.

You can still take some great shots with a 10mp sub-full frame sensor if you have the correct lenses...most of my work is 13x19 and larger....I have no problem with focus or pixelation....

Also...the photographer should have explained...and the Judge should have known....that you don't blow up a photo with soft edges....you enlarge the photo first, then apply the soft edge afterwards!

Just my noobie 2 cents worth!!! lol


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 26, 2010)

Yeah there were some dumb points made by the judge but this is still funny.


----------



## KD5NRH (Apr 2, 2010)

astrostu said:


> The Rebels are perfectly capable of producing rather large prints without sharpness issues, and his claim of an 8x10 being pixelated probably had more to do with the printer or the resolution at which they sent the photo to the printer rather than the camera.



It would have been easy to prove or disprove; if I were heading to court over the quality of some of my photos, I'd spring for at least a couple 8x12 or 12x18 prints from a good lab, especially if there's a $1k+ fee at stake.  $30 for three prints to save $1k and my reputation?  Sounds like a great deal to me.

I don't do a lot of paid photo work, and don't own any expensive glass, (Nice thing about being a Minolta/Sony user is that the old, good glass can still be had cheap if you wait for a deal.) but I can still recite the f-stop range for almost every lens I own.  (Almost, since a couple of them need only be remembered as "if you have to ask, it's too slow.")

And frankly, if I'm paying a pro (or someone who claims to be a pro) to shoot an event, it's because I want shots of sufficient quality to be good wall hangers.  5x7s ain't it, and WalMart prints at any size ain't it.


----------



## KD5NRH (Apr 2, 2010)

ghpham said:


> If I could perform 100's of wedding with the same gear without complaints, I wouldn't be buying better gear either.



If you shot hundreds of weddings without any complaints, I'd be sending some corpse-sniffing dogs to check out your house and any nearby vacant lots.  I don't care if you walk on water and heal the sick while you're taking the best photos ever, somebody's going to complain.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 19, 2010)

Eco said:


> Granted it's a f'ing TV show but how about calling some expert witnesses and not some TV judge to see if the work is that of a professional.......only if the contract stated that professional pictures were part of the contract.
> 
> IMHO, it was a fun video to watch and maybe it's a warning lesson to some starting off but it's not the law or how it's really done in court.



I don't think it matters much in this case. It seemed fairly evident that those homely looking women were not professionals and they clearly had no idea what they were doing. Shooting something professionally with a 18-55 and 70-300 kit lenses? A *wedding* nonetheless?  They went to Walmart and picked up a cheap kit and deemed themselves as photographers. I bet they shot the whole thing in JPEG on Auto mode


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> Eco said:
> 
> 
> > Granted it's a f'ing TV show but how about calling some expert witnesses and not some TV judge to see if the work is that of a professional.......only if the contract stated that professional pictures were part of the contract.
> ...


 
LOL, you KNOW they shot JPEG on P mode.  Because as every beginner knows, P stands for professional. 
:lmao:


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


> I finally watched this for the first time yesterday... even as a newbie I found this absolutely hilarious. I think I might have even audibly gasped when Judge Brown asked her what the f-stop on her 70-300mm lens was and she said she didn't know.
> 
> Horrifically hilarious!


 
Really, right?

However on a more serious note, I'd like to know who's work the bride had seen when they originally met with the "photographer". For some time now there has been a huge influx of photo stealing. It's happened to me on several occassions. People steal stuff off my blog or forums, and post them as their own work. I normally find out about it pretty quickly, and I always get the excuse that it is a new website, and my photos are "place holders" or an "assistant did it". One guy in England is STILL using my images on his website. Seems the copyright laws are different there. He's only using one of mine, but the rest are from other photographers.

And it also kills me how many people show the Graphi (and other sample albums) on their website and in client meetings, as if it was their own work. The clients don't know any better. And unfortunately, some photographers aren't letting people know that those beautiful photos taken in Italy were from a rockstar photographer who charges tens of thousands per wedding.

Then I got a pm on Facebook about a month ago where a beginning photographer wanted me to send him a full sized image of one of my bridal sessions. I told him no, but asked why. He said he wanted to blow up a giant canvas of it and put it in the storefront of his studio. He figured that it would be "good for my exposure". LOL. At least he was honest. 

I told him however, that it was fraudulant to represent others work as your own to sell deals, because almost surely, he could not duplicate that kind of work, and brides would feel jipped. I urged him to represent his own work and style, because otherwise, he'd just have unhappy people. His own work was not horrible, and in fact was quite sellable. After several letters back and forth, he got what I was saying. But is still amazes me that some people think this is quite ok.

The "photographers" in this instance didn't charge a few hundred bucks. They charged mid level real pricing. The bride said that the level of work she recieved was not the level of work that she was shown at her client meeting. Me bets that she was shown other people's work. 

Just an example of how this can blow up in the pretenders faces. Not to mention permenantly destroy the reputation of said "photographer" both with their potential clients, but moreso, their peers.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

You just know she was shown other people's work, or the Graphi sample or something like that.

No one in their right mind is going to shell out $1700 bucks for a basic package when someone is using Rebel/kit lens, and printing off crap at Walmart.  And who.....doesn't know what AP means.  Hell, I would have loved to seen the metadata on that disaster.


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Apr 20, 2010)

I seem to remember reading in the small print at the end of one of these "judge" shows that the awards were paid by the show not the defendant(s). The show's basically boil down to a bring us your juicy cases and we'll pay if you loose. Its a win/win for both sides. 

There are days I wonder if people make up cases like this just to get the money from a "judgment".


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Well then, if ever I get sued, I'm going to Judge Joe Brown. LOL.

I have a friend and fellow photog who was sued because the groom's lapel was not in the right position in the photos, and supposedly the photographer should have "noticed and corrected this".  LOL.  Like all she had to worry about is how the dweeb dressed himself.

Anyhoo, she had to go to court and defend herself, and it costed her a ton of money.  And THEN she had to go around every site on the internet and defend her good name.

Some of these people are just straight out crazy.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Well then, if ever I get sued, I'm going to Judge Joe Brown. LOL.
> 
> I have a friend and fellow photog who was sued because the groom's lapel was not in the right position in the photos, and supposedly the photographer should have "noticed and corrected this".  LOL.  Like all she had to worry about is how the dweeb dressed himself.
> 
> ...



Yes, a professional photographer needs to pay attention to basics on the clothing of the subjects: is the tie straight and tied properly? Are the lapels flat and free of dandruff or food debris, plant matter,stray hairs? Are pant cuffs riding correctly? Are bra straps and slips out of view? Are eyeglass glares under control? Yes, the most-basic styling details should be noticed and corrected before photography begins,and any "professional" wedding photographer who fails to notice that a groom has a messed up lapel in photo after photo doesn't have much in the way of either observational ability or professional training. As a former professional shooter who learned before Photoshop existed, there was an old adage: "Get it right in the camera."

Failure to pay attention to the clothing of one's subjects in wedding photography is a huge faux paus. When it rises to the level of a client taking the photographer to court over their degree of neglect, it sounds like a serious problem. One that might have "costed" not only monetary damages but also reputation...


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Derrel,

I went to your website and I see you do studio and sports. If I could ask, how many times have you rushed on the footbal field to correct a player's jock strap? 

Yes, I know that is an exaggeration, but that is what you are asking wedding photographers to do.

Believe me, I know many wire service photojournalists who wouldn't touch a wedding with a ten foot pole because there is "too much going on".

Weddings aren't a studio situation, like you show, with ENDLESS amounts of time to make everything perfect perfect. You adjust what you see in the 15 minutes you are aloted to shoot 20 setups, but you aren't always going to get every hair in place. End of story.

I've shot sports as a wire service photojournalist, and I can tell you that weddings are so much harder. You have all this wacky lighting to deal with, crazy stressed out people, who don't have any time to stand around and take formals for hours on end because they want to get to the party and get drunk.

Oh holy cow, if I was standing around brushing off dandruff and fixing cuffs on pants all during this time, I would have these really ANGRY people, all pissed off, having no fun, and totally dissing me.

I can tell by your post that your wedding experience is very limited. Not a diss. But it's just not in accordance with reality of a wedding day.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Derrel,
> 
> I went to your website and I see you do studio and sports. If I could ask, how many times have you rushed on the footbal field to correct a player's jock strap?
> 
> ...



I think that is a bit of a stretch to compare a football players junk to a crooked tie; I think you are exaggerating his advice into something more than a quick adjustment to the bride and groom that will be noticeable in the picture. I highly doubt he was suggesting you groom each and every individual at the reception. 

That last statement just gets me... You are getting right back up onto that little high-horse of yours.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel,
> ...


 
Call it a high horse if you like, but to me, it's real world experience from a Gal who works weddings every single weekend.

So I have to ask you, if you don't mind, how many weddings do you shoot a year?  You are advising us all how to do them, so I just wonder.

I didn't see any on your website.  Maybe there is something out there that I didn't see.

And if that is being on a "high horse" so be it.  Don't advise about what you know nothing about.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...


 
NO!  You did NOT wear a black band in your hair.  Bad you!  How was the photog to know that you didn't want a big freaking black band in your hair?


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > However on a more serious note, I'd like to know who's work the bride had seen when they originally met with the "photographer".
> ...







bennielou said:


> You just know she was shown other people's work, or the Graphi sample or something like that.
> 
> No one in their right mind is going to shell out $1700 bucks for a basic package when someone is using Rebel/kit lens, and printing off crap at Walmart.  And who.....doesn't know what AP means.  Hell, I would have loved to seen the metadata on that disaster.



But we don't actually know - we can guess and assume all we want but its horrifically unfair and incorrect to brand one person as something without evidence to back it up. That is my main beef with this "court" show - at no point did we see those early proofs so we have no idea if the wedding photographer failed or if she indeed did deliver work to her own standard (at that point its the brides fault for having hightended expectations).

As for correcting jockstraps and the like - if its a posed shot of the team at the end of a match - yes a pro would. Whilst if its an in game heated shot n they wouldn't. The same I would expect is true of weddings - a staged shot would be checked and small details corrected to ensure a perfect shot - whilst more impulsive shots would be taken without such attention because its no practical.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Oh, dear Lord.  Another person who has never, ever done a pro wedding in their life giving us ALL the word how to do things.

Yes.  I am a biatch when it comes to stupid stuff.

I fluff the dress.  I remove the flower petals.  I make sure every one is hanky spanky.  But do you have any idea about the time I have to do all this?  Of course not.  You don't shoot weddings.

I have less than 2 minutes to pull this off.

I'm sure you could do better.

That is.....if you actually shot weddings.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...



We get it, you think you're amazing at everything. Personally, I would rather have the photographer do their job and remove anything that will noticeably degrade the final image. Like erose said, something as simple as a hair tie can improve the distractions in the image. It makes no nevermind to me if you cut corners on your work. 

It's funny that you bring up my website considering I have never posted it on any online forum? May I ask how you got it or is that just more warrgarbl?


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...


 

Opps sorry. Just further evidence of my bad "scanning" abilities.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Overread said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...


 

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Exactly right!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

Well I don't shoot them but I've been on the reciving end of being shot 
And yes for the staged shots (bride groom and family at the end and such) yes there was multiple shots taken and slight adjustments made - not a massive amount of time, but enough to ensure that there were not glaring errors, problems, trees coming out of peoples heads and the like. 

As I said it depends on the shot itself and the situation - you are not going to stop teh first dance to get them to reposition better (though I know some who will do staged shots before/after the wedding to capture better "liknesses of the" "first dance" and such)

furthermore there is always more than one way to approach a task and one should always be willing to hear and consider other viewpoints and working practice in ones own work - rather than to take each suggestion or concept as a direct attack upon ones own working current practice


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Josh220 said:
> ...


 

Oh good lord with the I think I'm all the end all be all. I mean really dude. I am here to 
help you, no detract from you. I earn a good amount of money doing what I'm doing. (oooow,that is bragging and bullcrap, and grandstanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). What you don't get is that I am trying to help. Not you neccesarily, because you thing you know everything, but people reading along, who Do care and aren't all freaked out about who helps them with what. I assume they know enough to figure it out.

So carry on and let us all see your really AWESOME wedding shots. I trust by your post your have hundreds.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 20, 2010)

I'm sorry I must have missed all of your intellectually stimulating posts. I think you should just be mindful of your posts and the content within them. I've seen two posting styles from you; putting people down, and using the forum like an instant messenger. I have received a surprising large volume of PM's from older, respectable members regarding how you present yourself to others. 

Offering "help" as you put it, should not go hand and hand with a degrading comment.


----------



## max3k (Apr 20, 2010)

So it's a bad idea to shoot a wedding with my iPhone?


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

max3k said:


> So it's a bad idea to shoot a wedding with my iPhone?



Depends - I would not shoot your first with an iPhone and I would say shoot second to get a portfolio together. You can then by all means use that portfolio of shots to market your iPhone wedding business and if you get clients you're away.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> I'm sorry I must have missed all of your intellectually stimulating posts. I think you should just be mindful of your posts and the content within them. I've seen two posting styles from you; putting people down, and using the forum like an instant messenger. I have received a surprising large volume of PM's from older, respectable members regarding how you present yourself to others.
> 
> Offering "help" as you put it, should not go hand and hand with a degrading comment.


 

I guess you did miss them.  I have done tutes on WB, lighting, and textures.  I assume, in your vaste sharing you have done the same.

I speak my mind.  Hopefully I am helping the poster grow.  I didn't see your answers.  Maybe I missed them.

I don't always present myself in the best way.  But I do try to be honest and not hide behind screen names.  Can you do the same.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Josh, I would share your major bigtime  wedding photos with everyone, but you don't have any examples. Feel free to share them.

I went to your website, and there was not the things we do, But if you have them, definately post them up.


----------



## Rosshole (Apr 20, 2010)

Bennielou, please stop posting in this thread.  Your condescending tone is really pissing people off.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

And I am totally sounding like a biatch herel  I get that.  But I am soooo sick of people who talk and talk and talk, and have nothing to show.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> Bennielou, please stop posting in this thread. Your condescending tone is really pissing people off.


 
How so? Please be exact.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> Bennielou, please stop posting in this thread. Your condescending tone is really pissing people off.


 
I see Ross, that you have no working examples.  If you have crit , then give it.


----------



## dom yo (Apr 20, 2010)

I'm going to have to agree with bennielou on this one
josh's "portrait" pictures on his flickr are no where near anything bennielou has done so i don't see where any of his input was necessary. Josh is just constantly trying to stir things up with bennielou


----------



## Rosshole (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> And I am totally sounding like a biatch herel I get that. But I am soooo sick of people who talk and talk and talk, and have nothing to show.


 


bennielou said:


> How so? Please be exact.


 


bennielou said:


> I see Ross, that you have no working examples. If you have crit , then give it.


 
I am not claiming to be a professional.  I never have and probably never will.  I never said that I could do a better job nor even implied it.

I do know that you haven't been conducting yourself very professionally in this thread.  That is why I posted that.  I am not going to go through your posts and show you how you were being contradictory and condescending, because anyone who can read can see it.

I am giving you this advice not on your work, but on your attitude.  My photography skills and examples have nothing to do with you alienating people on this site who are new to the hobby.

So please, stop attacking me as I did nothing other than ask you to leave this thread alone.  (for the record, I am glad that we had friendly photogs shoot our wedding and not a biatch)


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> Bennielou, please stop posting in this thread. Your condescending tone is really pissing people off.


 

Nikkor wanted me to "give up:  Or she would "expose me"  Lol.  Go for it chickie.

She also wanted to tell me how I do everything wrong.  Have you seen her website?  If not, check it out.  Its worth it.

Anyway, this non starter wanted to threaten me.  Go for it girl.  Show me your metal.    Don't just haunt my e-mail with your craziness.  As I told you, I will expose you.

So go back to your photos of flowers and leave your jealousy at the wayside.

ByeBye girl.  I'll  post up the e-mail if need be.  You  are not welcome  tortue people with your insecutities.


----------



## Rosshole (Apr 20, 2010)

Ok, I am not sure what that rambling was supposed to mean...    but I see that you have an extensive history on this site of putting your foot in your mouth, so i am done with this topic.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

So then be done with it, if you aren't a full time wedding shooter.

I'd love to placate the wanna be's but I don't have time. You can't or won't give crit on given examples.

I'm not going to let you slither out of this.  Either, tell me how it's done, with examples, or give me real crit or something.  Don't just make this silly blanket statement.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


> oh dear jesus. :er:


 
Really, right?  I was shocked.


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> So then be done with it, if you aren't a full time wedding shooter.
> 
> I'd love to placate the wanna be's but I don't have time. You can't or won't give crit on given examples.
> 
> I'm not going to let you slither out of this.  Either, tell me how it's done, with examples, or give me real crit or something.  Don't just make this silly blanket statement.



Real crit on what?? 
I'm really confused as to where you are going with this conversation/thread - first some out of context post about someone who goes by the name Nikkor online - and then something about crits with not context.

I still don't fully understand your grip from earlier since you appeared to agree with my post and yet disagreed with Derral and the other poster at the time even though all three of us was saying very similar things.


----------



## Rosshole (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> So then be done with it, if you aren't a full time wedding shooter.
> 
> I'd love to placate the wanna be's but I don't have time. You can't or won't give crit on given examples.
> 
> I'm not going to let you slither out of this. Either, tell me how it's done, with examples, or give me real crit or something. Don't just make this silly blanket statement.


 
I am not attempting to slither out of anything...  I am not sure what you are even reffering to.  At no point during any of this recent back and forth have I said anything about your work...

are you just trolling now?


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> Ok, I am not sure what that rambling was supposed to mean... but I see that you have an extensive history on this site of putting your foot in your mouth, so i am done with this topic.


 

So tell me what you would to do.  Should I have someone who is a total and complete crazy person giving me recs?  I'll show you her website if you would like to see it.. Imagine them asking their friends to try to make you look like a A hole.

Now, imagine me, who doesn't care. I've got some crazy chick who thinks she can make me look bad. I have no idea why she cares so dang much. 

She hides her website, and I totally disclose mine. Why? Because I am proud of what I do. Not everyone will like it, but at least I put it out there to see.

She, on the otherhand, hides her, and also hides behind many usernames.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > So then be done with it, if you aren't a full time wedding shooter.
> ...


 
Sorry, I will admit to being totally freaked out by a stalker, but not in a crazy way. I wan't referring to you, I was referring to "who" and she knows her "she is."


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 20, 2010)

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Don't you people realize this type of shows are a joke. The parties agree to be on TV and, in exchange, the shows pay whatever fines, costs, etc.

No one should ever look at the outcome of those cases as serious law!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > So then be done with it, if you aren't a full time wedding shooter.
> ...


 
Oh good Lord.  Again welcome to my world.  I am definately not dissing this poster.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...


 

The thread went crazy, when a crazy person showed up in my main e-mail and threatened to "expose me" and "ruin my business"


I'm not the kind to back down, and I have  no reason too. This person is nuts and I have no problem exposing them. I will share every crazy assed email I get.


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

pfft cloud we've left the show a page or more ago - we now appear to be into stalkers and stuff...

Bennielou - my dad taught my dad to never write a letter when in a state of hightened emotion - because often as not one will say things or do things that they would otherwise never say or do and the results are often far from what they want in the end.
And thus I'll pass the same advice along - you need to take a breath, a moment to calm and collect your thoughts before writing and clicking the post button.


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...



maybe such an exposition requires its own thread and context rather than random posts in this thread 
However my own approach would simply be the block and delete keys in email and not think any more on it because chances are giving them attention like you are here is only going to encourage them


----------



## Arch (Apr 20, 2010)

bennielou said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...



I still don't understand what your email has to do with this thread?

Please lets get the thread back on topic before i close it and/or have to start pming members. Thanks.


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

I hate him!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

It wasn't my crazy e-mail, it was from a nutso forum member who haunts my e-mail day and night.

Remember.. I don't have to do this. I'm not asking you to buy crap. It's not like I'm not busy. It's relaxing to me (most times) to talk about business stuff.

And this forum is great, but every once in a while you have that nightmare person. The person you gave crit to that though that they didn't need crit. They terrorize you day and night. And you get good and damn tired of it. It makes you just want to quit and walk away. But still they continue. For infinatey with their bs.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Arch said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...


 

The emails have to do with everything.  I have them saved if you would like to see.
Basically, I told a photog how I would have done things differently.   She told me how much I sucked and then ran off. She then changed her username, and proceeded to talk crap on everything I put online. Of course I knew that and confronted her.
If you would like to confirm this, the old username was  weddingphotographer.  The new one is Nikkor.


----------



## Rosshole (Apr 20, 2010)

then be the bigger person.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

I honestly want people's opionions.    I want everyone to get along and have a big old party.

So that is what our job is right?  To make people have fun?  Why all the crazyiness if someone makes a few dollars extra.  Who cares.  We do what makes us happy right?

And I'm done dealing with complete fools, so they can lay off my e-mail.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2010)

Bennielou,
 It is obvious that you're new to photography. I made my living as a photographer in the late 1980's and early 1990's, all pre-digital. My website as you call it is merely 3,000 or so of my personal photos, including many sports shots. My studio lighting skills are probably well advanced above yours, both in terms of scope (people,product,commercial) as well as being well-versed in sports and photojournalism.

As far as the wanna-be label you throw around...I am a former professional photographer and have filed many IRS tax years with the term "photographer" on the occupation line.My work has been published in newspapers and magazines, and is in the homes of thousands of payed clients--on walls and desks and mantles. After seeing your work in last week's engagement photos and the resulting melt-down from a tiny bit of criticism, I think it is time that you step up to the plate and admit that indeed, your work is not without need for improvement. Serious improvement, such as backing off on the over the top noise reduction, as well as differentiating between an incomplete pose and a completed pose...i.e., learning when to orient the camera horizontally versus vertically, as learning when not to lop people off at the joints (wrist,hand,knee,etc). Your compositions, and I have seen many of them, are often the vivtim of incomplete poses; as somebody who made a full-time living photographing studio portaiture, I can tell you, one of the FIRST things the photographer is responsible for is making sure that the subjects are presented well--meaning that their clothing is well-styled, neat, and free of lint, dandruff, spots,price stickers, etc,etc, and that bra straps, slips, and jewlery and accessories are properly draped and adjusted; that is part of  being a "professional" people photographer. As is showing women and men how to properly pose/orient their feet,torsos,and hands and arms for the cameras. That all comes under the heading of "posing people", and as a former professional portrait shooter, I have posed thousands of people. A little tip might be to learn from older,more-experienced shooters who would tell you that a good way to demonstrate your degree of professionalism to your clients is to make a small, deliberate adjustment to a clothing item to ***demonstrate to them**** that you, the professional are actually paying close attention to the **details** of their clothing. Of course, that's an old professional's trick, and not something that is likely to be found by learning photography on your own in the "photoshop Age".

I find it appaling that a "professional" photographer would abdicate responsibility for the clothing adjustment of a groom's lapel, on frame after frame,after frame. To the point that the photographer gets taken to court over it? That sounds like a pretty serious lack of observational ability, or perhaps extreme inattention, or maybe excessive nervousness. But then again, this is the Photoshop Era, and there are literally thousands of full-time wedding shooters all across America, with  no formal training, little equipment, save for a digital SLR or two and a couple of lenses. Kind of like the "professional" who this thread is about--the woman with a Canon Rebel and an 18-55 kit lens, who bothched a wedding because she was not really a professionally-capable photographer, and did not even know the f/stop range of her lenses, and who lost a huge judgement by being unable to deliver the goods. Mostly due to inexperience, but also by trying to shoot a low-light or indoor wedding with low-cost, beginner equipment WITHOUT extreme skill in the art and craft of photography. This country is filled with lots of so-called professional photographers who are good at marketing their mediocre skills, as this thread so amply demonstrates.


----------



## dom yo (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


>


no hogging the popcorn
pass some over!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> then be the bigger person.


 

I haven't been the bigger person? 

Did you see me post all the crazy assed e-mails? Would you see them even if you begged?

I get this more often than yoiu would know. And when you yourself get these kind of things, feel free to embarrase the poster for all time.

So maybe the big thing to do is not feed your social thing. Maybe it's keeping it quiet because that is the right thing to do.


----------



## McMommy (Apr 20, 2010)

BKMOOD said:


> Too funny. Lesson here: don't go into court acting like a damn fool -- it'll cost you.  And it did.  Whatever case the photographer may or may not have had was ruined by her big freakin' mouth! I would have awarded the maximum $5000. Dumb ass!




I absolutely agree. It sounds like this is something that could have been resolved over the phone but that lady was just so rude and argumentive! I hope her attitude improves, maybe her photos weren't horrible, but if she promised a certain quality, she should have delivered. The worst part about her was her crappy attitude!


----------



## Rosshole (Apr 20, 2010)

Then consider the source and ignore them.  I am sure that it isn't this forum that will crumble your reputation because of one person stalking you.  My advice is to just take the higher road.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 20, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Bennielou,
> It is obvious that you're new to photography. I made my living as a photographer in the late 1980's and early 1990's, all pre-digital. My website as you call it is merely 3,000 or so of my personal photos, including many sports shots. My studio lighting skills are probably well advanced above yours, both in terms of scope (people,product,commercial) as well as being well-versed in sports and photojournalism.
> 
> As far as the wanna-be label you throw around...I am a former professional photographer and have filed many IRS tax years with the term "photographer" on the occupation line.My work has been published in newspapers and magazines, and is in the homes of thousands of payed clients--on walls and desks and mantles. After seeing your work in last week's engagement photos and the resulting melt-down from a tiny bit of criticism, I think it is time that you step up to the plate and admit that indeed, your work is not without need for improvement. Serious improvement, such as backing off on the over the top noise reduction, as well as differentiating between an incomplete pose and a completed pose...i.e., learning when to orient the camera horizontally versus vertically, as learning when not to lop people off at the joints (wrist,hand,knee,etc). Your compositions, and I have seen many of them, are often the vivtim of incomplete poses; as somebody who made a full-time living photographing studio portaiture, I can tell you, one of the FIRST things the photographer is responsible for is making sure that the subjects are presented well--meaning that their clothing is well-styled, neat, and free of lint, dandruff, spots,price stickers, etc,etc, and that bra straps, slips, and jewlery and accessories are properly draped and adjusted; that is part of  being a "professional" people photographer. As is showing women and men how to properly pose/orient their feet,torsos,and hands and arms for the cameras. That all comes under the heading of "posing people", and as a former professional portrait shooter, I have posed thousands of people. A little tip might be to learn from older,more-experienced shooters who would tell you that a good way to demonstrate your degree of professionalism to your clients is to make a small, deliberate adjustment to a clothing item to ***demonstrate to them**** that you, the professional are actually paying close attention to the **details** of their clothing. Of course, that's an old professional's trick, and not something that is likely to be found by learning photography on your own in the "photoshop Age".
> ...



First reaction is WOW!

Second one is that I start laughing hysterically. I'll let you know when I stop but it might be a while.


----------



## ghpham (Apr 20, 2010)

Why must you air your dirty laundry here? Contact a Mod so appropriate action can take place.

Are you so perfect that you can't take criticism? I don't play football, but I sure know enough that I can tell when Bret Favre f'ed up big time this year.


----------



## dom yo (Apr 20, 2010)

erose86 said:


> dom yo said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...


----------



## ghpham (Apr 20, 2010)

On post, I think brides and grooms need to ask for real world references (much like a job interview), so they can contact and verify the latest work.  In this new world where photo's can easily be stolen, I'm not forking over 1300 without doing my homework first.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2010)

Yes, the war photographer is laughing. :lmao: Nothing new, you're often on here trying to agitate people, stirring things up while making no real contributions to discussing technique, C&C, composition, lighting,etc,etc. We all know your 'schtick' cloudwalker. I do hope you are enjoying living in "Europe" these days, and that your days as a brilliant, world-famous war photographer have not scarred you too awfully badly. Please return to your hysterical laughing now. ;-)


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Overread said:


> pfft cloud we've left the show a page or more ago - we now appear to be into stalkers and stuff...
> 
> Bennielou - my dad taught my dad to never write a letter when in a state of hightened emotion - because often as not one will say things or do things that they would otherwise never say or do and the results are often far from what they want in the end.
> And thus I'll pass the same advice along - you need to take a breath, a moment to calm and collect your thoughts before writing and clicking the post button.


 
You aren't a stalker.   one person is.
You get a crazy assed email, and then you decide.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Bennielou,
> It is obvious that you're new to photography. I made my living as a photographer in the late 1980's and early 1990's, all pre-digital. My website as you call it is merely 3,000 or so of my personal photos, including many sports shots. My studio lighting skills are probably well advanced above yours, both in terms of scope (people,product,commercial) as well as being well-versed in sports and photojournalism.
> 
> As far as the wanna-be label you throw around...I am a former professional photographer and have filed many IRS tax years with the term "photographer" on the occupation line.My work has been published in newspapers and magazines, and is in the homes of thousands of payed clients--on walls and desks and mantles. After seeing your work in last week's engagement photos and the resulting melt-down from a tiny bit of criticism, I think it is time that you step up to the plate and admit that indeed, your work is not without need for improvement. Serious improvement, such as backing off on the over the top noise reduction, as well as differentiating between an incomplete pose and a completed pose...i.e., learning when to orient the camera horizontally versus vertically, as learning when not to lop people off at the joints (wrist,hand,knee,etc). Your compositions, and I have seen many of them, are often the vivtim of incomplete poses; as somebody who made a full-time living photographing studio portaiture, I can tell you, one of the FIRST things the photographer is responsible for is making sure that the subjects are presented well--meaning that their clothing is well-styled, neat, and free of lint, dandruff, spots,price stickers, etc,etc, and that bra straps, slips, and jewlery and accessories are properly draped and adjusted; that is part of being a "professional" people photographer. As is showing women and men how to properly pose/orient their feet,torsos,and hands and arms for the cameras. That all comes under the heading of "posing people", and as a former professional portrait shooter, I have posed thousands of people. A little tip might be to learn from older,more-experienced shooters who would tell you that a good way to demonstrate your degree of professionalism to your clients is to make a small, deliberate adjustment to a clothing item to ***demonstrate to them**** that you, the professional are actually paying close attention to the **details** of their clothing. Of course, that's an old professional's trick, and not something that is likely to be found by learning photography on your own in the "photoshop Age".
> ...


  You have absoultely no idea what you are talking about  See my website to see what a nebie I am.

This is just the kind of thing I'm talking about.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 20, 2010)

Rosshole said:


> then be the bigger person.


 
You be the bigger person.  You have a crazy ass nut person run all around the interent and say you suck.

You deal with a 20 year old who has nothing to do all day but to put up bad reviews about you.

You go ahead and be the bigger person. I can't.


----------



## Arch (Apr 20, 2010)

So lets ignore the warnings...GJ!


----------

