Comments on: Judge Joe Brown Knows His Photography

By: Life behind the lens « Trossachs Photography Blog

Life behind the lens « Trossachs Photography Blog — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:00:47 +0000

[...] Judge Joe Brown knows his Photography – A cautious tale for anyone taking up photography professionally… know your stuff [...]

By: fstop

fstop — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:38:52 +0000

ugh. bridezilla and the mothers always get their way.

By: Video: I Love My HDSLR « Jay Friesen’s Blog

Video: I Love My HDSLR « Jay Friesen’s Blog — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:58:55 +0000

[...] is too “professional”- my Rebel won’t draw that kind of attention. Besides, who uses a Rebel in a professional capacity? *no [...]

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:30:26 +0000

“My fear is that this televised hearing will make brides suit happy.”

Exactly my concern…Brides seeing this now assume that if they don't like the photos (and even if they do) they can sue….not only for a partial or full refund, but also for damages.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:43:56 +0000

I shoot weddings.
I always consult with the official at least two weeks before the wedding regarding flash. I look at the venue. If I don't have what I need in my lens arsenal, I rent it. There is no excuse for this photog. She didn't even take the time to read a book on the subject. Other gross errors… A wedding photographer should have two of everything, and a ton of batteries. A wedding photographer should also have a contract in place with the bride.
My fear is that this televised hearing will make brides suit happy.

By: SlvrScoobie

SlvrScoobie — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:44:11 +0000

“Wheres your 1 Series?!”
BURN!!

By: Bergur

Bergur — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:27:43 +0000

Hahaha! This is just about the funniest post here on PP ever!

By: QuBe

QuBe — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:09:07 +0000

I do agree, she wasn't a polished pro…and she wasn't an expert at Photoshop.
Based on the images shown, some pixel pushing and the issue would have been resolved long before the courts were considered. There looked like there were salvageable images there…a bit of cropping, scaling, vignetting, high pass and cloning out ugly relatives and zits, and and you'd deliver the bride's dream.

I just didn't like ol' Joe sounding like his judgment (and the case) was polluted with gear snobbery…I've no patience for that. He seemed bigoted against the defendant and ignored her defense before he even saw product from the shoot.
Heck, sometimes even I forget aperture ranges on my lenses…and once I've have had to resort to the kit lens when my L was knackered with dust. It happens…

By: Happy_Tinfoil_Cat

Happy_Tinfoil_Cat — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:14:06 +0000

Wedding photographers should be required to be licensed. We have the next best thing though, and that is the ability to sue them, and not only in small claims. Luckily, one lawsuit can put one of these wannabees out of business for good. How many have business insurance… if they're running a kit lens, not likely.

By: Dixon Marshall

Dixon Marshall — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:34:45 +0000

QuBe, about the XT, you are correct; I use one as a backup to my 40D, but the judge was concentrating on the low speed kit lenses used indoors with no flash. I own both of these lenses, and the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 won't capture a sharp picture under the best of conditions (you can buy this one at Target for less than $200). The equally slow 18-55 kit lens does a fair job outdoors, but to use either of these in low-light, no-flash conditions is a big mistake that no real pro would make. Then, there is also the very limited high-ISO capabilities of the XT, which especially dictates that high-end fast lenses must be attached to it.

When my wife uses the XT as a second shooter, there is either a 24-70 f/2.8, or a 70-200 f/2.8 attached to it. The pictures are sharp and clear. I use the same two lenses on my 40D, because they are professional lenses that produce professional results in less than adequate lighting conditions–not to mention that all important “bokeh” that is the hallmark of good wide-aperture lens, which is something that especially sets the pro equipment apart from from the cheap kit lenses.

Judge Joe brown knows his photography, and he nailed exactly what the problem was: consumer “snapshot” lenses and the poor photographers behind them. As for the body, it will do the job, but it certainly doesn't inspire confidence to see a so-called pro shoot a wedding with an old Rebel and two of the cheapest lenses that Canon produces.