This is why you ALWAYS have a contract.

Photog4Christ · March 4, 2010

YouTube video: Judge Brown - Cheap Wedding Photographer

Of course, I wasn't there, so I'm not saying that she didn't have a contract, but odds are, she: (a) had no contract or (b) read "Contracts for Dummies" and wrote it herself.

Art Scott · March 4, 2010

This is already in 2 other threads on here:D

EOS_JD · March 4, 2010

She couldn't answer simple questions, had nowhere near the right gear and tried to make excuses!!! Not a leg to stand on!

The image wasn't the worst I've seen but it should set alarm bells for all the poeple considering shooting weddings with inadequate gear.

Photog4Christ · March 4, 2010

Art Scott wrote:

This is already in 2 other threads on here:D

Sorry

I should have searched a little better.

janicee · March 5, 2010

I can feel the tensions, had read the same thing in other thread if i am not mistaken.

The_Fat_Zebra · March 5, 2010

What she needed was a good lawyer

WillCAD · March 5, 2010

The_Fat_Zebra wrote:

What she needed was a good lawyer

What she needed was a good photography course, years more experience, and multiple gigs as second shooter before attempting to shoot a wedding as primary.

She also needs anger management. She doesn't have the temperament for the trade.

kdog · March 5, 2010

Not to mention a real camera and lens.

WillCAD · March 6, 2010

kdog wrote:

Not to mention a real camera and lens.

I'll only partially agree with you there, kdog.

The Digital Rebel XTi is a fine camera, and while it's not as capable as a double-digit series or single-digit series body, it can be used to shoot weddings, IF, and only IF, it's paired with adequate glass.

The photog in this case was using an 18-55 and a 70-300. From the descriptions and behavior, my guess is that the 18-55 was the kit lens, which is a terrific little lens but woefully inadequate for shooting no-flash weddings. The 70-300 could have been any 70-300 on the market, but again, from the description and behavior of the photog, my guess is that it was a low-to-mid-range 70-300, and also probably inadequate to shoot a no-flash wedding.

This was good equipment she was using, but it wasn't pro equipment, and it wasn't adequate to shoot an indoor, no-flash wedding, unless the photog using it was highly skilled. It doesn't appear to me that she was.

JayClark79 · March 7, 2010

I actually watched this episode on TV the other day, it kinda of scared me because I will be 2nd shooting several weddings this year and I only have a T1i.... I will be using better glass then these women though lol.

JohnBiggs · March 9, 2010

Guys and Gals. Even the Rebel XT will work outstandingly at a wedding. It's all about the photog and having fast enough glass for the lighting.

Last thing I recommend to new photogs is a body upgrade. You get so much more from a lens upgrade.

WillCAD · March 9, 2010

JohnBiggs wrote:

Guys and Gals. Even the Rebel XT will work outstandingly at a wedding. It's all about the photog and having fast enough glass for the lighting.

Last thing I recommend to new photogs is a body upgrade. You get so much more from a lens upgrade.

That's certainly true, though there inevitably comes a point where the best glass in the world is not going to compensate for an out-of-date DSLR.

In the old days, a camera body was nothing but a box for the film. Everything revolved around the glass, and a quality camera body could last a photographer through his entire career.

But in the world of digital photography, the camera body is a lot more than just a container - it's a portable computer which controls everything about the sensor. Not only that, but the sensor is not interchangable, as the lens is, so when a bigger, badder, bolder sensor comes along that does a better job than the old ones, you have to trade up your whole camera body to get the new sensor.

I recently upgraded from an original Canon Digital Rebel (no bloddy X, T, S or I) to a gently used Canon 50D. This was such a huge jump, because of the age of the tech in the old camera, that I feel my capabilities have increased significantly. On the other hand, I also wound up getting a new walkaround lens, a Canon 18-200 IS, because my old walkaround, a Sigma 18-125, was so soft on the new camera that it was practically unusable.

Basically, I think I've gotten as much out of the body upgrade as I did out of the lens upgrade, though my situation is, admittedly, somewhat uncommon.

The_Fat_Zebra · March 10, 2010

I wonder why nobody is bothered by the lack of objectivity of this 'judge'? Adjudication should not depend on how much or little the judge knows about photography, but should be an objective balancing of interests. In this case, what is utterly missing is the portfolio of the photographer that was shown to the client beforehand. If at all similar to the work delivered by this lady, then the client has no case whatsoever! It's a legally binding contract in which she entered, and if she was sufficiently informed beforehand there's only one answer: next time, look better before you decide.
Most reactions here are 'haha, cheap wannabe got owned', but there are deeper issues at stake with these televised (but legally binding 'arbitration') shows.
\rant

l.k.madison · March 10, 2010

kdog wrote:

Not to mention a real camera and lens.

Au contraire, my friend.

I seconded for the always amazing Jeffreaux2 with a Rebel XT and a borrowed 17-55 f/2.8 with a Quantaray flash. While my images were NEARLY as amazing as his were (I eventually killed the flash and shot wide open) I did come out with some great keepers. I attended my sister's best friend's wedding and got a GREAT shot (using the XT and a 50 f/1.8) of her cake and the bride and groom during the first dance, we have it blown up to a 16x20 in our house.

It's not the gear but how you use it.

But back to the video - if she doesn't know the specs on her lens, she shouldn't be shooting weddings - Regardless of how good she is.

Malte · March 10, 2010

Excellent pictures can be taken with a rebel, with a good photographer, good light and good optics, in order of importance.

However...

When the judge asked the "photographer" (about the lens): What speed is it, and she answered "I don't know", as if she couldn't care less... That's not somebody who should be taking anyone's money for taking pictures.

Malte

JohnBiggs · March 10, 2010

Malte wrote:

Excellent pictures can be taken with a rebel, with a good photographer, good light and good optics, in order of importance.

However...

When the judge asked the "photographer" (about the lens): What speed is it, and she answered "I don't know", as if she couldn't care less... That's not somebody who should be taking anyone's money for taking pictures.

Malte

I haven't seen the video. (can't watch it) but... I know some very good wedding photographers who have been shooting weddings for 20+ years who still don't care about lens speed. I know it's crazy and even as I type this I'm thinking I shouldn't because it won't be believed. And on top of that I don't even know how they shoot a wedding with a lens like a 18-200. It blows my mind how they can even get proper exposure in a church.

I have shot weddings with them and that's the kind of lens they pull out!!!

In general you will find these photographers will not be on any internet forum. They don't know how to even google (I know cause I have to google for them). So in general I would say photogs on Dgrin are a particular breed who are into the technical side.

l.k.madison · March 10, 2010

JohnBiggs wrote:

I haven't seen the video. (can't watch it) but... I know some very good wedding photographers who have been shooting weddings for 20+ years who still don't care about lens speed. I know it's crazy and even as I type this I'm thinking I shouldn't because it won't be believed. And on top of that I don't even know how they shoot a wedding with a lens like a 18-200. It blows my mind how they can even get proper exposure in a church.

I have shot weddings with them and that's the kind of lens they pull out!!!

In general you will find these photographers will not be on any internet forum. They don't know how to even google (I know cause I have to google for them). So in general I would say photogs on Dgrin are a particular breed who are into the technical side.

When you can watch the video, you need to, it's great for a "what in the WORLD" good laugh. It's not that she didn't *care* what her lens speed was, it's that she had NO idea what it meant. She's somewhat technically savvy, one of the images she showed from the wedding was seriously (very obviously) photoshopped. She would have had a fighting chance if she just wasn't so rude, at one point, the bride went to speak and the photographer said "she's going to cry now, great" and the groom had to step in. She was the epitome of unprofessional.

Malte · March 10, 2010

JohnBiggs wrote:

...I know some very good wedding photographers who have been shooting weddings for 20+ years who still don't care about lens speed.

If they're good photographers, even if they don't care about a specific lens' speed, I'm sure they know the interplay between lens speed, film speed and shutter speed.

The woman seems to not know and not care that she doesn't know.

Malte

W.W. Webster · March 10, 2010

Just for the record, this has got nothing to do with law - it's no more or less than lowest-common-denominator tabloid entertainment!

JohnBiggs · March 10, 2010

l.k.madison wrote:

When you can watch the video, you need to,

That was a circus. I think she was a rude photographer, but she should not have lost the case.

tijoseph · March 11, 2010

Ha! She was horrible, but definitely didn't luck out with judge joe brown.

This is why you ALWAYS have a contract.

Comments