Wrong camera... wrong judge

[Matt_Golowczynski]

Apologies if this has been posted already, but it's worth watching to see the couple of 'professional' wedding photographers suffer the misfortune of a judge who seemingly knows more about f-stops than they do.

[TimF]

Brilliant.

[TH-Photos]

I tend to agree with the judge, not over the choice of camera but over the choice of lenses that the professional used. At a friend's daughter's wedding the pro was using an EOS 300 (film) but with prime lenses. His pictures were excellent.

[MickLL]

I tend to agree with the judge, not over the choice of camera but over the choice of lenses that the professional used. At a friend's daughter's wedding the pro was using an EOS 300 (film) but with prime lenses. His pictures were excellent.

How many times on this forum have we tried to say that it's not the camera but the photographer that makes the difference.

MickLL

[huwevans]

I tend to agree with the judge, not over the choice of camera but over the choice of lenses that the professional used. At a friend's daughter's wedding the pro was using an EOS 300 (film) but with prime lenses. His pictures were excellent.

How many times on this forum have we tried to say that it's not the camera but the photographer that makes the difference.

MickLL

Well, yes, quite! And the irony surely is that a competent photographer really should be able to use the equipment described to get some perfectly decent pictures - I did feel the 'judge' was placing far too much emphasis on the camera and lenses not being 'professional', and that surely is a bad argument.

Incidentally, I only watched about two thirds of it (I was really losing the will to live by that time), so maybe I'm doing the whole process a disservice. However, I do doubt the real value of these TV 'court' things - everything I've seen or heard about them seems to suggest that they're just contrived and sensationalized.

[Roger_Provins]

...... However, I do doubt the real value of these TV 'court' things - everything I've seen or heard about them seems to suggest that they're just contrived and sensationalized.

Seemed more like a circus than a court of law

[ermintrude]

It was a C*non, what did they expect...

[bob58]

is that for real ? or an act for television, what if the judge had no photographic experience, then purely if he like the picture or not the decision would have been made on ?

and i agree what difference the kit makes is not so important, there have been some cracking photos taken with the rebel and much maligned 18-55

[ermintrude]

is that for real ?

Did it look it? Crikey, you really are a C*non user

[bob58]

is that for real ?

Did it look it? Crikey, you really are a C*non user

everthing looks real for television

[LargeFormat]

Seemed more like a circus than a court of law

Try that in a British court and you'd be locked up for contempt.

[Overread]

It's not a real court but mearly binding arbitration - though the judge is a real (retired) judge. Thing is the question was not had the photographer used the right gear with the right understanding but that her produced work for the bridge in question was no up to the photographers standard.

It should have started with a comparison between the works produced at the wedding ( far more than 3) and then gone on to compare them with the images used in the photographers portfolio as shown to the bride at the time they agreed to hire the photographer.

Only then if the images are found to be lacking can you really go all out and attack the photographers gear and understanding - to skip that stage and to simply make assumptions from 3 images from the wedding is totally bias and would be a nightmare for any photographer of any level of skill.

It's not a defence of bad photography or poor tools but rather one of upholding the same rights and methods we would use to judge a "greater" photographer against. Many (esp on forums) seem to hold wedding photography up upon some holy standard - that every wedding photographer is using the 1D and at least a 24-70mm f2.8 - and is also charging way more than in this situation. The reality is that like every other working area there is highclass and lowclass - the madly expensiv and the budget for those that can't afford anything else.

[MickLL]

I have to admit getting a bit bored and not paying too much attention so I may have missed bits.

It seemed to me that the 'defendant' was never allowed to defend herself - in fact never allowed a full sentence so set up or not it was very wide of the mark for me.

MickLL

[Roger_Provins]

This case is the subject of much discussion on another forum (mainly US users) and the overall conclusion was ...

"While the underlying disputes are real, the disposition is far from it. Both parties are paid an appearance fee, and the show also pays the judgements, so there is little for the defendants to lose by agreeing to have their case heard by a TV “court”.

[bob58]

"While the underlying disputes are real, the disposition is far from it. Both parties are paid an appearance fee, and the show also pays the judgements, so there is little for the defendants to lose by agreeing to have their case heard by a TV “court”.

so its not really, real then, its hyped and performed for entertainment

[AJUK]

I used a kit lens for a wedding I did as a favour for a friend because his sister could not afford a wedding, I found I got much better results from the pictures I took on Portra with the 50mm lens on My F80. Dunno how the digitals would have come out with a better lens.

[Hotblack]

"While the underlying disputes are real, the disposition is far from it. Both parties are paid an appearance fee, and the show also pays the judgements, so there is little for the defendants to lose by agreeing to have their case heard by a TV “court”.

so its not really, real then, its hyped and performed for entertainment

It's TV. I wouldn't expect anything else.

[Overread]

True its not "real" in many ways, but the arbitrations are legaly binding. Furthermore its pretty much sealed the end of the photographers wedding business (for better for worse) and for the life of me I can't imagine why she would want to go through with it unless she was ending it anyway and just looking for a bit of cash at the end through the show.

My grip is the reaction of the photographic community to this video and the very rapid siding with the judge that many (in some places) have made without thinking through the event at all. They get a bit too wound up in the judges powertrip (watch a few more of his cases he likes his powertrips ) and forget to really see what is happening. The other side is that many also quickly fall down the gear thinking path and justifying their whole view on just the gear alone.

[gollum]

Lol...love it

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you are offering a Pro service you must give Pro results.
If the shots had been good, no one would care about the equipment.