Re: You be the judge
[Re: psmith]
#28504
03/03/10 06:49 PM
03/03/10 06:49 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
James Morrissey
I
|
I
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
|
LOL, that was hard to watch. BTW, I don't think this is off topic at all. This is a 'general forum' and off topic is the expectation. Thanks for posting this.
(1) The photographers were obviously not very good. The compositions that were shown were pretty...well...pretty bad, in my opinion. The use of CGI on several of the photographs hearkened back to the beginning days of digital photography.
(2) It was apparent that the photographers did not know their own equipment. They did not know the speed of the lenses that they use...and my guess, how to use them.
(3) The judge made some silly assertions (in my opinion) about the rules of the ceremony and what the photographers were allowed (or not allowed) to do. We have no idea if the celebrant allowed flash photography or not. I have done several weddings where flash photography was not allowed. I have also had the situation occur (on a few occasions) where the rules that were described to me changed on the actual day of the event. i.e. I have been told that flash in a dark New England church was appropriate...and have had that turned around on the actual wedding day. Of course, we had the glass needed to get the job done...but that is a different story. It is also in our contract (which no one pulled out from anywhere during the tape), that we are not responsible for rules made by the celebrant that prevent us from getting our job done.
(4) The compliant that the proofs were done at a Walmart, I think was pretty silly. Let me preface my next statement with the fact that I have only stepped foot in a Walmart two or three times in my life. Having said that, proofs printed from a Fuji Light Jet are proofs printed from a Fuji Light Jet. As I understand it, the large chain stores use exactly the same printers that most of the pro shops use. People as a whole don't always realize that the print price is the smallest part of what we charge. What counts is that the proofs were soft and did not adequately match what the couple expected...though I honestly don't know what they were expecting for $1300.00. That alone, in my opinion screams "Buyer Beware."
My policy is - and always has been - 100% satisfaction. If a couple is not happy, they don't pay...that simple. Knock on wood, I have never had offer to take me up on that. LOL, I hope there is never a first time. :P
James
|
|
|
Re: You be the judge
[Re: psmith]
#28507
03/04/10 04:43 PM
03/04/10 04:43 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
James Morrissey
I
|
I
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
|
"Regarding Walmart, while you are right about the equipment you are not taking into account the operators. My local Walmart and Sams simply do not run and maintain the equipment as well as a good lab does. I doubt they check the chemistry and I know they never sharpen the cutter."
That is a good point...LOL, on both occasions. I have never used Walmart, so I am not sure about their printing ability. I use Adorama for most of my work, which is down the street. I have used the local CostCo for personal stuff that I want on the cheap, and found inconsistent results.
Having said that, I still stand that the judge doubled the plaintiff's award only because he disliked (the admittedly dislikable) defendants...and I don't think that is right.
James
|
|
|
Re: You be the judge
[Re: Julie]
#28510
03/05/10 05:58 PM
03/05/10 05:58 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2005
TN
Julie
Addict
|
Addict
Joined: Jun 2005
TN
|
This is a great article that really sums up how I felt about the show. http://www.lighting-essentials.com/throw...t-a-good-thing/I just kept thinking, the lenses are more important than the body Joe and a 5D(II) is usually what you see the wedding pros using, not a 1D series. Joe had enough knowledge to be dangerous but not enough to be truly correct.
|
|
|
Re: You be the judge
[Re: Julie]
#28512
03/05/10 07:07 PM
03/05/10 07:07 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Kansas
psmith
OP
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Nov 2008
Kansas
|
Quote:
I just kept thinking, the lenses are more important than the body Joe and a 5D(II) is usually what you see the wedding pros using, not a 1D series.
Joe had enough knowledge to be dangerous but not enough to be truly correct.
Exactly! My first choice would be the 5D, but my second choice probably would not be a 1D, maybe a 7D. But the glass and the photographer's understanding of composition and exposure is what carries the day. I would trust a good photographer with an Xti and a 50 1.8 more than I would trust this girl with a 1D and some slow kit zoom.
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
569
guests, and 1
spider. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums6
Topics627
Posts989
Members3,317
|
Most Online876 Apr 25th, 2024
|
|
|