Judge Joe Brown Know Photography :()

[Domwolf]

I was watching Jugde Joe Brown ( Don't Knock me i love it jajajajajajaja ) and the case was a Bride and Groom Suing their "Wedding Photographer" cause of bad pics......


Judge Joe ripped them surprisingly at a technical level ..... he asked about thier equipment and lenses ..... since they could not use flash in the Church he asked about what F stop and if they used "fast lenses" and the " Photographer " could not answer......

He asked what cam they used and did said " Professional Equipment " he ripped them cause he know it was a Rebel series cam not a singleD series cam ......

It was so funny ......... The "Photographer" was just flapping her mouth and getting knocked and to me a newbie looked so out of place ... i just stared a year ago and knew more than her ..........

I love Photography and people ask me all the time to do paid work , but i believe one should be honest in life and i say no cause i know my limits and rather than make money and do cheap work i rather tell them i am just an amateur and if they really like my work i will do it for free just to learn more ........but still get a pro if they want really good stuff....

Now when i feel that my work is close to par to real profesional i might consider it.

Some people buy a Dslr , a lens and print a card and say they are a pro ...... I think that is so wrong .... I don't just go out and buy a tool kit and say " Hey i am a Carpenter " or " Hey i am a Mechanic "

[chrisvl]

Don't know if this a repeat or not but watching this episode where a Bride is suing a photographer.
Photographer shot the wedding with a Rebel XTi, a 28-138 and may be the 70-300 in a church with no flash .
Photos were developed at Walmart on Fuji paper.
Apparently the Judge knows quite a bit about photography so he asked what speed her lens was and she doesn't even know what he was talking about.
Asked why she's using an entry level camera with the cheapest kit lens you can get.
She's so clueless.

She charged $2300 for the wedding.

[StudioBin]

What was the outcome of the case?

[aebrown]

What was the outcome of the case?

I'm curious as well...

[midnight_rider]

Pictures or it didnt happen:D

[chrisvl]

photographer was order to repay Bride $2500 but not sure if that was total cost of the shoot or not but certainly most of it if not all.

[kayl]

I'd be curious to see what the photog showed as a portfolio - I wonder if it was stolen images from teh interwebz

[Aaagogo]

can't find a TIVO'ed version, I think the episode was on today.

http://www.judgejoebrown.com/week.php

[midnight_rider]

This topic reminded me of this link (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Bride-And-Gloom-Worlds-Worst-Wedding-Pictures/Media-Gallery/200910115400546?lpos=UK_News_Third_Picture_Gallery _Teaser_Region____4&lid=GALLERY_15400546_Bride_And_Gloom%3A_Worlds_Wor st_Wedding_Pictures) Very inspiring

[chrisvl]

can't find a TIVO'ed version, I think the episode was on today.

http://www.judgejoebrown.com/week.php

Yes it was on as I was creating the post. 4:30PM EST

[chrisvl]

can't find a TIVO'ed version, I think the episode was on today.

http://www.judgejoebrown.com/week.php

Case 1 on that link is it.

[CafeRacer808]

I love that Judge Joe Brown knows a bit about photography!

[Aaagogo]

anyone TIVO'ed or DVR'ed it?

I want to post it online... that would be funny, and educational for those looking for wedding photogs

[DHP]

Hey Folks,

Here's the 411: The photographer charged $1300 for the shoot. The bride only wanted $1000 back, giving the photographer $300 for her time. Judge Joe gave the bride $1000 + $1500 in punitive damages.

In the photographer's defense, I've shot at churches that will not let you shoot with a flash during the ceremony. Before and after is OK.

The rule of law says, don't piss off the judge.

[FELINEDEBOURGES]

man, I want to see this.

[Karl Johnston]

I'm curious why people base so much of their business and professionalism off what's in their kit...I'm also curious to think that those same photographers probably think that 2300 is a lot of money..:lol:

[cito17]

Watching this right now!

[themadman]

The judge isn't a very good photographer if he thinks he can judge the merit of a photographer off the photographer's gear. But I guess if the "photographer" doesn't know his/her lenses very well, then he/she is a not much a photographer I guess.

[zagiace]

didn't see the episode, what was the brides beef?
I put a email reminder to catch it next time it airs...

[jonwhite]

Disappointing that the photographer only got stung for $2,500, the market really needs a few people to be charged for the total cost of the wedding + damages and then some people who are entering into this half cocked, with inadequate gear, knowledge, experience and insurance would maybe stop and think a bit more about what they are doing.

[asysin2leads]

Someone already beat you to it, though. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=834583)

[zagiace]

Someone already beat you to it, though. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=834583)
beat to what?

[dwarfcow]

youtube linky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

[chrisvl]

The judge isn't a very good photographer if he thinks he can judge the merit of a photographer off the photographer's gear. But I guess if the "photographer" doesn't know his/her lenses very well, then he/she is a not much a photographer I guess.

He wasn't totally judging her by her equipment. Watch the episode on the youtube link posted above and you'll see why he asked about equipment.
This lady was clueless, rude, arrogant.

[dwarfcow]

He wasn't totally judging her by her equipment. Watch the episode on the youtube link posted above and you'll see why he asked about equipment.
This lady was clueless, rude, arrogant.

he was judging on misrepresentation, and her attitude, you don't take jabs at a judge in a court room. she condemned herself, and claimed she had done "hundreds" of weddings. how many people on here have done hundreds of weddings? and do you not know what "aperture, F stop, or ASA" mean? they were lying. judges don't like perjurers.

[Woolburr]

Here come da judge!

"What f/stop did you use?" "I used a tripod."

ROFL

[midnight_rider]

Someone already beat you to it, though. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=834583)

That is a link to this thread
youtube linky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs


LMAO Thanks for posting

[dwarfcow]

"where's your 1 series?"

"where is your 28-70"?

methinks hes a canon guy through and through.

[midnight_rider]

"where's your 1 series?"

"where is your 28-70"?

methinks hes a canon guy through and through.

Not only a Canon shooter but Ole school too. 28-70, oh yeah

[Woolburr]

"You've done hundreds of weddings and you are still using entry level gear?"

[Todd Lambert]

I actually didn't think the suspect photos were that bad... (probably why I'm not a wedding photog, eh?) ;-)

[Solo87]

Here come da judge!

"What f/stop did you use?" "I used a tripod."

ROFL

LMAO!! that part still cracks me up...

[advaitin]

Of course, these shows have a voice-over or small print in the credits that say that everyone gets a fee or compensation for appearing on the show, so no one loses, depending on the judgment.

I watched the video link, obviously something in the paperwork, as well as the type of camera used, set the judge off on his harangue of the photographer. It was impossible for me to see the quality of the images, but the judge thought they were soft. He ignored what the photographer tried to say about enhancements, but he may have as low an opinion of some of the Photoshop tricks as I do when it comes to lifetime memories.

We all should know that there is nothing wrong with an XTi's capabilities for producing a decent image, but the judge also apparently knew that it was not a camera marketed to working pros. Add that to her inability to tell him the base f-value of her lenses and her lack of gear for all contingencies (like a fast 35, 50 or 85mm--or even an f2.8 zoom) and she was going to lose. Her snippy and defensive attitude is what cost her an additional 1500 bucks.

The real crime is that she probably went to the wedding shoot dressed about the same as she dressed for an appearance on court TV. Unprofessional equipment, unprofessional appearance, unprofessional behavior.

[FELINEDEBOURGES]

The way all these shows go is that no matter the outcome the show pays the judgment awarded. So the is no really good reason why the judge would have wanted to up the penalty from the photographer except to make a public example out of them to deter future amateur photographers from doing hack work and representing themselves as professionals.

[Woolburr]

I think it should be viewed as a warning shot across the bow. More and more people are grabbing cameras and calling themselves pros, without even having rudimentary knowledge of the subject. It was pretty obvious that the "pro" did even know basic photographic terminology....much less any advanced concepts. The photos were crap....and she got called on it. Unfortunately for her, the judge just happened to be an avid photographer, so pulling the wool over his eyes wasn't going to happen.

[neilwood32]

The way all these shows go is that no matter the outcome the show pays the judgment awarded. So the is no really good reason why the judge would have wanted to up the penalty from the photographer except to make a public example out of them to deter future amateur photographers from doing hack work and representing themselves as professionals.

I think it should be viewed as a warning shot across the bow. More and more people are grabbing cameras and calling themselves pros, without even having rudimentary knowledge of the subject. It was pretty obvious that the "pro" did even know basic photographic terminology....much less any advanced concepts. The photos were crap....and she got called on it. Unfortunately for her, the judge just happened to be an avid photographer, so pulling the wool over his eyes wasn't going to happen.

Agreed - it was a warning to others that poor results will end up with photographers being sued!

Oh and I like that he is a Canon shooter!

[Winter Ivy]

This one was fun to watch too, JJB whips out the photog. knowledge again:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiSU_fy_lGI

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1AOgy-F0bc

[Toxic Dover]

I found this quite hillarious... It's 10 minutes well spent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

[In2Photos]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=834495

[asysin2leads]

I finally watched the Youtube version of the show. Very interesting. I know that a Rebel series can take good wedding pictures. The 18-55 w/ no flash on the other hand really limits you. The judge knew enough about photography and equipment to call them out. If the lady was so set on proving that a 24x36 could have been printed w/out loss of IQ, then she should have brought one in. I'll bet that her other clients will start following in the footsteps of this bride demanding money back.

[Johnny V]

Judge Joe Brown disses my XTi as an amateur camera....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs&feature=player_embedded

Take a look a tell us what you think... Here's my thoughts!

The Judge made up his mind before the "trial" even started.... The photographer didn't have a chance.

I've shot a number of weddings with an XTi... It's a fine camera. The judge rattles off 10D, 20D and 30D as pro cameras but the XTi kicks their butts in image quality and AF.

Of course the photographer should have come prepared with a few 11x14 custom prints.

[ejicon]

Good post.. thanks for the video. I really don't think the judge was slamming the XTi completely, but rather the technique/snap'shot'like photos that were produced. Such an unfortunate event.


EDIT.. ok. Judge Brown WAS slamming the Xti. Ouch.

[canonnoob]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=834495

+ similar threads at the bottom...

[Johnny V]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=834495

+ similar threads at the bottom...

OK I did a search first in the Wedding and Other section.... Didn't think it to search elsewhere.

[10megapixel]

Good post.. thanks for the video. I really don't think the judge was slamming the XTi completely, but rather the technique/snap'shot'like photos that were produced. Such an unfortunate event.

He started out really good, quizzing her on the glass she used. I think he was trying a bit to hard to show that he knew a thing or two about photography at some pint in his life when he started to rant a bit, he mumbled something about ASA at one point and made me chuckle :lol:. I think some of the pictures had a soft focus vignette around them from PP, and J.B. thought that was the result of the cheap lenses. Embarrassing as hell for the photographer to go on national television and get schooled by a judge who probably hasn't picked up a camera in years.

[Robbierob]

lol

[monk3y]

wow...the judge is quite knowledgeable in the subject hehe except uhhmmm for his opinion

[midnight_rider]

I actually feel just a tiny bit sorry for the photographer, even though her pictures were poor and she didn't even bother to check the location before the day.
She did know what an f/stop is, she was just answering the previous question about tripod use.

The judge's technical questioning seemed to me to be at least partly an opportunity to show off!


I saw no sign that see knew what an F stop was...
She also did not know that speed her lenses were

Id bet dollars to cents that camera has never left P:lol:

[Johnny V]

Funny when the audience cheers in agreement that the photographer shouldn't be shooting with a Rebel!

[int2str]

Judging from the DoF on her pictures, she also didn't know how to use aperture to her advantage. Given that and the fact that she tried to sell her client photos after self admittedly not being able to handle the lighting during the wedding seems contradictory at best.

The Rebel is not at fault here of course. But using a slow zoom, no flash and most of all not having any clue about photography in the first place does seem criminal.

On another note, reality TV sucks :p

[Ichiban]

I think if your getting paid 1300, you should at least have xxd or FF.

[FamilyJules]

"100's of weddings shot" and she doesn't know how fast her lens is? WOW! I agree, Joe had his mind made up before the case even started, but this woman seems like she didn't really know what she was doing.
It's not so much the camera, as it is the user and the glass... Using such slow lenses in a dark church with no flash will not hold up too well... And after shooting "100's" of weddings, this photog should know this. And the whole "You don't know 'till you show up" is a load of crap... She didn't do her due diligence on the venue... this is all stuff that you need to know BEFORE HAND.
Anyways, it's prolly all set up and fake, like many of those shows are, so I'm ranting for nothing, lol.

[Mhappy]

What a great episode! Thanks for sharing!!!!! :D

[CW Jones]

HAHAHAHA OMG that was awesome!

I didn't hear him say the 10D, 20D, 30D.... I heard 7D, 5D, or 1D.... I would say the 30D and 40D will beat out the XTi... I am partial to my 30D tho haha

[Johnny V]

>I would say the 30D and 40D will beat out the XTi

Image quality and AF accuracy XTi beats out the 30D. 40D has same chip and AF as XTi.

[bastozzz]

LOL...she got slammed. However I do agree that the XTi is capable of taking pretty good looking photos.

[CW Jones]

>I would say the 30D and 40D will beat out the XTi

Image quality and AF accuracy XTi beats out the 30D. 40D has same chip and AF as XTi.

Touche, did not know that about the 40D.

[genedarrell]

That was great!

[BrianAZ]

Horrible decision. If there was nothing in the contract to guarantee satisfaction, Joe should have told the plaintiff that she should have done a better job of selecting a real photographer not some MWC.

As it stands, this type of ruling makes people think it is "ok" to sue even professional photographers without having to prove their case. In fact the statement should be made that if the client doesn't want to make sure they are hiring someone that is up to their standards then they reap what they sow.

[monk3y]

"100's of weddings shot" and she doesn't know how fast her lens is? WOW! I agree, Joe had his mind made up before the case even started, but this woman seems like she didn't really know what she was doing.
It's not so much the camera, as it is the user and the glass... Using such slow lenses in a dark church with no flash will not hold up too well... And after shooting "100's" of weddings, this photog should know this. And the whole "You don't know 'till you show up" is a load of crap... She didn't do her due diligence on the venue... this is all stuff that you need to know BEFORE HAND.
Anyways, it's prolly all set up and fake, like many of those shows are, so I'm ranting for nothing, lol.

haha yeah I was even surprise that the judge asked that question... and I was even more surprised at her answer

[Car2n]

Sounds like JJB has a Pelican case full of Canon kit.
I wonder if he ever visits this board.

[FamilyJules]

haha yeah I was even surprise that the judge asked that question... and I was even more surprised at her answer
my sentiments exactly!

[JakeLewis]

Wow, that was a mess. I'm glad Judge Brown came down so hard. I'd be upset for paying that much and getting trash.

[440roadrunner]

First of all, Joe Brown is no judge, and that mess 'o $h## on TV is no courtroom.

I will agree that someone using an 18-55 lens and who doesn't seem to know the basics of that lens is pretty lame. Anyone who's "done hundreds of weddings" I believe she said should have an intimate knowledge of her/ his gear.

[ShoePhoto]

I could watch that a dozen times and it wouldn't get old, I can't believe she couldn't answer those basic answers!

[Woolburr]

First of all, Joe Brown is no judge, and that mess 'o $h## on TV is no courtroom.

I will agree that someone using an 18-55 lens and who doesn't seem to know the basics of that lens is pretty lame. Anyone who's "done hundreds of weddings" I believe she said should have an intimate knowledge of her/ his gear.

Might want to check your facts....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Brown_%28judge%29

[neilwood32]

I think that the whole issue boils down to a photographer not doing their homework. There really is no excuse for using inferior equipment on a shoot that demands higher performance (ISO, faster lenses etc)

The photographer should have at least visited the venue prior to the shoot and ascertained whether flash was permissable. At this point she would have realised that the XTI, kit lens and 70-300mm were far from being adequate and that renting equipment would be required.

I have to agree with others that the photos shown looked like she had no idea about aperture as they all appear to be taken with the same aperture.

All in all, a poor attempt by a "photographer" rightfully slammed by the judge. I would be very disapponted if I had recieved her work.

[20droger]

It's just another case of the I-have-a-DSLR-therefore-I-am-a-professional-photographer syndrome.

I would never shoot a wedding. But if I were to do so, I would use something a bit better than a kit lens. And I wouldn't be shooting in "Green Box" mode (which, judging by the results this "photographer" appears to have done), or even in "P".

While there is nothing wrong with an XTi—it's a very capable consumer-grade camera—it does not exactly shout "professional photographer." Especially with a slow kit lens.

If this pro has done "hundreds of weddings," at (apparently) $1300 a pop, you would think that she could have channeled a wee bit of that over $130,000 into a higher-grade body and at least one fast lens. Keep the XTi for a backup.

And a few lessons on basic photography wouldn't hurt, either. Maybe invest in "Understanding Exposure"....

I also find it hard to believe that she's done "hundreds of weddings," given that: the "trial" took place in 2009; the wedding in question took place sometime before the trial; and the XTi was released in late 2006. She'd have to be one hell of a popular photographer.

In the real world, her "hundreds of weddings" comment would be called exaggeration. In a courtroom, even a binding-arbitration "courtroom," it's called perjury. That alone would have been enough to cause her to lose with most judges.

[Livinthalife]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

I thought this would be interesting to share and get your opinions.

My fav quote

Joe: What aperture did you use?
Defendant: Tripod

hahah! Clearly the "photog" was oblivious to the most basic knowledge of photography...Sad.

[kona77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

I thought this would be interesting to share and get your opinions.

My fav quote

Joe: What aperture did you use?
Defendant: Tripod

hahah! Clearly the "photog" was oblivious to the most basic knowledge of photography...Sad.

It is interesting, join the discussion at the other thread. :D

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=834495&highlight=brown

[Quizzical_Squirrel]

I suspect, given the confusion over the wedding fair, that the bride and groom actually viewed someone else's work at the fair and thought they were hiring that person.

This makes me wonder: if you hire someone who doesn't take good pictures and you haven't checked their work for some reason, are you still able to sue them for poor results?

[Livinthalife]

Here is the link if not viewed previously
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

My fav quote from event is
Joe: What aperture did you use?
Defendant: Tripod

[Woolburr]

I suspect, given the confusion over the wedding fair, that the bride and groom actually viewed someone else's work at the fair and thought they were hiring that person.

This makes me wonder: if you hire someone who doesn't take good pictures and you haven't checked their work for some reason, are you still able to sue them for poor results?

I'm just curious as to why you keep trying to lay this off on the bride and groom. The photographer was clueless, committed perjury on multiple occasions and even became confrontational with the judge. Her assertion that she didn't meet the clients at a bridal fair seems about as lame as the rest of her testimony. As sleazy as the photographer came off, I wouldn't have put it past her to have been working a booth for an actual wedding photographer that she was employed by.....and then attempting to pass the work off as her own to an unsuspecting customer.

[Woolburr]

Ah, my secret's out, I'm the photographer :lol:

I'm actually just interested that the discrepancy about the wedding fair attendance wasn't cleared up and I'm thinking that someone entirely different (and competent) may have been the photographer that the couple thought they were hiring.

That certainly is the first thing that crossed my mind.:shock:

[dlpasco]

Ah, my secret's out, I'm the photographer :lol:

I'm actually just interested that the discrepancy about the wedding fair attendance wasn't cleared up and I'm thinking that someone entirely different (and competent) may have been the photographer that the couple thought they were hiring.

Keep in mind that this show is all about entertainment and ratings.

[yoopergirl]

The judge isn't a very good photographer if he thinks he can judge the merit of a photographer off the photographer's gear. But I guess if the "photographer" doesn't know his/her lenses very well, then he/she is a not much a photographer I guess.

I'm going to disagree with you here. If you hire a professional, they should do a professional job with professional equipment. I'm certainly not going to hire anyone to shoot my wedding with a rebel, would you? They could be the best photographer, but chances are if they are still shooting with a rebel, I'd think they lacked some skill or were not at the point in their photography career where I'd feel comfortable with them shooting my wedding. Using an entry level camera for a back up camera would be fine, I think, but not a main camera.

This photographer didn't know what speed her lens was, and she was just all around green. The sad thing is she said she shot 100's of weddings.

The bride sued for $1000, but she paid the "photographer" $1300. And the judge rewarded her with $2500. No wonder pro's get so pissed off at amateurs.

[silvrr]

>I would say the 30D and 40D will beat out the XTi

Image quality and AF accuracy XTi beats out the 30D. 40D has same chip and AF as XTi.

You sure about that. Same chip yes, but there are improvements from the XTi to the 40D I believe when you get to the nitty gritty of the design. Also the high ISO noise is much improved from the XTi to 40D.

The AF system is much different. Having owned both a XTi and a 40D I can assure you the 40D is much better in low light in my experiences.

[PicSniper]

What a great episode! Thanks for posting, OP. I have never watched this program, but I thought that this episode was entertaining, only because it had to do with photography. In my opinion, I'm glad the verdict turned out the way it did. The photographer clearly had no clue what she was doing. She would have done a lot better just by keeping her mouth shut...

[joedlh]

I suspect, given the confusion over the wedding fair, that the bride and groom actually viewed someone else's work at the fair and thought they were hiring that person.

I caught this too. The wedding couple liked what they saw in the portfolio. I would have liked to have the photographers show their portfolio to the court. If it turned out not to be the one on which the wedding couple based their decision, then they, not the photographers, were at fault. The decision of whether or not the photographer produced a product as advertised hinges on this point. If their portfolio was junk and they produced junk, then the wedding couple have no case. You get what you pay for, even if the photographer is a rube.

Everybody focused on the XTi, but this is a good camera. The judge zeroed in on the use of inferior lenses, especially given the no flash rule in the church. Clearly, their glass was inadequate to the task. Still, if they made no false promises, then the bride and groom should have been required to accept the results of hiring a cheap photographer.

[jhcanon]

This is a P*** take isn't it?!

I cannot believe any of this is real - only in America!!

[neilwood32]

That still does not give the photographers the excuse for not doing proper checks on the venue with regards to photography. If they had, they would have realised that the shoot was impossible with the gear they had and would have either had to rent equipment or decline the shoot.

The XTI is a good camera but poor in low light due to noise at the ISO's required for shooting internally at a wedding. Combine this with slow lenses and you have the recipe for disaster that is the case brought.

The customer has no fault here - they contracted the photographer to perform a shoot at a certain location, the photographer was poorly equiped and didnt know their (or their equipments) limitations, they couldnt perform the contract as laid down, therefore they breached the contract and being liable to damages.

How the photographer was hired (whether at a bridal fair or otherwise) is a moot point- it doesnt affect the contract in place (the photographer did not deny that the contract existed did they?)

[Livinthalife]

ONLY in America :)

[jhcanon]

It did remind me of the UK photographer recently who was sued for the terrible images and video they supplied to the client. It made national press and TV it was so bad.

I just couldn't believe that they would ever hand over such poor work. That said they do appear to have gone out of business.

[Livinthalife]

It did remind me of the UK photographer recently who was sued for the terrible images and video they supplied to the client. It made national press and TV it was so bad.

I just couldn't believe that they would ever hand over such poor work. That said they do appear to have gone out of business.

It sucks that some people who are inexperienced are doing this. BUT also the clients are also out looking for the next "best" deal which in turn will bring you to the "you get what you pay for".

BUT I gotta say, in this situation, $1300 for an inexperienced photog with entry level equipment?

[lowrider]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=835448&highlight=brown

And there are others

Lou

[Todd Lambert]

I think a lot of that is subjective. To fulfill the contract, they merely needed to show up, shoot photos and provide them in the fashion that they were to be delivered (ie disc, prints, etc..)

The quality of the shots, the quality of the paper, etc.. is irrelevant unless VERY clearly spelled out in the contract. Everything else about this case is purely subjective - your opinion vs someone else's opinion of what is good, etc... which can't be substantiated usually and most certainly not in a TV court setting.

This is a TV show and was merely a platform for Joe to go all wiggy about his exceptional photographic skillz. Nothing more than that.

That said, the photographer was an idiot, no doubt about it. But in a real court, I hardly think she would have been found negligent or liable in this manner.

[Car2n]

He asked her what glass she had. She said that they used the 18-55 and also had a 75-300 (not used?). Two less than stellar kit lenses. She didn't even have a 50 1.8 and when asked about using a flash, I wonder if she even had one other than the pop-up.

[Karl Johnston]

"Do you have tripods?"

"Did you use them?''

:lol:

HAHAHAH

[ruchad1]

This made my day!

[Bosscat]

That made my day too..........thanks for posting it

[RWatkins]

I made these jokers, with their kit lens and XTi, a new logo.

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/801780171_URB64-O.png

[tunin]

I am not sure if this is for real or not but this is interesting since it is about photography...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

[canonnoob]

this has been all over the forum already man.. at least 4 threads on it..

[Johnny V]

She doesn't have a website per say but has this lame web presentation:

http://www.photographypros.com/portrait/midland_mi/index.php

If she shot "hundreds" of weddings where are the images?

Wonder if she thought going on the Judge Joe Brown show would be good exposure for her? Could only hurt business... if she had one.

[RWatkins]

She doesn't have a website per say but has this lame web presentation:

http://www.photographypros.com/portrait/midland_mi/index.php

If she shot "hundreds" of weddings where are the images?

Wonder if she thought going on the Judge Joe Brown show would be good exposure for her? Could only hurt business... if she had one.

The samples are just sad. Not saying I could do better, but I don't ask money for my pictures either.


Id bet dollars to cents that camera has never left P:lol:
Don't you know - P is for Professional. Oh, and the reason they don't have L lenses is because L stands for loser.

[asysin2leads]

A search would have found that this has been discussed and even a thread has been locked because it's already been posted.

[JWright]

Of course, these shows have a voice-over or small print in the credits that say that everyone gets a fee or compensation for appearing on the show, so no one loses, depending on the judgment.

EXACTLY!!!

Come on, do you guys really think the Judge Joe Brown show is a fair representation of how the legal system works in this country? This is reality television and I'm willing to bet the "plaintiff" and "defendant" are coached beforehand to make the show more appealing to the target audience. The fact they were willing to have their "case" adjudicated on TV makes me believe they didn't have much of one to begin with...

Besides, it's likely the couple will be throwing out the pictures in five or ten years when they get divorced...

I think Brown was way off base criticizing the photographer's equipment. We all know it's the photographer, not the gear, that makes or breaks the image. The photographer, at best, was incompetent and needs to learn a lot more about photography before attempting something as demanding as shooting weddings.

This new trend of suing your photographer because you don't like the images produced is setting a bad precedent and I see it having a deleterious effect on the wedding and portrait business. Photographers are now going to have to insure themselves against frivolous lawsuits brought by couples looking to recoup some of the money they spent on their wedding. I see this trend forcing wedding photographers out of business and not just the marginal ones who shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

[RWatkins]

EXACTLY!!!

I think Brown was way off base criticizing the photographer's equipment. We all know it's the photographer, not the gear, that makes or breaks the image. The photographer, at best, was incompetent and needs to learn a lot more about photography before attempting something as demanding as shooting weddings.

I disagree. Part of the equation is the ABILITY of the gear. Good gear does not make a great photographer, but gear not up to the task will surely ruin many images.

Its the duty of the wedding photographer to come prepared for all reasonable situations, e.g. low light, that they may encounter. The choice of gear speaks to their ability. I'm not a pro, but I don't think a kit zoom and a slow entry level zoom, qualifies for that.

[bacchanal]

>I would say the 30D and 40D will beat out the XTi

Image quality and AF accuracy XTi beats out the 30D. 40D has same chip and AF as XTi.

WRONG! Time to go see the judge! ;)

[Johnny V]

I'll take the 5th! LOL

[asysin2leads]

I disagree. Part of the equation is the ABILITY of the gear. Good gear does not make a great photographer, but gear not up to the task will surely ruin many images.

Its the duty of the wedding photographer to come prepared for all reasonable situations, e.g. low light, that they may encounter. The choice of gear speaks to their ability. I'm not a pro, but I don't think a kit zoom and a slow entry level zoom, qualifies for that.

I agree w/ most of John says, and disagree w/ some. I always use the analogy of building a house. I could build a house w/ a sledge hammer if I wanted. However, it is NOT the right tool for the job. A claw hammer is much more practical and efficient. Same goes w/ camera gear. You don't take a 18-55 into a wedding and expect it to perform like the 70-200 2.8. It just won't happen. Sure, the 18-55 is a good little lens, but it isn't the right tool for the job. While the XTi is a nice little camera, it doesn't handle high iso like some of the higher-end cameras.

[dinanm3atl]

Was amazing. Just saw it on bimmerforums. LULZ.

[20droger]

I'll take the 5th! LOL
Would that be scotch or bourbon?

[booja]

sad thing is that i see alot of proclaimed pros do weddings and e sessions like this with entry level stuff and the pics are just awful.

i had a good friend of mine get married about a year ago. when i found out she was getting married i offered to do the photos for her for free. just fly me out to where she was so i can do it and be at her wedding as well. unfortunately she already got a photog.

in my eyes and through the eyes of our mutual friends, my friend got ripped off. the photos all suck imo. composition was bad, lighting was bad, using entry level stuff.

but my friend (the bride) knows nothing about photography and she was happy with them. thats all that matters i guess.

[robojack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs&feature=player_embedded

Judge Joe Brown lays judgment on two cheap photographers.

A must watch, and I found it quite entertaining. The two photographers being sued seemed to have no idea what they were talking about at times - one of them didn't even know the speed of the 70-300 lens that they used. Even though his knowledge wasn't entirely accurate, I'm surprised Judge Brown knew what he did (having mentioned 1D and 7D series cameras), and he certainly seemed more competent than two hack photographers :D

Although I must say, with adequate technique and understanding of exposure and lighting, they should've been able to make do with an XTi.

[PicSniper]

There are other threads on this already...

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ Thread blend has happened I think.

Haven't read all the comments, but that Judge might be a member here. :shock:

[H_Lansing]

No Johnny, he didn't start going on about 10D/20D/30Ds...he went on about EOS1s, 5Ds, and 7Ds. And he went on about using the plastic kit lens that comes with the Rebel. Your Rebel is a fine consumer camera...but it's not in that league. The lens she uses could be used as a paperweight to hold down her gray card and be more effective than it would have been in a serious low-light shoot with no strobes/flash. As could that Rebel compared to an EOS1 or 5D mkII or 7D in tough low-light environments. It's not "dissing my Rebel" to correctly point out that there are horses for courses and that one with that lens isn't for this course. The Rebel is an amateur shooter's camera...which, with excellent glass and a serious shooter behind it can still produce acceptable work. It's not in the league of the cameras Joe actually did reference. No offense, Johnny...but them's the facts. :cool:

Judge Joe Brown disses my XTi as an amateur shooter's camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs&feature=player_embedded

Take a look a tell us what you think... Here's my thoughts!

The Judge made up his mind before the "trial" even started.... The photographer didn't have a chance.

I've shot a number of weddings with an XTi... It's a fine camera. The judge rattles off 10D, 20D and 30D as pro cameras but the XTi kicks their butts in image quality and AF.

Of course the photographer should have come prepared with a few 11x14 custom prints.

[RDKirk]

Horrible decision. If there was nothing in the contract to guarantee satisfaction, Joe should have told the plaintiff that she should have done a better job of selecting a real photographer not some MWC.

As it stands, this type of ruling makes people think it is "ok" to sue even professional photographers without having to prove their case. In fact the statement should be made that if the client doesn't want to make sure they are hiring someone that is up to their standards then they reap what they sow.

One of my favorite programs is "Holmes on Homes" in which a top-notch general residence contractor repairs the shoddy work done by previous contractors. One of the very important lessons learned is that as a consumer, it's darned hard to judge who is going to do good work on your job. Certification is not a guarantee, references are not a guarantee, and a portfolio is not a guarantee.

The "proof" is the work done, and in this case, the photographer herself handed the judge her "proof"--which the judge said was lousy. There's no defense when a person sells himself as "professional" and does a lousy job.

Being professional means: No excuses. You do everything you can to prevent failure--yes that means getting the best possible equipment, yes that means having backups, yes that means doing venue reconnaissance, yes that means learning how to handle all common contingencies. That is what being "professional" is all about. And if you still fail after doing everything possible to succeed, you own up and return the money.

[RDKirk]

I think a lot of that is subjective. To fulfill the contract, they merely needed to show up, shoot photos and provide them in the fashion that they were to be delivered (ie disc, prints, etc..)

The quality of the shots, the quality of the paper, etc.. is irrelevant unless VERY clearly spelled out in the contract. Everything else about this case is purely subjective - your opinion vs someone else's opinion of what is good, etc... which can't be substantiated usually and most certainly not in a TV court setting.

This is a TV show and was merely a platform for Joe to go all wiggy about his exceptional photographic skillz. Nothing more than that.

That said, the photographer was an idiot, no doubt about it. But in a real court, I hardly think she would have been found negligent or liable in this manner.

If you hire a contractor to renovate your bathroom, you certainly can take him to small claims court if he does a shoddy job (at least in the US), and the issue definitely will be the quality of the final work, not the details of the contract. And it will the the opinion of the judge--whether he agrees that the work is too shoddy to pay for--that finally matters.

[H_Lansing]

Now this is the mindset of a pro.

"...best possible equipment" I might amend to best possible equipment within your business's operating budget, but it's still a business investment that a shooter with hundreds of assignments under their belts should be making. After "hundreds of weddings", these two should certainly have had the investment capital for appropriate bodies/glass/portable lighting....and the knowledge to know exactly what they would need to do to provide quality results from inside a church.

I think this is one part of the situation that chokes me more than some of the rest; that they tried to school the judge on the "fact" that a lot of churches now won't allow them to use lighting, but they have not adapted their gear to handle low-light shoots with high quality. I thought "problem solver" was part of the definition of a pro...

One of my favorite programs is "Holmes on Homes" in which a top-notch general residence contractor repairs the shoddy work done by previous contractors. One of the very important lessons learned is that as a consumer, it's darned hard to judge who is going to do good work on your job. Certification is not a guarantee, references are not a guarantee, and a portfolio is not a guarantee.

The "proof" is the work done, and in this case, the photographer herself handed the judge her "proof"--which the judge said was lousy. There's no defense when a person sells himself as "professional" and does a lousy job.

Being professional means: No excuses. You do everything you can to prevent failure--yes that means getting the best possible equipment, yes that means having backups, yes that means doing venue reconnaissance, yes that means learning how to handle all common contingencies. That is what being "professional" is all about. And if you still fail after doing everything possible to succeed, you own up and return the money.

[Johnny V]

No Johnny, he didn't start going on about 10D/20D/30Ds...he went on about EOS1s, 5Ds, and 7Ds. And he went on about using the plastic kit lens that comes with the Rebel. Your Rebel is a fine consumer camera...but it's not in that league. The lens she uses could be used as a paperweight to hold down her gray card and be more effective than it would have been in a serious low-light shoot with no strobes/flash. As could that Rebel compared to an EOS1 or 5D mkII or 7D in tough low-light environments. It's not "dissing my Rebel" to correctly point out that there are horses for courses and that one with that lens isn't for this course. The Rebel is an amateur shooter's camera...which, with excellent glass and a serious shooter behind it can still produce acceptable work. It's not in the league of the cameras Joe actually did reference. No offense, Johnny...but them's the facts. :cool:

We are Cool! :cool:

The Facts! LOL.

I've only watch the video once, as it's just too painful, but some one else mentioned to me that the judge didn't say "10D/20D/30D" as I thought, but he did mention "10D" as a pro camera. Anyway the image quality and auto-focus speed and accuracy of the XTi still beats the "10D/20D/30D" cameras and matches the IQ matches the 40D as the XTi has the same chip, more or less. I think the 40D's chip is one or two pixels bigger but has the same technology.

Actually I've shot a number of weddings with the XTi... it's a real workhorse believe it or not... those are the facts!

When the judge mentioned about shooting a wedding with an iPhone I thought that would be cool as it would have a unique look.

[RDKirk]

"...best possible equipment" I might amend to best possible equipment within your business's operating budget,

I agree, but there is also a lower limit that a professional would observe. If my cash flow did not permit me to have backup equipment, for instance, I would not go into the wedding business. Nor would I go into the wedding business without at least one fast lens in my bag. Portraits, maybe. Wedding, no.

I find it amazing that one of the toughest photographic jobs there is--tough to do well with the highest stakes--attracts so many people so ill-prepared. Combat photography is easier, as far as the difficulty of the photography itself goes.

[H_Lansing]

Johnny, in looking at your sig I see you pair that XTi with some solid glass and strobes (and I'm betting in a no-flash allowed environment that 1.4 would be seeing some work)...so I'm not at all surprised that the results are good. :) Now do that with the kit plastic with no lights in a dark church and get back to me! j/k ;)

We are Cool! :cool:

The Facts! LOL.

I've only watch the video once, as it's just too painful, but some one else mentioned to me that the judge didn't say "10D/20D/30D" as I thought, but he did mention "10D" as a pro camera. Anyway the image quality and auto-focus speed and accuracy of the XTi still beats the "10D/20D/30D" cameras and matches the IQ matches the 40D as the XTi has the same chip, more or less. I think the 40D's chip is one or two pixels bigger but has the same technology.

Actually I've shot a number of weddings with the XTi... it's a real workhorse believe it or not... those are the facts!

When the judge mentioned about shooting a wedding with an iPhone I thought that would be cool as it would have a unique look.

[H_Lansing]

I agree, but there is also a lower limit that a professional would observe. If my cash flow did not permit me to have backup equipment, for instance, I would not go into the wedding business. Nor would I go into the wedding business without at least one fast lens in my bag. Portraits, maybe. Wedding, no.

I find it amazing that one of the toughest photographic jobs there is--tough to do well with the highest stakes--attracts so many people so ill-prepared. Combat photography is easier, as far as the difficulty of the photography itself goes.

I could not agree with you more. Worst case is that the local rental place gets some business on a job by job basis for equipment needed to do a specific shoot that you don't want to lay out the capital to buy.

In the FWIW department, I ran over this (no real name attached, just a nym on YouTube...hence the FWIW caveat) in the video's comments:

>>
I work at a professional studio in the city where the plaintiff lives. she brought us the photographs to see if there was any way to fix them. after looking at the EXIF data on the JPEGS that she had, we found that the defendant photographed in JPEG, medium resolution, ISO 1600, Srgb colorspace. Upon doing her edits the defendant used a free online editing program and saved over the originals. The color of the 4x6's from WalMart were horrendous with virtually no shadow detail and color casting
>>

[fotoworx]

Fantastic!!!

[Stealthy Ninja]

When the judge mentioned about shooting a wedding with an iPhone I thought that would be cool as it would have a unique look.

LOL Unique look is right. ;)

[bluefox9er]

I'm curious why people base so much of their business and professionalism off what's in their kit...I'm also curious to think that those same photographers probably think that 2300 is a lot of money..:lol:

For the very same reason why a limousine rental company won't come to pick you up in a battered fiat punto.

[bluefox9er]

I think if your getting paid 1300, you should at least have xxd or FF.

you'd think, huh? :-)

[zagiace]

you'd think, huh? :-)
funny, I was thinking if you only charge 1300 you probably cannot afford a full frame 5D or 1 series.
You would hardly be able to support yourself.

[Johnny V]

If she has shot "hundreds of weddings" as mentioned you think she'd have a few extra bucks to buy a full frame camera and couple fast lenses.

Actually I was surprised how dumpy she dressed... just shows a lack of professionalism. At the very least dress professionally when in court and in front of millions of people on TV.

[zagiace]

If she has shot "hundreds of weddings" as mentioned you think she'd have a few extra bucks to buy a full frame camera and couple fast lenses.

Actually I was surprised how dumpy she dressed... just shows a lack of professionalism. At the very least dress professionally when in court and in front of millions of people on TV.
Realistically? I do not think so,
Hundreds of weddings over what period of time? The average wedding photog shoots 25 a year...
Over a 4 year period she would be at 100 events but only making 25K a year. Personally I would not be able to support myself and we haven't even touched marketing expenses to book 25 events a year with sub par work (apparently sub par.)
At 1300 per event -even if you shoot every Saturday you are still at a poverty level. Most poverty stricken people I know cannot afford 5-10k in equipment for their job.

[Johnny V]

Good point zagiace!

[RDKirk]

Realistically? I do not think so,
Hundreds of weddings over what period of time? The average wedding photog shoots 25 a year...
Over a 4 year period she would be at 100 events but only making 25K a year. Personally I would not be able to support myself and we haven't even touched marketing expenses to book 25 events a year with sub par work (apparently sub par.)
At 1300 per event -even if you shoot every Saturday you are still at a poverty level. Most poverty stricken people I know cannot afford 5-10k in equipment for their job.

I seriously doubt she's supporting herself with $1300 weddings. More likely, she has other means of support such as a "real" job or a working spouse. It's perfectly okay to have alternate income--I will always have my military retirement pay as an alternate income source...it doesn't allow me to live "in the manner to which I've become accustomed," but it will pay the mortgage.

But I don't believe having an alternate means of support permits one to fail to be professional if one is going to present oneself as a professional. I know several part-time real estate agents who still carry themselves as totally professional real estate agents--and still expect to get a full commission on property they sell. I also know some part-time farmers who fully expect to get full market price for their crops and livestock--they're not going to sell for less just because they have another job.

That alternate income does give one breathing space, however, to reach a more proper level of professional capability before handing out business cards.

[zagiace]

I seriously doubt she's supporting herself with $1300 weddings. More likely, she has other means of support such as a "real" job or a working spouse. It's perfectly okay to have alternate income--I will always have my military retirement pay as an alternate income source...it doesn't allow me to live "in the manner to which I've become accustomed," but it will pay the mortgage.

But I don't believe having an alternate means of support permits one to fail to be professional if one is going to present oneself as a professional. I know several part-time real estate agents who still carry themselves as totally professional real estate agents--and still expect to get a full commission on property they sell. I also know some part-time farmers who fully expect to get full market price for their crops and livestock--they're not going to sell for less just because they have another job.

That alternate income does give one breathing space, however, to reach a more proper level of professional capability before handing out business cards.
You are probably right. She may have a full time job. But I will point out that it still costs you the same amount of money to book 100 weddings. If you are using a free service to advertise your photography (craigslist) you are not likely booking 100 events in a 4 year period. probably much less. There are too many average part timers on craigslist to complete with at rates lower then that to get very much return on your ads. If she is advertising like any typical wedding studio might, her costs are too high even as a part time gig to really justify spending 5-10k on equipment while only charging $1300 per event.
On the whole, it does not make sense.

[Panda_stunter]

you guys are forgetting that this show has script writers/researchers so theres a chance that JJB does not even shoot. im not saying that he does not, im just saying that there is that sliver of a chance. ok, he did say that he is published...well, nowadays, setting up your own site is more or less equalled to being published in people's varying opinion.

im not the best photographer out there coz i really am not and there always bound to be better, but i have been asked to be a wedding photographer before BUT i had to decline. first, i only consider myself a serious amateur and still have A LOT of learning to do. second, i dont have the right equipment as of the moment. the only fast glass i have right now are the 24-70L and nifty fifty. if im going to shoot something of this magnitude, i would at least have 5D2 (main) and a 7D (second) and XSi as a backup. the 5D2 will have my 24-70L, the 7D will have the 70-200IS and the XSi (for backup if everything fails) will have the 24-105L. and that would be my minimum equipment requirement for myself if i ever go into wedding photography business...but as of right now i dont have all that, and im still learning. so no wedding photography, but IF i do, and thats a very big if...i would do it for the experience. ill give them a CD and if they want to print anything, they can do it themselves. dont worry, i told her to hire a pro as her main photographer and if she still wants me to shoot, ill be the second shooter, or third if theres already a second shooter.

true, the XTi can generate IQ thats up to par, but never on a low-light situation with 18-55...and is it even an IS version?? i dont think so since the XTi comes with the 18-55 non-IS.

that "wedding photog" IMO is a beginner, at best, that thought she is the best since she got praises from her friends. the defendant's friend/backup even said that its their first event. hell, she doesnt even know what speed the 18-55 has. 70-300? for $50 or so more, they couldve gotten the 70-200 f4L. im even second guessing that she actually was referring to the 75-300mm non-usm. She definitely comes off as MWC, or in this case WWC.

and i hate to be overly critical with pictures, but i cant help it, the pictures she took looks like it was taken on idiot mode (green box).

side note: JJB did say the "10d, 20D, 30D" AFTER he fired off "7D, 5D, and one-series".

[Johnny V]

....
side note: JJB did say the "10d, 20D, 30D" AFTER he fired off "7D, 5D, and one-series".

I've been vindicated!

Your honor and jury.... I rest my case!:p

[blam]

Here is the episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs&feature=player_embedded

[monk3y]

last saturday I just saw a wedding shot with a 350D with Sigma lens (not sure about the FL), and a 400D with a sigma also... and the one holding the 350D doesn't even know how to hold a dslr properly... It was a beach wedding and I was just passing by.

my very 1st time to see a wedding shot with a rebel... not as backup but as main body

[biggpopa]

Just saw this on Youtube....man, the Judge knows his stuff! The Judge rips her about not having a faster lens......"why don't you shoot with a 5D, 7D 1 Series...."....lol

Apparently he's had stuff published as well.

[neilwood32]

There is nothing inherrently wrong with shooting a wedding with a 400D when the light is good and it is used properly.

The problem comes when people attempt to use it indoors with low light and slow glass. It definately is not suited to those conditions!

[blam]

last saturday I just saw a wedding shot with a 350D with Sigma lens (not sure about the FL), and a 400D with a sigma also... and the one holding the 350D doesn't even know how to hold a dslr properly... It was a beach wedding and I was just passing by.

my very 1st time to see a wedding shot with a rebel... not as backup but as main body

I used to shoot with my XTi as a 2nd shooter, however I also used L glass and my 50 1.4 in lower light situations

That was my intro to wedding photography and the person I worked for shot with an entry level Olympus kit [i]without[i/] a shoe mounted flash.

needless to say I no longer work for her.

Although she generates a lot of work and produces fine photos in good light, her low light photos left much to be desired.

[monk3y]

I used to shoot with my XTi as a 2nd shooter, however I also used L glass and my 50 1.4 in lower light situations

That was my intro to wedding photography and the person I worked for shot with an entry level Olympus kit [i]without[i/] a shoe mounted flash.

needless to say I no longer work for her.

Although she generates a lot of work and produces fine photos in good light, her low light photos left much to be desired.

they are both using rebels, and the wedding beside them has an 5D (not sure if C or MKII) and a 70-200 f/2.8 (not sure also if IS or Not).

I think the area has ample natural light, the setting is beach front. I am not really discriminating rebels, as I own one and I know how great they are. I just thought that at least as a pro photographer shooting a wedding I expect to see pro stuffs too. and IMHO whether we admit it or not, we don't really see a rebel as pro stuff.

although, I guess all of us doesn't really care what stuff you use, as long as you can produce acceptable and or awesome pictures

[OWSIU]

Here's some reviews I found for the "company" she shoots for. Too bad their website is down.

http://michigan.kudzu.com/merchant/reviews/16635179.html?src=GoogleLocal

http://www.wedj.com/wedjcom.nsf/moreinfo?open&dj=7C9C65EE3893944D862570F1005CE0E3

[neilwood32]

they are both using rebels, and the wedding beside them has an 5D (not sure if C or MKII) and a 70-200 f/2.8 (not sure also if IS or Not).

I think the area has ample natural light, the setting is beach front. I am not really discriminating rebels, as I own one and I know how great they are. I just thought that at least as a pro photographer shooting a wedding I expect to see pro stuffs too. and IMHO whether we admit it or not, we don't really see a rebel as pro stuff. We don't but we are in the know as photographers that a 400D is bottom of the range. For the average joe, ANY Dslr is a pro camera.

although, I guess all of us doesn't really care what stuff you use, as long as you can produce acceptable and or awesome pictures

That is the most important thing - if the tool you use works for you (400D) then why not use it? If you are shooting outdoors 100% of the time a 400D will probably be fine. If you go indoors, no chance!

[monk3y]

That is the most important thing - if the tool you use works for you (400D) then why not use it? If you are shooting outdoors 100% of the time a 400D will probably be fine. If you go indoors, no chance!

maybe the 550D will change that hehe :)

[neilwood32]

I seriously doubt it - Canon would lose too many pro sales.

[toxic]

Anyway the image quality and auto-focus speed and accuracy of the XTi still beats the "10D/20D/30D" cameras and matches the IQ matches the 40D as the XTi has the same chip, more or less. I think the 40D's chip is one or two pixels bigger but has the same technology.

I do not know about the 10D, and it likely isn't better than an XTi since there was a big jump between the 10D and 20D.

However, the XTi does not beat the 20D or 30D.
- Canon watered down the consumer-level sensors until the 450D/XSi
- the 20D and onwards have an extra-sensitive center cross AF sensor from f/2.8. The 40D gained cross-sensors at the outer points. the XTi has the same layout as the 20/30D. However, the AF processing is not the same - DIGIC does not process AF (and its DIGIC II anyway, same as the 20/30D). The 20D is still superior at AF tracking.
- the processing chip (DIGIC) is not that important, particularly if you shoot RAW. It just processes Jpegs and shoves data into the memory card.
- the XTi/400D is the same generation as the 30D...saying it performs as well as the 40D is nonsense.

So again, it isn't a bad camera (he even said it's a "fine" camera), but there are better options when you've done "hundreds" of weddings, and it certainly won't get the job done indoors with an 18-55 (and no IS).

[Panda_stunter]

I do not know about the 10D, and it likely isn't better than an XTi since there was a big jump between the 10D and 20D.

However, the XTi does not beat the 20D or 30D.
- Canon watered down the consumer-level sensors until the 450D/XSi
- the 20D and onwards have an extra-sensitive center cross AF sensor from f/2.8. The 40D gained cross-sensors at the outer points. the XTi has the same layout as the 20/30D. However, the AF processing is not the same - DIGIC does not process AF. The 20D is still superior at AF tracking.
- the processing chip (DIGIC) is not that important, particularly if you shoot RAW. It just processes Jpegs and shoves data into the memory card.
- the XTi/400D is the same generation as the 30D...saying it performs as well as the 40D is nonsense.

correct me if im wrong...the chip (DIGIC) does not process AF? then why is that the 7D has dual DIGIC4 processor which is to one chip is solely for the AF? i just want to get things straight, coz im not sure.

[toxic]

correct me if im wrong...the chip (DIGIC) does not process AF? then why is that the 7D has dual DIGIC4 processor which is to one chip is solely for the AF? i just want to get things straight, coz im not sure.

I don't see anything in the press releases relating DIGIC to AF...I might have some facts wrong, though, since I haven't looked up the white papers.

[Panda_stunter]

I don't see anything in the press releases relating DIGIC to AF...I might have some facts wrong, though, since I haven't looked up the white papers.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/

fourth paragraph.

[toxic]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/

fourth paragraph.

...other headline changes include a new AF system with a dedicated processor, dual Digic 4 processors and a new shutter mechanism to allow 8fps continuous shooting...

That just says that there is a dedicated processor for AF, not that Digic is part of it. I dunno how it was before if a dedicated AF processor is new, but I don't think it is...

The AF CPU is a 33 MHz, 32-bit RISC (reduced instruction set) microcomputer that handles area AF detection and auto AF point selection. The camera CPU is a 32 MHz, 32-bit RISC microcomputer that controls lens communications, lens driving control and predictive AF statistical calculations. As a result, all the processing is faster than with the EOS 1D's AF control. One-Shot AF speed is faster and AI SERVO AF focusing precision is higher. - Chuck Westfall

So there's a dedicated AF processor in the 1DII (also a DIGIC II body), and I'm pretty sure that's normal throughout Canon SLRs....you should look up the AF specs in the white papers. Digital Picture has links to them at the bottom of the reviews (you'll have to search for the non-current camera reviews though) and Canon has them somewhere.

[Panda_stunter]

cool, i thought that since they have dual DIGIC4 one would be dedicated to the AF system, especially if it can shoot 8fps. i guess i need to research more about this body (7D) coz i want it to be my next camera body! thanks for clearing that out!

[RDKirk]

That just says that there is a dedicated processor for AF, not that Digic is part of it. I dunno how it was before if a dedicated AF processor is new, but I don't think it is...

This is true. All of the cameras have always had a different processor from the DIGIC to handle phase-detection focusing. The DIGIC handles image processing--which does include contrast focusing in Live View.

In most of the cameras a single chip handles every action--metering, phase dectection focusing, et ceter, except image processing. In the 1-series Mark II, Canon included an additional chip (again, not the DIGIC) that was dedicated to phase detection focusing...that's why that camera was so good at it.

The 7D gets the same treatment--a dedicated processor for phase detection focusing, but it's not the twin DIGICs. Those are still pushing that 18mp of image data at a high frame rate.

[toxic]

After going through some white papers, the 20D and 400D have their own AF CPU, so Canon SLRs in general have a separate AF chip. The 30D has the same AF unit as the 20D with improved algorithms (for better accuracy). The 400D gained the same layout as the 20D but is slower in Servo - "predictive AF calculation speed is the same as that of the [350D]." It shares the same AF processor as the 30D, a tweaked 20D CPU.

[TheFrost]

This story made me think. I can make $1300 in a day using my beloved Rebel ?? So what am I doing every day in the office (except reading this forum...:).

[neilwood32]

This story made me think. I can make $1300 in a day using my beloved Rebel ?? So what am I doing every day in the office (except reading this forum...:).

You can but only if you shoot better stuff than this pair!:lol:

[20droger]

$1300 in a day, perhaps, but certainly not every day. You'd best keep your day job.

Besides which, if you do it right, it takes more than one day, what with interviews, venue research, post processing, etc. The photographers in question didn't do it right, and that's why they were in court.

Reminds me of a comment someone made after a church service, "You priests only work an hour a week." I wish!!!

Many, many weeks were far too short to accomplish what had to be done in that particular week. Weekly services were the smallest part of it.

Besides which, I never had Sundays off!

[TheFrost]

20droger, I was just kidding of course. Knowing how I take pictures, the poor couple would have to go through the whole ceremony 15 times just to let me take the pictures exactly right.

(can we get in another cake?, the lighting was not exactly right when cutting the cake).

[20droger]

20droger, I was just kidding of course.
I knew that!
Knowing how I take pictures, the poor couple would have to go through the whole ceremony 15 times just to let me take the pictures exactly right.
It's a wise man who knows his limitations.
(can we get in another cake?, the lighting was not exactly right when cutting the cake).
Bakeries would love you. You'd always be recommended. (and they'd have spare cakes standing by!)
----------
All joking aside, wedding photography is one of the hardest kinds of photography to do well.

You have to do model shots with people who aren't models.

You have to make the bride and groom beautiful (especially the bride) even if they're uglier than a mud fence.

You have to shoot bright white satin and black velvet in the same shot in the bright midday sun without over or under exposing either.

You often have no control over lighting.

You often have no or very limited control over posing during the ceremony.

You have to tolerate everybody and their cousins snapping away at your setups, triggering your slave flashes, and just generally interfering. And you must do it with a smile.

You must put up with the bride and groom severely bending if not breaking their contract every which way they can.

And absolutely the worst of all, you must put up with the bride's mother.

You must do all this, keep smiling, and produce a quality product. Even when it hurts.

And, it seems like every yahoo with an entry level DSLR and a $150 kit lens thinks he can do it better and cheaper than you can.
----------
I'd rather do combat photography under fire. It's safer and less stressful.