Those women got paid $3100 to shoot a wedding with a Canon Rebel XTI, two lenses, and no flash?! Those are the kind of idiotic amateurs who give a black eye to pro photographers everywhere. BTW - I think Judge Joe may have mis-spoke when he asked about the "speed" of the lens. He may have simply meant to ask what the F-stop range was. Or he may have been asking about the ISO speed of the camera body itself; he obviously knows the basics of SLR photography, though his info is somewhat out of date (he did refer once to ASA, the older spec for film speed prior to ISO).
Brilliant video... lol. For a "pro" to ask $1300 to shoot, proof, and print is asking to get what you paid for IMHO. Sadly, these drive by photographers are ruining expectations for what a proper wedding shoot should be.
That's funny! ; I can't believe they had the photos printed at Wallmart. ; The last photos I saw that were printed there looked like they came off a dot matrix printer
That was absolutely fantastic! ; Nice to know that the Judge knows his photography. ; I thought it was even better that he awarded the plaintiff even more money then she was looking for.
this was a fantasic video. ; i am never heard of a 'pro' using a rebel with a kit lens and not having any idea what settings she was using. this is yet another case of someone buying a camera, handing a shingle, and calling themselves a pro. ; there are other websites loaded with people who do the same exact thing. ; the defendant's demeanor clearly was responsible for the final verdict.
Some of the stuff in there grates on me.. "where's your 1 series".. I dunno. ; I know a d-reb isn't a high end camera, but.. aren't we always saying that it's not the camera, it's the photographer? ; The lenses used are a greater issue. ; And there we can't be certain. ; Okay, given that they're shooting a wedding with a rebel it suggests that they were using the kit lens, but this might have been the 18-55 F2.8 IS. Or how about the bit where he criticized intentional soft focus for not being sharp? ; He kinda lost me there. ; The next thing you know he's going to be complaining about the lack of color in a B&W print. Oh I don't doubt that the photographers weren't all that professional, but.. ; some of the stuff just doesn't seem right. ; "fuji paper instead of professional"... ; He has a problem with Fuji? ; I've done a little searching and it looks like there's a specific Kodak paper type that seems to be favored by high end labs, but I've used Fuji paper and see nothing wrong with it. ; I know Wallmart makes it sound a little cheesy.. but if it was on Fuji paper it makes me wonder if they're using a similar machine to what I get my prints printed on. ; I've been quite happy with it. ; The limiting factor in those prints has been me, not the printing equipment. I think this was an unfortunate situation all around. ; From what was said it sounds like the photographers misunderstood the flash prohibition. ; Yeah, big oops there. ; On the other hand I think the customer had unreasonably high expectations, I want to say that I suspect there was some truth to the photographers claiming that they stressed that they weren't pros. ; It'd be a fair counter to respond that they shouldn't have been charging a thousand bucks for their services, but I wonder how much more it would have cost for them to bring in someone with the requisite one series.
You're right, we can't be sure, but I think the evidence is pretty compelling - JJB read the lens description directly from the paperwork in front of him, "EF-S 18-55 lens". He didn't say F/2.8, or IS, or anything else, leading me to believe that she was using the 18-55 kit lens. And while the 18-55 kit lens is a terrific lens for the money, it is woefully inadequate to use for shooting a wedding. The other lens was described as a 70-300, but there is no mention of what type or whether it was IS or even if it was a Canon brand. And the photographer, when JJB asked, "What speed is it?", said "I don't know." Had she been a true pro, or even an enthusiast with decent photographic knowledge, she would have either asked JJB if he really meant, "What is the aperture range," or simply stated the aperture range. That one's far more difficult to judge. We can't see the actual pics, because the low resolution of the video clip makes them all pretty fuzzy. However, intentional soft focus is not the same as a pixelated low-res image; I suspect that the photog may have been using a lower resolution, high-compression JPG mode when she shot, to save space on the memory card. If she only had two lenses, how many memory cards did she have? Most non-enthusiasts these days only buy one big memory card and think they're gold; if she had only one 4gb card, it's possible she was shooting at too low a resolution. But again, we can't judge that unless we see the actual image files. I don't think the judge's problem was with the Fuji paper so much as it was with the fact that the prints were done at WalMart and not a pro lab. I've gotten stuff printed at WalMart plenty of times, and while they are an acceptable consumer-grade printer, they are definitely not good enough to produce wedding proofs. A pro, even a beginner, would know that. There are plenty of good, truly-pro photographers out there who will give you a great package for $1300. I know that some pros think $1300 is peanuts, but to young couples planning a wedding, it's is a huge wad of cash. No matter how much or how little you pay, it is not unreasonable to expect a pro photographer to shoot with pro equipment, pro techniques, and give pro results. Less money may mean less product, but it should never mean less quality. I always say, "Having a difficult job is no excuse for doing your job poorly." But in this case I might also say, "Getting paid less is no excuse for doing a poor job." If the photog didn't think her weekend was worth $1300, she should have either charged more or not taken the job; she should NOT have skimped on quality, equipment, or techniques just because she thought the money was inadequate. Think of it this way Dan - if you were shooting a gig for what you consider to be a low amount of money, would you be more careless about focus, exposure, or composition? I bet you wouldn't; a true pro knows that every pic he takes, whether he gets paid a million buck or bupkes, is part of his portfolio and reflects on his skill and professionalism.
I also agree with what Will said, with one small correction -- the 18-55 only comes in the kit version or the IS 3.5-5.6 version -- the 2.8 is a 17-55. Boris
Boris, and only the newer kit lens has the IS. ; My lens from 3 years ago is non-IS. ; Also the 70-300 that is mentioned is probably the 3.5-5.6 that is also the kit lens. ; I can tell you that even without the flash the 18-55 is nowhere near fast enough to be shooting inside a church with.
