My Wedding Photography Nightmare.

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Larry J. Foster<br /> With regard to PPA errors and omissions coverage, is it really worth it, though? I mean the best most clients could hope to recover is the cost of the coverage plus a little bit, and then maybe get you to restage and reshoot the wedding (provided it was an equipment failure, and not due to total incompetence on your part).</p>

<p>In the end, if you lost all of the wedding photos, the damage is done, your reputation is fried, and all you're doing is working with an insurance company (through the PPA) to pay the B&G compensation/hush money. You still ruined the wedding/lost the images/did something unfixable. As such, if we're just paying out money to the B&G, then why not self insure. Keep a few thousand around (depending on how much you charge and how much you're going to need) to refund money or do whatever else you need. Lastly, imagine that you are the B&G--would you rather have the photographer cut you a check (no fuss) and work her hardest to fix the problem? Or would you prefer try to get an insurance company to cut you a check? If you've ever tried to get your car fixed you'll recognize that getting a check from the photographer herself is clearly superior.</p>

<p>If you're a competent solo photographer, I'm nearly positive it's almost always cheaper to self insure. If you're running a studio with 20 underpaid underqualified minions doing your work, then sure, maybe PPA E&O insurance is worthwhile. If you're somebody who runs the business AND takes the photos, I think that you'd save money skipping the E&O coverage and putting aside funds to cover. You must compensate when you screw up. I would say you should compensate more generously than the insurance company would, but in the end all the insurance company can do is pay out money. You can do that as well (or likely much better) than the insurance company</p>

<p>People also self-insure by carrying extra equipment to gigs, making redundant file backups, and generally being careful. I'm pretty sure the B&G would rather get images from a backup hard drive (after your primary failed) than fight to get a check from an insurance company. Just my 2 cents.</p>

[rt_jones]

<p><strong><em>This thread has evolved from an "I'm curious about what happened, so let us all know" thread into a "Who's/What's to blame for the situation?" thread.</em></strong></p>

<p>Yes and that puzzles me as well. A judge/arbitrator will not be asking if you researched this photographer's credentials. That being said, the onus to prove malice will be on you and proving misrepresentation is probably your best shot as the photos themselves will not be evidence enough. Quality/Art is subjective and she just might plead that your wedding was her, "soft focus" style. Yeah, I know... that's a stretch but keep in mind this, "arbitrator" will most likely be a lawyer. </p>

<p>It all depends on the agreement you signed. Most of us have liability clauses in ours that protect us from unforeseen disasters and equipment failure. I do not however, specify what kind of gear I will be using nor do I say anything about backups even though I have them. I even go so far as to exempt myself from damages beyond a full refund. (Which may or may not hold up of course). <strong>Nowhere do I guarantee that you will like your photos</strong>. Generally speaking, a lot of us have contracts that are slightly tilted in our favor - not the client's. (I rejected the first one my attorney drafted for me because even *I* wouldn't have signed it).</p>

<p>Just saying there's a lot of, "buyer beware" in this industry and I wouldn't rely on just the photos to decide this thing. Among photographer here, it's pretty clear you got screwed and most of us aren't that quick to condemn a colleague. Unfortunately, you might just be at the mercy of this arbitrator and his/her interpretation of your signed agreement.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[christopher_m]

<p>While I can't see the photos now (unless you email me) based on Ed te Pas's and Thomas Mann's posts, <strong>my guess is that she left it on a shutter priorty mode</strong>. So while it was in a degree of "auto", she had the ISO set firm at 200, the shutter set firm at 500, and the aperature was supposed to set exposure. However, in bright sunlight, the lens hit its max aperture of f/11. The camera takes the picture regardles of the overexposure. (I've seen this happen on a prosumer Panasonic LX-3. ) This may be why the outside photos were overexposed, but the inside ones were not.</p>

<p>There's a lot of people out there who are somewhat creative and can press a button, they fashion themselves as photographers. They can build a portfolio out of some good photos... even a broken clock is right twice a day. (This happens with real estate agents as well.)</p>

<p>At least back in the day, film photographers had to learn enough technical aspects in order to operate the camera so it was a decent assumption that they might also learn some technical aspects of lighting. I bet the images all looked okay on the little LCD screen when she was taking them.</p>

<p>I don't think it was the Sigma and kit lens itself. While they would not hold up in quality when compared side by side against a Canon 50D, seeing the photos shouldn't leave your wife crying. </p>

<p>Of course, embarrased she just sat on the photos until you threatened her with legal action. However, she's too unprofessional to give you a full refund.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>I mean the best most clients could hope to recover is the cost of the coverage plus a little bit, and then maybe get you to restage and reshoot the wedding</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The cost of restaging the wedding might be vast - and you could be asked to pay it. A few thousand dollars might be just the start.</p>

 

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Alec,</p>

<p>You could be <em>asked </em> by the B&G to pay for it. I would challenge you to find one single case in the 50 states where a negligent, but not malicious wedding photographer has been required by a court to pay for those costs. Realistically a professional should be contracting out of consequential damages at the beginning. Writing a contract that protects yourself should be part of your "insurance." I know that everyone loves PPA and feels some camaraderie, but honestly PPA E&O sounds like a retailers extended warranty.<br>

FYI, there are very very few published cases involving wedding photographers, and indirect or consequential damages seem to only be awarded where the photographer made false representations or where other serious misconduct exists.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A pro in most fields understands one tools; and what they can or cannot do.<br /> Blaming the equipment means the person drank the marketers Koolaid and believes ones results depend on ones tools.<br /> <br /> Bunny Yeager shot with a dumb Kodak TLR for along time; she could not afford a rich amateurs Rollei TLR then.<br>

<br /> I suppose if one showered the wedding photographer with 100,000 bucks worth of gear and the images were still poor the whining slackers could get a class action lawsuit; and blame the camera makers; or advertising agencies that got your mindset in place.?<br /> <br /> Blaming others and blaming ones tools means you should see a shrink; ie for not growing out of the childlike role of not taking responsiblity for ones actions.<br /> <br /> The whole concept of having a design margin was known in wedding photography 50 or 100 years ago. One was like a Boy Scout; ie be prepared. Even a pre WW2 Pop Photo magazine mentions checking ones films; holders; flashbulbs; shutter and have spares. They mention seeing where the church is; trying test exposures; doing a dry run with the flower girls.<br /> <br /> At one wedding I had rolls of Verichrome in 620 where the spool ends had a bad crimp. The spools end would come off while in the camera or afterward; and one got a fogged edge. What saved my bum was having some spare old 620 takeup spools; and having a changing bag. At another wedding a kid barfed on my suit; I had a spare one in the car. Tales of flashes and cords failing go back eons.<br>

<br /> I was asked to shoot a wedding about 6 years ago and declined; I had not done one in decades; my old sunpak 611 is abit flakey; so is it spare. Knowing when to fold/punt is the sign of being a pro too.<br /> <br /> The stressing of needing top notch gear appears to be more of a newbies method of covering ones bases. The real danger is even with a great tool one can get bad results. The newbie thus sets himself up for a mental breakdown; the magical tool did not help with the inexperience; or wrong usage; or bad luck.<br /> <br /> If one asks a plumber or carpenter about tools and they bark back Ridgid and Milwaukee; but they flub the job then how do you live with your newbie agenda of equating gear with results? What if the plumber or carpenter with 50 years experience used a Harbour Freight tool; do you box him in a corner by your newbie dogma?<br /> It is really about results; not the tools. Amateurs never understand this.<br /> <br /> That is why each new toy is what they crave. Marketers read the newbie brain and each new toy is what you need for good results. This churning of tools is why folks are called consumers; they consume the toy. This helps the economy; it also means the constant upgrade cycle makes great tools on the used market real cheap for a pro.<br /> <br /> The amateurs brain is wired such the latest ball; skates; lens, shoes, golfclub, camera ,software, saw, late night TV loose weight exercise gizmo will make a worlds difference; and actual practice /work does not matter.<br /> <br /> One might have a servo guru person with 50 years experience who can sniff out a problem with a Simpson voltmeter and his teeth; and newbie with a 100k spectrum analyzer and no experience; and this thread damns 50 years worth of experience.<br /> <br /> In a way; equating that only equipment matters means you think little about real world experience; or the persons worth ; ie craftmanship; ie the photographer is just a drone button pusher.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Richard, Jeff meant that posting for a different forum. It appeared in two other places and was completely out of context in one place. I don't think he meant it as feedback on your situation. It's only coincidental that it appeared in this discussion.</p>

<p>Juanita - The PPA Errors and Omissions insurance is only $50 above the regular annual dues. PPA requires any members who list themselves as wedding photographers to carry it.</p>

<p>Richard - Not sure how much you really want to say if you are considering small claims court. I'd be really interested in seeing the photos and finding out things like was the photographer cheap or did the photographer charge like a real pro.</p>

<p>I'm guessing the real issue here is that she seems to have defrauded you and misrepresented her equipment and abilities. Lying about the equipment she uses was a bad start. But obviously there's no way you could have known that before the day of the wedding. There's no way anyone is going to convince me that she did something like traded in her Canon gear to use a Sigma SD14.</p>

<p>Asking for references is still a good idea even though no one is going to give out a bad reference. At least they will be other bridal couples that were happy with her work. And even if they were fake references, it would require her to involve more people in her charade. Not sure if you bothered calling the references. A lot of people probably don't bother.</p>

<p>She had a lot of chutzpah to offer only 1/2 the money back. If it were me and there were a disastrous failure of that scale I'd give all the money back, do whatever possible to recover the shoot, and take my losses. But if it were me, I really do bring three bodies, multiple lenses and flashes, I know how to use the gear, and I have the PPA insurance too.</p>

<p>Of course, I'm more interested in creating quality images. Your photographer seemed to be more interested in just taking your money.</p>

<p> </p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>At $50 a year (plus PPA membership dues) it's not as bad a deal as I thought. We have a local PPA-like chapter that charges a lot more than that. I'm totally off-topic here, but if there's a thread that talks about a photographer's experience actually <em>using</em> PPA malpractice coverage, I'd be interested to hear it. My guess is that most photographers (even those with coverage) have the sense settle with the client as quickly as possible--before they even bother to call the PPA attorneys.</p>

[richardsnow]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, I'm more interested in creating quality images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is exactly the point I was trying to make when I mentioned that I don't <strong><em>NEED</em></strong> the 24-70 I rent, but in tight situations where movement is limited (like a tight dance floor or a cramped church) it's a whole lot easier to make great photos than with the 35mm f/1.8 (DX) that is attached to my D90 75% of the time.</p>

[mgvaughan.com]

<p>This is quite a long thread- is there a link to samples of the shots? I retouch photos and am interested in seeing just how bad these really are.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Michael, look at Ed's image above--the one he calls the 'mutilated image'. That is basically what a lot of the images look like. Otherwise, you will need to e-mail Richard for the link. I would say that one would need to do a fair amount of detail <strong>fabrication</strong>, because there is no detail to bring up beyond a point.</p>

[andreas_kusumahadi]

<p>I too am interested in digital retouching, and hoped that I could still get something out of the shots. But no, they're dreadful shots. <br>

Though a bit late to see the deleted link, I'm lucky enough to retrieve it via search engine. Google it , it's there. </p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>FYI, there are very very few published cases involving wedding photographers, and indirect or consequential damages seem to only be awarded where the photographer made false representations or where other serious misconduct exists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We had just such a case here in the UK a couple of months back. It got a lot press, and was discussed on photo.net. He wasn't malicious, just incompetent, and he got taken to the cleaners by the court.</p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>1. I'm talking about US jurisdictions--since the OP's problem happened in the US. I won't comment on UK law.</p>

<p>2. My comments about PPA insurance relate to people who would be eligible for E&O coverage. Generally to get E&O you have to demonstrate some level of professionalism to the insuring body. The photographer at this wedding would not have been eligible for such coverage.</p>

<p>3. My focus was on equipment failures and car accidents. If you are incompetent to shoot a wedding then you are misrepresenting your ability and should not be covered by E&O. Where you have made a misrepresentation even a US jurisdiction might throw the book at you (though the cases are few and I would not waste the massive attorneys fees chasing a unicorn). E&O protects against errors, not incompetence.</p>

<p>Thanks for clarifying that you were discussing a situation in the UK, that makes more sense now.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The interesting thing about the this thread is folks need to ponder equipment over results.<br>

I wonder if the catering's coffee was poor; due folks here get into discussions on Bunn-o-matics versus Mr Coffee versus Acme brand coffee makers? Typically I have found that clients who stress equipment are the worst clients to deal with; they want to micromanage ones tasks.<br>

<br /> The issue is about results; and not about micromanaging the hired gun's tools.<br>

<br /> With a botched or poor job the professional thing to do is repair the ill images.<br>

<br /> The damages are the poor product delivered; ie the images. If you drag into small claims court comments about her equipment; then you deserve to loose the case. You are justifying the bad results based on the tools; and avoiding the controller of the tool; ie the photographer. One should focus on what matters; the actual damages; ie the poor images.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Kelly, there is often a correlation between one's abilities and one's tools. We agree the most important component is the human photographer, but his inability to afford commercial kit, can often say something about his ability to make wonderful art. The best kit is not a guarantee of great work, but the absence of decent kit can be indicative to other issues. Why do you think the best wedding photogs in the world use excellent kit? Do you see a correlation there? Of course!</p>

<p>There is a more drastic correlation between decent kit and good pictures then one will find between a carpenter's hammer brand and the finished house. This is why most people are not so concerned about the carpenter's kit when he is contracted to build a deck. The brand/grade of tools has a much less impact on the finished deck then camera kit and mastered photographs.</p>

<p>And give me a break...if the images are "botched" the chances of repairing them in a quality way are most often very, very low...if they are botched then most often nothing can be done to restore happiness...the prof screwed up.</p>

<p>And I think NO ONE here suggest a client micro-manage the kit used by a pro...no one wrote that....but if a pro uses a profoundly sub-par kit, that should raise concern.</p>

[alec_myers]

<p>Juanita,<br>

If it's quite so simple in the US just to disclaim liability why does anyone there bother with insurance? If anything, the litigious nature of US society suggests to me that disclaimers not withstanding insurance is even more necessary there than in the UK.</p>

[john_hugens]

<p>I think the issue of equipment is overblown here. It never was an issue.</p>

<p>The only issue here is, and was, dishonesty. Myself, I use a Pentax K10D. If I were asked by a client what I use, I'd say I use a Pentax K10D.</p>

<p>If I said Pentax, and showed up with a Canon, it'd be just an heinous as understating - as happened here.</p>

<p>There is always room for being discreet you can always decline to mention which equipment you use, and if pressed, say; "I'd prefer that my results speak for me rather than my equipment". </p>

<p>However, the photographer here showed neither honesty, nor the desire to defer to her results.</p>

<p>If a businessman is proven to be dishonest, the deal is null and void. Simple as that. If the products are defective, that's a different story.</p>

<p>Bad photography, bad construction, bad cameras, are not necessarily grounds for return or damages - dishonesty is. The only profession which is not bound by the laws of honest transactions is that of Real Estate - where laws have been changed to make verbal contracts null and void. In any other field, a person's word is his bond. It might sound old-fashioned, and difficult to enforce (it is) but it's also precedent.</p>

<p>If photo dot net promises to send you a signed, original, Ansel Adams print with your one year membership, and it turns out to be only a Henri Cartier Bresson, you'd have grounds to pursue them for the difference or your money back - plus damages if you could so prove them.</p>

[karl_pinnock]

<p>I can't believe people could actually blame the groom for the results of the photographer.</p>

<p>A few years back I shot video at a wedding of a friend. When she came to look at the video she almost burst into tears when she told me about the pictures she got from her photographer. They were blurred, out of focus and improperly exposed. The guy blames the church and the lighting there. He also said he was doing weddings for 20+ years. She was so happy to see the video was well done, I was even able export some frames for her to print, so she could have some half way decent pictures of the ceremony for her album.</p>

<p>Opposite side of the coin, my wife and I were shooting a wedding as a favour for someone at the same church. The bride could afford much, so rather than charge her a ridiculously small amount of money, we did it for free and called it a wedding present. She also wanted me to do the video, but she could afford the $500 to rent the video equipment I told her I needed for the job, so she had a church brother record the event. I was tasked with editing the video because we discovered he didn't edit or really know how to handle the files on his camera. I got sick to my stomach editing the video. The camera shook so bad I got a headache watching it on my computer. During the vow he was trying to put the camera onto the tripod and he was not successful. I thought the guy was having the fits or something. Needless to say the bride actually cried when she saw it. But she was happy for the photos.</p>

<p>Its really scary these days when you hire someone for anything. Folks will just get some "tools" and call themselves pros. From pressure cleaning sidewalks to major home repairs. And sometimes event he most diligent shopper still get burned. I just find it odd the groom in this instance is actually getting blamed for the outcome.</p>

<p>And I wish him luck in his upcoming case.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Dan; a good craftsman knows his tools and limits.<br /> <br /> This separates amateurs from pros.<br /> <br /> The correlation between ones abilites and ones tools is in a newbies head; since they do not know a lessor tools limits.<br /> <br /> I have seen great wedding images shot with dumb Kodak folders and TLR's with dumb triplets; and totally poor wedding images shot with a darn Hasselblad.<br /> <br /> Having a better tool does not inject wisdom and experience into a newbies brain; in fact it often gives them a cocky ego; one just waiting for the big fall called reality.</p>

<p><br /> In printing I have customers who have used *FAR* lessor cameras than were used with this wedding and not had *any* issues. By dwelling on the old tired lame excuse of ones tools; you reinforce lame amateur behavior.<br /> <br /> Having shot for over 50 years; I have found that folks who preach the equipment crutch create poor results. They botch the basics like lighting.<br>

<br /> Gear hounds drive the photo market; *most all* photo gear is bought by amateurs; thus preaching great gear is required is the basics of amateur thinking.<br /> <br /> The camera in question is great for colors; it has a 3 layer type sensor. It is just average at the higher isos for noise. It is radically better than many pro cameras that were used for weddings awhile back. One could go back to say 1890 technology and just use a dumb tripod and a better fstop for many shots; buy yes that has something called understanding.</p>

<p>A good shooter could have shot great images with the tools used at the old wedding; but that conflicts with the newbie mindset. Oh yes it also conflicts with the canned dung that it is all about the tools.<br /> <br /> A craftsman can take a dumb 150 buck P&S walmart digital and shoot a wedding if he has to. He might have to be abit of a man and direct the couple to be in a better lit area for formals, He might have to bracket more to not blow out the dresses whites. He doesnt assume like a newbie does; he KNOWS his lessor tools limits and still makes decent images.<br /> <br /> One can look back at master craftsman decades ago and there was more work towards understanding ones tools. There was not this slacker attitude about blaming one tools. Whining was childish then. There was more respect for being a craftsmen.<br /> <br /> What is sub-par is the newbie attitude that it is all about the tools. At some point you have to develop some skills. One can take a great looking set of images and the newbie question is always going to be what camera was used; since the amateur mindset is if they used the same settup; it will magically fill in the craftsmans decades worth of past experience.<br /> <br /> What is subpar is the images; what equipment was used really only matters to folks who are not on the craftsman road; they are on the gearhead road.<br /> <br /> There is a better correlation between image quality and tool quality with a beginner than a craftsman. A real craftsman learns what his tools will do; they tend not to use them in an ill way; like a newbie does. A craftsman with a lessor lens might stop the lens down and use more light. This was known 150 years ago; in the less whining area.<br /> <br /> Whether it is blacksmithing; shooting a gun; shooting a wedding; playing golf; a craftsman knows is it NOT all about ones tools; it is about experience and practice. The childish whine of needing a better tool is what drives the amateur consumer economy; it is the soul and heart of marketing.<br /> <br /> The funny thing is in printing; where the wedding crowds P&S shots are better than the pros stuff sometimes; but the cameras are just film disposables and simple P&S digital stuff.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Kelly,</p>

<p>I in no way tried to "micro-manage" the pro's kit. I simply asked if she had adequate equipment to do the job. Her response to this was rattling off what she had, which was totally different from what she showed up with. I could have cared less if she had 2 D70s, 2 Rebel XTis, 2 Mamiya DM56, 2 Sony Alphas, or even 2 D40s. What I cared about when I asked about equipment was her back-up plan should anything go wrong. I've seen far too many "pro" photographers without any backup kit.</p>

<p>I have no doubt there are wedding photogs out there who can make great images with the Sigma camera she has. Given enough time and practice with any camera, I believe beautiful images are possible from anyone, (i.e. a pro that shoots with a Holga).</p>

<p>As for your reference to the coffee...well, if we were all coffee connoisseurs, I bet we would be talking about the choice of beans, (film), choice of coffee maker (camera), possibly even the choice between white sugar and raw sugar to sweeten the coffee (Fuji vs Kodak Paper/chemicals to develop). This may sound absurd, but really think about it.</p>

[madeleine_hopkins]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p>First of all, I am so sorry for your experience, which is not your fault in the slightest. As they say, hindsight's 20/20, so it's easy to blame yourself for not viewing an entire wedding spread. However, as one of the mods pointed out, there is a huge amount of dishonesty in the world, teamed with a vast quantity of stupidity. I can just imagine some fool thinking they've had a "clever idea" to use other peoples' pictures in their own portfolio to "get their business off the ground". I hate to say it but it sounds like something along those lines may have occurred here.</p>

<p>Anyway, I could speculate until the cows come home, but I suspect we'll never know what really happened. However one thing I do when I have a misfortune is to think to myself that misfortunes are a statistically inevitable part of life so if my misfortune for now is _____ then I can live with that because it could have been something so much worse and I could be wishing it was "only" _____ instead. There was a story in the news not so long ago about a bride who was riding some gimmicky, motorized vehicle - I forget what - to the church, but never made it because her dress wrapped around the crankshaft. She lived, but lost both legs. However, she still managed to walk down the aisle a year later.</p>

<p>If I were you, after your baby is born I would go and have some professional portraits taken of you and your wife, in a beautiful location e.g., near a waterfall or beach or anywhere lovely. At least you have the advantage that it doesn't need to be near the reception venue. I would get some or all done in wedding attire. At least then you will have some beautiful photographs you can enlarge for your home.</p>

<p>I do think it's good that you are pursuing this through court as this person failed you on multiple counts. As you've said, it's not her fault the equipment malfunctioned, but it is her fault she didn't have back ups. Also she should have informed you of the equipment change as the verbal agreement was based on her using Canon. I work in the operating room and it wouldn't do for us to say when the patient wakes up "Oh sorry about your botched operation. I know we told you Dr Blogs was going to do your surgery but he wasn't well so we got the orderly to do it instead" ;-)</p>

<p>All the best to you and your family,<br /> Madeleine</p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Alec,</p>

<p>I've driven this too far off track, but in the US you can disclaim <em>contract</em> remedies but not <em>tort</em> remedies. From what I understand (only a paralegal here) a wedding contract that is not fulfilled is only a contract dispute and damages are severely limited. If, on the other hand, your light stand fell on the bride and groom and the modeling light burned her, that would be a tort remedy and is a whole new ballgame. You would have to contact a licensed attorney to get absolute clarification, and even if you did the answer he would give would likely be "it depends."</p>

<p>So with that background, why do we bother with insurance? Well insurance for tort liability is absolutely necessary, because you could get sued for a huge amount if you hurt someone. That's "liability coverage." E&O coverage is a different ballgame. It covers for failure to perform your contract duties (and like I said above contract remedies are much more limited in dollar (pound :)) amounts).</p>

<p>That's why <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5942292">Madeleine Hopkins</a> response about orderlies performing surgery--while clever, is not legally applicable in the US. If a surgeon commits malpractice, then it's a tort--a harm. If a photographer commits malpractice it's a contract claim. You'll survive the photographer's botched operation.</p>

<p>So in short, yes you can disclaim consequential damages (for failure to perform a contract), and a professional should do so. Remember how your film canister doesn't allow you to sue the film manufacturer for the value of pictures that don't turn out--even if it's their fault? Same sort of deal. Contract breach is different than tort (harm) under the American (and I believe Anglo) system.</p>

<p>Your potshot about the litigiousness of Americans has been noted and ignored. I'm going to leave this thread alone after this because I've already hijacked it enough. You're free to have the last word, if you'd like. You can email me if you have any other questions.</p>

[juanpiadoso]

<p>and, where the photos are?</p>

 

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>Lets get real folks....quality images is a conspiracy between a skilled human and good tools that support the human requirements for making art. You want the weakest link in that conspiracy to be the human and never his kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, I re-read your earlier post and found this to be an interesting statement. Personally, I'd want the weakest link to be the kit, not the person.</p>

<p>When 14th century stone masons began work on medieval cathedrals they knew it was going to take them at least three generations to complete. Success was the product of a vision that could be clearly articulated, architecture and engineering that could be proved by mathematics in advance of construction, and a supply chain that required immense social planning. The vision had to be big enough, and robust enough, that it could be shared through time. The results had absolutely nothing to do with the tools, and everything to do with the people.</p>

<p>It's an extreme example, but it supports Kelly's point about equipment.</p>

<p>There are often posts on forums from people asking questions like: 'I really loved X's pictures - what camera does she use?'. Of course, that's a beginner's question. More experienced photographers would wonder about the lighting in X's images, not the mere camera. And advanced photographers would wonder what X wanted to say with the image, not how she made it.</p>

<p> </p>