My Wedding Photography Nightmare.

<p>Well said, Tom and Kelly.</p>

<p>Dan and Ken, you are missing the point entirely. The issue is not whether the photographer would have been able to answer the questions about the settings used for the photos in her portfolio. The issue is that without supernatural premonition and psychic abilities nobody would feel the need to ask the questions. People just don't go around assuming everyone is a fraudster until proven innocent.</p>

<p>Perhaps if a plane had been flying overhead that day trailing a banner that read "Warning: Check everything more thoroughly than you think necessary today" then Richard may have grilled her more rigorously.</p>

<p>Sheesh, why do humans SO OFTEN do this? Whenever there is a mishap they spout off that the victim should have done a whole lot of things out of the ordinary.</p>

<p>To illustrate: You are driving to work when suddenly your brakes fail and you crash into the car in front of you. Imagine all your friends telling you that you should have gone round your car checking each brake pad before driving off that morning.</p>

<p>I couldn't disagree MORE Madeline. My well informed opinion backs me up.</p>

<p>Please recite song & verse where I place (all) the blame on the equipment. Silly! The Sigma thing was a sure sign of incompetence. Sure as the days are short in winter.</p>

<p>However, in any case, the Sigma SD14 thingie AIN'T a pro wedding camera. "No one" uses that thing. Obvious reasons why when SO MANY better cameras are available -- even a lowly dReb!</p>

<p>In any case, I've already stated my case rather well and succintly. No reason to rewrite what all other true believers and top thinkers have already said.</p>

<p>Succinct, yes. Well stated, not so much.</p>

<p>Photographer said she uses Canon gear. She showed up with a single Sigma body. OP agrees with you that was a warning sign. But at that point, it was too late to do anything about it.</p>

<p>Each time I read one of your posts, Ken, you seem to be buried a little deeper.</p>

<p>Your 'well informed' opinion seems absent from this thread, if you don't mind me saying. All I can conclude is that you've failed to notice (or have chosen to ignore) any and all comparative explanation about either the Sigma itself, or weddings that have been shot on lesser equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please recite song & verse where I place (all) the blame on the equipment. Silly! The Sigma thing was a sure sign of incompetence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I expect you're not even aware of the deep irony in that statement. Sigh.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I expect you're not even aware of the deep irony in that statement. Sigh.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't care less Neil. Sigma camera/kit lens does not ever = Pro or even a skilled, proud of their work amateur. If anyone in this forum uses an SD14 regularly then speak up.</p>

<p>Like I prev. wrote:</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>An SD14 is not a tool to use at a wedding gig -- esp. mated with a similar POS slow lens. Check out the EXIF data.<br>

But then again, some people are of the mind that a pro could even cover a wedding with a P&S camera, as if equipment doesn't matter much at all.<br>

The fact the photog used the Sigma camera after claiming a relatively pro Canon setup means she was clueless about equipment. No backup. Wrong flash. Wrong lens. Wrong body. Disaster. Sigma's as pro bodes are indefensible. Case closed. Anyone here want to claim the SD14 as their primary body? ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

</p>