NWPBanner
Welcome! NWPphotoforum.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
You be the judge #28503
03/03/10 11:40 AM
03/03/10 11:40 AM
Joined: Nov 2008
Kansas
psmith Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
psmith  Offline OP
Pooh-Bah

Joined: Nov 2008
Kansas
OK, this is way off topic. But, just for fun, what do you think of this? Did the Judge make the right ruling?

Wedding Photographer in 'Court'

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

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 Offline
I
James Morrissey  Offline
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: James Morrissey] #28505
03/03/10 06:57 PM
03/03/10 06:57 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
James Morrissey Offline
I
James Morrissey  Offline
I
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
...one more thing...doubling the plaintiff's recovery because he did not like the photographers (defendants) attitudes I thought was wrong. It seemed like a capricious use of authority to me. At the same time, I will say that the defendants (the photographers) really came off HORRIBLY. They were belligerent...but "because I don't like you" is not an intelligent excuse to double the plaintiff's recovery by my lights.

James

Re: You be the judge [Re: James Morrissey] #28506
03/04/10 03:35 PM
03/04/10 03:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Kansas
psmith Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
psmith  Offline OP
Pooh-Bah

Joined: Nov 2008
Kansas
Regarding the doubling, that was done I'm sure to pay for re-renting a church and tuxes and gowns to recreate the event.

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.

Judges and Policemen always give you a test at every encounter, it is called an attitude test. The photographer failed the attitude test from the beginning was doomed to lose.

And never deliver prints to a client in a Walmart parking lot.

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 Offline
I
James Morrissey  Offline
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: James Morrissey] #28508
03/04/10 07:44 PM
03/04/10 07:44 PM
Joined: May 2008
Virginia, USA
Jim Poor Offline
Addict
Jim Poor  Offline
Addict

Joined: May 2008
Virginia, USA
The one point that I noticed the photographer hang herself, aside from attitude, what when she stated "They don't allow flash" not long after stating "you don't know [if they allow flash or not] until you show up."

Any wedding photographer should know that more and more ceremonies are done with no flash allowed and they shouldn't have showed up with f/5.6 lenses.

All that having been said, nothing on these shows is truly "real" anyway, especially since both sides get paid to be there and the winning side gets a bit more.

Re: You be the judge [Re: Jim Poor] #28509
03/05/10 05:13 PM
03/05/10 05:13 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
TN
Julie Offline
Addict
Julie  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jun 2005
TN
The judge obviously had more knowledge about equipment than the defendants did. Unfortunately, he also was wrong about major things. Like pro photographers being allowed to use a flash. That is pretty rare.

Where they got the photos printed shouldn't have been an issue, it was how they turned out that should have been the sticking point

The women were rude and obnoxious and they got slammed for it. I agree with James though, I really don't agree with his doubling the amount.

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 Offline
Addict
Julie  Offline
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] #28511
03/05/10 07:01 PM
03/05/10 07:01 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
oregon
dave_lines Offline
Venturer
dave_lines  Offline
Venturer

Joined: Jul 2007
oregon
Now I know why I won't do any weddings..Can't believe that the gal didn't know there would no flash allowed though, it is one of the first things I would have checked. She seemed awlfully rude too, but don't think the judge should have given double what they sued for. I hate shows like this. There is one that I a female judge,, can't stand her,, she cuts down all the people that come before her, thinks she is always right and everybody else is stupid. Wife likes her though. DAve

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 Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
psmith  Offline 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.


Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 167 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
montage, Poppy, sheril walker, WbN, sierravalleylabs
3311 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums11
Topics6,521
Posts35,959
Members3,311
Most Online629
Dec 4th, 2019

Copyright 2005 - 2020 Nature, Wildlife, and Pet Photography Forum. "NWPPhotoforum" and "nwpphotoforum.com" are the property of Nature, Wildlife, and Pet Photography Forum. All Rights Reserved. Wild Coyote Studio, New York Pet Photographer

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1
(Release build 20190129)
PHP: 5.6.40-1+hw3 Page Time: 0.145s Queries: 14 (0.063s) Memory: 0.9539 MB (Peak: 1.9695 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2020-08-12 09:46:10 UTC