See....it is not just the $500 wedding photographers that are bad.

<p>That presenter reminds me of a porn star</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you telling us that England doesn't have c r ap like this on TV?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We have our share of cr*p but not like this (is that word really so offensive that we have to change it?).</p>

<p>Neil, I'm sorry if I struck a nerve. Here in the United States, we're inundated with "reality" TV. I've grown unresponsive to any fantastic event that is occuring on the tube. None of it is real anyway. But I do think that any discussion about the latest episode of Judge Joe Brown requires first and foremost a familiarity with his TV show and how it works. From what I understand about British TV, it's not that far up the ladder in terms of intelligent programming.</p>

<p>Imagine having a discussion about the results show on American Idol (I imagine you've heard of it? Britain's Got Talent?), and having someone chime in saying "These guys aren't professional singers. They shouldn't be posing as professional singers." Obviously, the premise is that the show is a series of auditions. They are trying to find the best of a group of amateurs, to give entrance to the world of professional singing. If a person doesn't understand that much already, they have no place commenting on the goings-on of the TV program. TV isn't that important anyway, so it's really not the place where you want to be proven ill-prepared for conversation.</p>

<p>Hal B: <em>"on American Idol (I imagine you've heard of it? Britain's Got Talent?)"</em></p>

<p>Idol is originally a British format. The closest equivalent in UK is currently The X Factor, which Simon Cowell is about to export to the US.</p>

<p>I suppose the relevant difference between the US and most of Europe is the culture around the judicial system. Most places in Europe don't have quite the level of media circus around high-profile trials, attorneys are banned from soliciting (no ambulance-chasing etc.), I imagine a retired judge would be looked down upon if he were to do what Judge Joe does on television, etc. Most of the rest of reality TV is the same, with the same licensed formats.</p>

<p>Plaintiff bride (young, 26-yr-old special ed. teacher): "I found her at a well known bridal show...<br /> I was promised professional pictures with professional materials."</p>

<p>The photog then says "No! She did not find me at a bridal show".</p>

<p>Plaintiff: "Pictures were then printed at Walmart! ... on Fuji film paper." Claims then she met the photog at Walmart parking lot. (classy)<br /> Judge: those were just "proofs, correct?" (smart guy) Plaintiff only willing to pay $300 for the photog's time and wants $1,000 back as restaged photos were done.</p>

<p>Photog used a Canon dReb. Again, classy, and charged $1300 for using a Rebel (ultra beginner's camera) with the EF-S 18-55 plastic kit lens! Also used the cheap 70-300 lens.<br /> (photog doesn't even know how fast that 70-300 is! yet she charges pro money for the job)<br /> Plus, she couldn't use a flash in the church (not allowed) and was way under equipped.<br /> (smart judge)<br /> (smart judge again) Photog doesn't even know her f-stops!<br /> However, the judge berated her on a photo she took outside of B&G that didn't appear all that badly shot.<br /> But, the defendant photog speaks out of turn (not that pro) and is unaware of proper court decorum.<br /> Some of the other sample photos looked bad (some were snapshots, anyone could have taken).</p>

<p>Judge Joe Brown is the big winner here. $2500 award rather than $1000, wow!</p>

 

<p>Hal - no harm, no foul. No apology warranted either.</p>

<p>You didn't strike a nerve - it was genuinely my first time seeing the format and I found it interesting, although I did understand that it was old news to you. I thought your explanation of the show's organisation and editing was illuminating. The UK has its share of the reality format too (I believe we've exported Gordon Ramsay) but they're mostly relegated to non-serious trades. No one has yet tried to turn our legal system into a TV circus. But give it a couple of years ....</p>

<p ><strong><em>"I'm astounded by the number of responders here who are seeing Judge Joe Brown for the first time." . . . “</em></strong><strong ><em >If you're just going to chime in about how this is a mockery of the legal system, don't bother.”</em></strong><strong ><em ></em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Hal - We get some American TV shows - not all. I think it was obvious that I do not live in the USA from the content of my first post. I think it is also obvious that Photonet's reach extends beyond the USA and so do the contributions. I was (obviously) ignorant of the fact that that discussion regarding the impact of this type of media presentation was done and dusted 20 years ago, in your country, and as such, I did <strong ><em >bother to make a comment</em></strong> about Social Conscience. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I note that you have already responded to Neil's comments. I am not interested in discussing the quality of TV shows around the world: I am merely putting the above points to you in response to your comments which I have quoted above. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Did anyone notice this in the video comments? Not sure if it is legit or not. Fairly telling if it is.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Ken Papai:<br>

Your points are well taken, although I would not call him a smart judge. He glossed over a lot of facts, not hearing and sometimes ignoring what was said. Case in point: "Judge: those were just "proofs, correct?" (smart guy) Plaintiff only willing to pay $300 for the photog's time and wants $1,000 back as restaged photos were done." If you go back and listen to the plaintiff she actually says "That's the idea". She was stating that she "will" have photos redone. Personally I did not believe her on that but my opinion there is worth nothing.<br>

I found his question regarding the speed of the tele zoom lens interesting but not on point. A 2.8 lens is not necessarily adequate to shoot in a dimly lit church. More to the point is the shutter speed used. Consequently the ISO used inside the church would be germane to the ability of the photographer to get a quality image without flash during a ceremony. Of course if she were a professional she would have known that and one would think at least attempt to communicate having done so to defend her professional work.<br>

One other note about his judgment. As you noted he berated her on the exterior photo; "that didn't appear all that badly shot". To us viewing it on a reduced size reduced resolution internet video it may have looked OK. However he did say that they were "fuzzy" or "soft" or words to that effect. He stated that he was a photographer. I wonder if we were able to examine those images if we might not equally find them to be substandard in resolution and print quality and make a judgment that it was due not to Walmart printing but poor photography.<br>

I also found it interesting that on the table in front of the plaintiff in one shot were a number of photo albums. Apparently she received delivery of the photographers finished work. If she disavows the work and wins her case is she entitled to keep the "substandard" product? Just curious about that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>William: thanks for clearing the air.</p>

<p>I'd really like to get conversation pointed back to comments about the photographer, though. While you may be able to shoot a wedding with a Rebel XTi, I think the $1300 price tag warrants the best gear. If I hire a mechanic for $1300 to work on my transmission, part of the fee is expected so that the mechanic can afford to use the best tools. I could do the work myself, but the cost of professional tools is prohibitive to anyone who isn't a full-time mechanic. That's one thing that makes them experts. No, it's not the only thing, but it is one thing.</p>

<p>If I, as an amateur, can afford a Digital Rebel XTi, then one thing I expect from a professional is that he use equipment which is demonstrably superior to mine, even if it's much more expensive. I expect him to use superior equipment because I am paying a premium so he can afford it for his business use. Is it really unreasonable to expect a professional to use the best equipment?</p>

<p>I, for one, loved how Joe Brown tore this photographer apart. He has no tolerance for con-men posing as professionals. This lady had no idea about photography. Anyone can take a well exposed photo outdoors in the shade of trees. That proves nothing. The professional is prepared for the "flash prohibited" photos during the ceremony as well.</p>

<p>I still maintain the limiting factor is not the camera body. XTi has plenty of pixels for the intended use. The real limiting factors are lenses, lighting and composition. I would take my $50 EOS 650 paired up with my lens collection to any wedding. One more thing. I have yet to tell the difference between a "pro" shop and Costco photo developing. Is a customer entitled to know where pictures were developed and printed?</p>

<p>The Rebel XTi only goes up to ISO 1600, and has some noticeable noise at that ISO. Newer (and higher end) generation cameras go to 6400 at least, and that same level of noise doesn't present itself until 3200 or 6400. That's one VERY solid argument for using a better camera at a wedding ceremony indoors with no flash in the year 2010. Although film cameras are great, they are still limited to the low light performance of the film you put in them. Good luck finding a good ISO 1600 color film. Even if you go with B&W, the difference between 1600 and 6400 can make a 1/15 sec exposure into 1/60.</p>

<p>The 18-55mm maxes out at f/5.6 at 55mm. That's a full 2 stops slower than the standard professional f/2.8 zoom. That's the difference between a 1/60 sec and 1/250. I think the 4 stop jump from 1/15 to 1/250, considering an upgrade to professional gear, is justification to be upset when your photographer fails to deliver good photos due to his/her inadequate camera/lens.</p>

<p>The 10MP limits of the XTi are probably not reason alone to reject the camera. The Judge was probably wrong on this point. However, the photographer claiming that the enlargements would look good up to 26x32" was exaggerating. Who ever even heard of a 26x32? I think she pulled the numbers out of her bu**.</p>

<p>I also think it's a good point that the Judge is obviously a photographer and was able to inspect the photos up close. There must have been something wrong with them, or else he wouldn't have challenged the photographer's knowledge. If the photos had been adequate, he would have drilled the plaintiff alot harder and let the issue of the inadequate camera slide. That's the point that most of us are thinking: "If the pictures looked fine, why'd he harp on the camera?" The problem is that we are thinking of the photos that some of US could take given the same situation and the hardship of having to wrestle with an inferior camera when the situation calls for something a little bit better. We might eek out some nice photography just the same (not necessarily me, but some of the photographers on P.net). You have to admit it would be an additional challenge, though.</p>

<p>Funny video. It was rather pathetic she didn't even know what an f-stop was. Reminds of someone I once hired out to assist me on a wedding when I was shooting medium format. He was carrying my bag and I was needed to change lenses rather quickly and said, "ok, I need a 40 (referencing my 40mm)" in which he seriously thought I was talking about alchohol.</p>

<p><em>“to get [the] conversation<strong> pointed back to comments about the photographer . . .</strong>while you may be able to shoot a wedding with a Rebel XTi, <strong>I think the $1300 price tag warrants the best gear. </strong></em><em>The Rebel XTi only goes up to ISO 1600, and has some noticeable noise at that ISO. . . The 18-55mm maxes out at f/5.6 at 55mm”</em></p>

<p>On this point of the discussion about this dramatization and the script writing of it:</p>

<p>If I were the writing the “Judges” script, I would be placing more emphasis on the lens(es) rather than the camera. I did note he asks “where’s your 28 to 70?.</p>

<p>Now that comment could indicate a few things some of which could be: either the clip is very old; the “Judge” did actually shoot Weddings a long time ago (not a few months); the “Judge” is not keen on fine detail; or he just made a mistake.</p>

<p>But, even noting that he was asking about an F/2.8 zoom – I think it would have been more technically grilling if the script writers asked why didn’t the Photographer have a fast Prime or two . . . I reckon in “Professional” hands an XTi with a 35/2, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 a $1300 job could be done . . . and none of those are “the best” lenses.</p>

<p>As the scripting seemed to play to folk that have a broad brush of the mechanics of Photography and doing it for money, for more "impact" to that audinence, I would have also scripted a line for the "Judge" such as: <em>“well you had an XTi what was the OTHER camera you had with you?”</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'm astounded by the number of responders here who are seeing Judge Joe Brown for the first time. This kind of stuff has been on TV for at least 20 years that I know of. If you're just going to chime in about how this is a mockery of the legal system, don't bother.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd like to add that it was the first time I've ever seen a Judge Joe show, and I live in California and have been an adult for the last 20 years (at least, by age :^) I have, though, seen a Judge Judy show specifically about a wedding photography case before, and as stated above, I thought she was pretty fair (given it was 'just' a TV show). So I was appalled at this show. Why is it necessary for a person to be familiar with Judge Joe and his show before being 'allowed' to comment? Just because reality/court TV has been around for 20 years doesn't mean a total disregard for the court system the show is purportedly following, can't happen. The Judge Judy show I mentioned proves to me it need not be so.</p>

<p>Before anyone writes in that "It's a TV show", let me say I realize that. However, even if the show court is not 'for real', the people and the dispute are. Even though they lose nothing financially and get free trips, one assumes they still believe in their side of the story and hope to triumph, and yes, maybe even expect that they will be given a fair chance to present their case. Now, from what people have said, these photographers should have known better, if they had watched a number of Judge Joe shows. Again, before anyone writes in, "You're supporting the photographers", let me say that IMHO, the photographers were probably not so good, but also IMHO, we don't know for sure and can't make any definitive conclusions based upon their answers to the Judge's questions (what few they could even answer before he cut them off).</p>

<p>Besides, it isn't necessary to make any judgements based upon the photographers' knowledge (shaky anyway because the Judge is not a professional wedding photographer--how does he know his knowledge is correct, and he wasn't at the wedding?). The images should tell the story. Either they were good or not good--comparable to what was shown the plaintiff, or not. The judge should have been asking for, looking at and comparing the images that were shown to the plaintiff in the sales meeting, to the ones given to the plaintiff. Judge Judy at least compared the photographer's images to the ones the plaintiff's relative took that were purported to be 'better'.</p>

<p>I'm not even sure if the actual printing was at fault either. Nothing was very clear, given all the bits were chosen for maxium juiciness and entertainment. To go on about the camera and technical side of the case is, in a sense, even more "falling" for the sensationalism of the show, because all of it would be assumptions and opinions.</p>

<p>One thing I noticed was that when they were discussing the fact that the church official said that flash wasn't allowed, the photog said something like "I just found out that day!", as if any kind of prep or site visit would never occur to them in a million years</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did note he asks “where’s your 28 to 70?.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe Joe Brown is a Nikon shooter? Also, I think he gets caught up in the emotion of the moment, and probably has trouble concentrating on details when he is trying to shout over a contentious defendant. Seriously, though, your point about the primes is right on. She shouldn't have shown up without at least <em>one prime</em> to cover the indoor shots. I mean, showing up without even a 50mm f/1.8 is like going to the bathroom without toilet paper.</p>

<p>Finally, I can only pray that lady had the sense to carry a spare camera. I would have loved to see the look on her face when he asked her about a spare.</p>

<p>Nadine, I think "It's a TV show" applies because since it is indeed a TV show/entertainment, there's no expectation (on my part at least) that anything on the screen has any relevance to reality or any of the logical points you mention. For me, the fact that this is a reality (or whatever we call them) TV show, gives them license to do anything that my or may not reflect actual reality</p>

<p>Jim--sure, point taken. However, as I mentioned, the Judge Judy show actually made some sense. My point is, does the show <strong>need</strong> to be a complete fantasy?</p>

About the F-stop situation. Perhaps she shot in the P mode or some other auto mode. A lot of photographers avoid manual because of the time it takes to set the camera. If you are more of a PJ photog and shoot large numbers of images it may not be feasible to work in manual settings all of the time. I pretty much shoot everything in manual, old school style from the hasselblad days, there is no possible way I could remember my F-stop setting on every image I took. So for me, this was an unfair comment by the judge.

 

As far as lenses go the Canon optics are pretty darn good, regarding sharpness. Even with non L lenses you can surely enlarge prints beyond an 8X10.

 

I agree with the judge that a professional should use professional gear, even the backup gear should be of professional quality. At the same time I disagree with the judge saying you need to have a 2.8 lens. Most of my lenses are at least 2.8 or faster, but the lens that gets most use at weddings is my 24-105 IS L. It's still a pro lens, with a 3.5 F-stop.

<p>"<em><strong>Maybe Joe Brown is a Nikon shooter?"</strong></em> . . . well then the scrpit for the "Judge" is even more lacking - 'cause he didn't ask - "where's your 28 to 70 and your adapter" - as he had already cited a "Canon Rebel" . . . <br /><br /><br />. . . "<strong><em>To go on about the camera and technical side of the case is, in a sense, even more "falling" for the sensationalism of the show"</em></strong><br /><br />For the record - I personally never "fell for sensationalism" – (I make no assumption this comment was directed to anyone particularly – I am just commenting).<br /><br />When bringing Prime lenses to the conversation, I was merely debating how I would have written the script for maximum penetration to cut into the Photographer's case (maybe cut into the Photographer), and also I was commenting on the dingbattedness of the character of the "Judge" in his shortcomings of that attack.</p>

<p>

<p>My comments upon the value of the show are as per my first post here - I have a little pity for the Photographer, but given that she went into the situation voluntarily and with (assumed) some knowledge of the show's techniques - not much pity. Someone wrote she could have purposely sought resolution on the "Show" to save "Proper" litigation against her - maybe she was smart, I dunno .. .</p>

<br>

<p>The whole thing was a bit surreal to me - kind of like a Free Topic "Mock Trail" the kids do in High School here - for a laugh kids doing "Legal Studies" get to have a free topic occasionally and the accused might be "on trial" for some really strange offense and all the rules of law get thrown out of the window . . . sometimes it is funny – but more often than not he who shouts loudest wins . . . </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>If the photos were bad it was probably because of the photographer not the equipment. That Rebel will produce cleaner images than a professional Nikon F5 loaded with fast color print film in most cases if used correctly. I wonder how anyone shot anything at all with the older DSLRs or film cameras. In a few years people will be talking about todays DSLRs as being old tech and not really up to standard and there will still be people taking lousy photos with tomorrows cameras.</p>

<p>What is really sad is this will encourage people to take their photographers to court when much of what the judge said was not particularly relevant. On the other hand the photographers could have done a better job. Nonetheless, 'entertainment' that provokes public behaviors that are inappropriate or not well reasoned is very bad and probably worse then things that are already banned from the airways. </p>

<p>Where did they get this clown of a "judge"?</p>

<p>On Craig's List?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>** One of the you tube comments says<br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong></strong></p>

<h3><strong>""the defendent used an online editing program and saved over the originals".

 

</strong></h3>

<p>This comment should be removed from you tube; since folks want to work the equipment dogma</p>