Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wedding photographers sued on judge joe brown  (Read 6039 times)
DarkPenguin
Guest
« on: March 03, 2010, 07:56:29 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 09:10:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.

I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.

I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.

When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.


p.s. Okay, to be fair, the photos weren't "horrible" (I have seen worse), but they were lackluster and showed absolutely no creativity or thought. They had more in common with snapshots than they do with professional results.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 07:20:05 AM by ckimmerle » Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 09:13:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin

Ok I was midly amused.. but I can I please have that 10 mins of my life back...

Edit - it was nice to see the judge recognise it was amateur hour  
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 09:20:05 PM by Josh-H » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2010, 09:42:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.

I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.

I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.

When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.

Even if they could use flash one of the reasons you spring for a XD, X0D or 7D over a digital rebel is to get decent control over your flash.  I'm betting they had a 430ex perched atop their Xti.  Maybe they sprung for a gary fong thingy.

I've seen far worse wedding photography, tho.
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2010, 09:49:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
I've seen far worse wedding photography, tho.

Sadly, I think we all have. Still....
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2010, 10:44:46 AM »
ReplyReply

The three clues:

1.  She didn't know how fast her lens was.  I guess she had that Costco kit, the one that comes with a body, two crappy zoom lenses and a CF card.

2.  She didn't know AHEAD OF TIME that flash photography was not permitted in the church.  How does one shoot "hundreds of weddings" and still not know this ahead of time?

3.  She had the prints done at WalMart.  Enough said.

Yep, that's a real pro for ya.  Sad.
Logged
kbolin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 220



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2010, 01:19:15 PM »
ReplyReply

My neice asked me to do her wedding for her and I had enough wisdom to say "Only if you get down on all fours and roar, growl, whatever!".  (I'm a wildlife / nature photographer).       She got a chuckle and knew where I was coming from and didn't press it further.  

I will be at her wedding with camera in hand but it will be purely photojournalistic stuff I'll shoot during the day and not any formal stuff.  And likely will give her a canvas printer afterwards for fun.
Logged

mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2010, 02:13:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Wedding photography is really a warzone and you've got to be quick, accurate, prepared and a whole variety of other things to come out alive. The last one I shot  was a variety of rain, dark and wind which was not the best but you just have to deal.

I manage a camera shop part-time and it really scares me when people come in to print wedding photos and they were taken on a p&s. It's generally the same people that are undercutting the market.

On the other side of the coin, surely if you're hiring a photographer you've seen some of their work beforehand?
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2010, 04:32:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.

I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.

I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.

When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.


p.s. Okay, to be fair, the photos weren't "horrible" (I have seen worse), but they were lackluster and showed absolutely no creativity or thought. They had more in common with snapshots than they do with professional results.




Chuck, that goes to confirm or, at least, to illustrate my point in another thread here about the Future of Pro Pho: the desirablity of compulsory qualifications.

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6419



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2010, 07:41:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Chuck, that goes to confirm or, at least, to illustrate my point in another thread here about the Future of Pro Pho: the desirablity of compulsory qualifications.

Rob C

Yeah... right, Rob... just what we need: more government interference. If someone's stupid enough to hire an amateur photog for her wedding, the likely result presents a lesson she probably needs to learn. Remember, "A fool and her money are soon parted." The way to avoid that is to become less a fool, not to depend on an at least equally stupid government to make up for your shortcomings.
Logged

Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2010, 08:18:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Yeah... right, Rob... just what we need: more government interference. If someone's stupid enough to hire an amateur photog for her wedding, the likely result presents a lesson she probably needs to learn. Remember, "A fool and her money are soon parted." The way to avoid that is to become less a fool, not to depend on an at least equally stupid government to make up for your shortcomings.

... the UK is such a nanny-state compared to what we are used to ... people seek a government solution to nearly every bump in the road ...
Logged
tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2010, 09:53:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Chuck, that goes to confirm or, at least, to illustrate my point in another thread here about the Future of Pro Pho: the desirablity of compulsory qualifications.

Rob C

The problem with this is that anyone can pass a test and still make crappy wedding photos.  You just can't regulate good taste.

I recently attended a wedding where there was a professional photographer hired.  Yes, he had all the gear and back-up equipment, and new how to use it.  Yes he had plenty of experience.  And yes, I'm certain that he could pass an exam proving his knowledge.

But guess what?  The wedding pictures still sucked.  And by saying they sucked  I don't mean that they were ordinary or mediocre or boring.  They were truly unflattering, ugly and awful.  All of the posed shots were taken with the subjects right in front of a distracting wall hanging using a small enough aperture to ensure that the wall hanging was in good focus along with the subjects, no use was made of the high ISO capabilities of today's digital cameras and everything was shot with a flash apparently set on "ultra harsh" mode, the photos of the ceremony were all crooked, and to top it off all posed shots and reception photos were shot with an ultra wide angle lens so that he could "get everything from floor to ceiling in the shot" (his words, not mine).  These were photos that, had I taken them, I would have deleted in-camera because I would have been too embarrassed to show them to anyone.  Yes, the photographer felt it was a good idea to set up his laptop for the last hour and a half of the reception displaying a side show of the SOOC photos he had taken up to that point and leave a stack of cards on the table with instructions on how people could view the photos online and order prints.  Quite simply, he thought his photos were fine.

So how will a license help?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6419



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2010, 10:11:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Toke, Clearly, government interference won't help, but the crap the guy was showing might help some of the folks who were at that wedding. It's hard to believe anyone would hire a photographer for a wedding without first seeing a fair sample of his work. Anyone who'd do that richly deserves what follows. It's the Barnum principle at work. Caveat emptor.
Logged

ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2010, 10:36:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.

I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.

I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.

When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.


p.s. Okay, to be fair, the photos weren't "horrible" (I have seen worse), but they were lackluster and showed absolutely no creativity or thought. They had more in common with snapshots than they do with professional results.

Let's not forget the $1300 cost, including travel, you get what you pay for! IMO the judge was out of line in this case, his points regarding the quality of the camera would be valid if they had charged 5k+.

I see nothing wrong with going to Walmart or Costco either, this is how it is when you're on a budget and the quality is very good for the money. We have several low end photographers in our community and the pictures I saw from these ladies were far better than what I see around me. She was stupid to lose her cool and argue with the judge!
« Last Edit: March 21, 2010, 10:38:10 AM by ddk » Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2010, 04:31:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
... the UK is such a nanny-state compared to what we are used to ... people seek a government solution to nearly every bump in the road ...




But Jeremy, we PAY the friggin' government to fix the roads!

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2010, 04:38:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tokengirl
The problem with this is that anyone can pass a test and still make crappy wedding photos.  You just can't regulate good taste.

I recently attended a wedding where there was a professional photographer hired.  Yes, he had all the gear and back-up equipment, and new how to use it.  Yes he had plenty of experience.  And yes, I'm certain that he could pass an exam proving his knowledge.

But guess what?  The wedding pictures still sucked.  And by saying they sucked  I don't mean that they were ordinary or mediocre or boring.  They were truly unflattering, ugly and awful.  All of the posed shots were taken with the subjects right in front of a distracting wall hanging using a small enough aperture to ensure that the wall hanging was in good focus along with the subjects, no use was made of the high ISO capabilities of today's digital cameras and everything was shot with a flash apparently set on "ultra harsh" mode, the photos of the ceremony were all crooked, and to top it off all posed shots and reception photos were shot with an ultra wide angle lens so that he could "get everything from floor to ceiling in the shot" (his words, not mine).  These were photos that, had I taken them, I would have deleted in-camera because I would have been too embarrassed to show them to anyone.  Yes, the photographer felt it was a good idea to set up his laptop for the last hour and a half of the reception displaying a side show of the SOOC photos he had taken up to that point and leave a stack of cards on the table with instructions on how people could view the photos online and order prints.  Quite simply, he thought his photos were fine.

So how will a license help?




I agree that no examination can, or should, specify taste; but look at it this way: if you can at least guarantee good technical skill, you have something to show at least!

There is nothing much any wedding couple can learn from their mistake unless they go through a divorce first; it is precisely to protect these people, who have every right to expect a professional service from anyone running a business, that some qualifications seem the right way to go. It could be argued that it is only where the public is concerned that these qualifications might be required: in the business world, you could either get sued or find your leg gets broken if you mess people about - either way, you won't last long and a reshoot is only a matter of money and not heartache.

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6419



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2010, 06:47:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I agree that no examination can, or should, specify taste; but look at it this way: if you can at least guarantee good technical skill, you have something to show at least!

There is nothing much any wedding couple can learn from their mistake unless they go through a divorce first; it is precisely to protect these people, who have every right to expect a professional service from anyone running a business, that some qualifications seem the right way to go. It could be argued that it is only where the public is concerned that these qualifications might be required: in the business world, you could either get sued or find your leg gets broken if you mess people about - either way, you won't last long and a reshoot is only a matter of money and not heartache.

Rob C

Rob, The thing any wedding couple might learn from their mistake is that instead of trusting, sight-unseen, a photographer or anyone else who claims to be a "professional" it might be worthwhile to verify his claims before you hire him. That understanding could come in handy in any number of ways, with or without a divorce. You're correct that people have a "right" to expect professional service from anyone running a business, just as they had a right to expect "professional service" from Bernie Madoff. But in Bernie's case, even though his business was regulated by the government, the mere existence of a "right" didn't produce the expected result, nor did "regulation" guarantee that result. This kind of problem, going back at least as far as recorded history and probably beyond, is what caused the phrase, "caveat emptor" to be coined. But you're right: if you mess people about in your business the word will get around and eventually you'll go under. On the other hand, the Barnum principle may keep you going far beyond any reasonable expectation.
Logged

braeburnboy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2010, 07:10:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Right on Russ
Logged

Braeburnboy
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2010, 05:07:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
On the other hand, the Barnum principle may keep you going far beyond any reasonable expectation.



Which is exactly the problem, Russ!

Regarding Bernie M, that is surely a failure of legislation and its implementation that allowed the chaos - criminality of the most astute kind! Well, second-most, as the most is never discovered as having taken place at all. That it failed does not imply that it (control) should not exist but rather that it should be taken more seriously from now on.

Rob C

Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2010, 05:50:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Like I said elsewhere, almost the last time I saw competent wedding photographers at work they were using glass plates, and the bride now has adult grand-children.

At my last wedding my wife chose an established local photographer, and the results were worse that the subject of this post (many of the churchyard photos were unprintable) and the cost was about 2,000... and the one picture that got framed was taken by a guest! We should have taken them to court.

Many people earning their living as wedding photographers use 6 or 10 Mpx cameras, and a good 10 or 12 Mpx point-and-shoot or an M9 with a fast lens might be a good tool for low-light interiors than a hand-held H4D-60 with a 50-110 zoom! (but the H4D-60 is supposed to work well at 800 ISO)

At lest the photographer had a tripod... I have not seen a wedding photographer use one for decades.

In the UK flash photography is not normally allowed during the ceremony, but is allowed as the couple leave the church.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 06:23:48 AM by Dick Roadnight » Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad