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

[mark_t5]

<p>charging $1300 for that attitude and work is just beyond ripoff. Just to show that price does not reflect quality.</p>

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

<p>my favorite line:</p>

<p>"how fast was that lens? uh..I don't know"</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I make no judgement on the photographers in both the cases shown. However, I have to say in both cases that the Judge did not do his job. He made judgements about the gear used that have no basis is reality beyond his personal experience. He made judgements about situations that he knew nothing about. He did not find on the facts, but on his own experience and knowledge--I thought judges were not supposed to do this? Of course, this is a TV show...</p>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>That was hilarious! I loved that she had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever...not only did he ask how fast the lens was, but then he straight out asked what the f stop was and she still couldn't answer. I am glad the couple won...they definitely deserved it :) Thanks for sharing!</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>i do agree that the judge was kind of bad...and i do think that if this was in a "normal" courtroom this would not happen..or at least probably will get turned on appeal...</p>

<p>but it was just priceless to see that photographer's action in the courtroom.</p>

[mac_mcanirlin]

<p>The question is which is worse, a $500 wedding photog who does not have a clue, or a $2000 photog who does not care?</p>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>I wonder if she is still in business...</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>i tried googling her...</p>

<p>she has a couple ghost listings in some photographer listing in Michigan..but her website is no longer in service and is taken by a cyber squatter.. i guess she shut the biz down.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>I get the impression that the judge ruled the way he did based a lot on the attitude in the courtroom as well as the knowledge of the Canon system and shooting in general.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Where's your 1 series?"<br>

"Evidently we didn't have it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Makes me think she doesn't even know what a 1 series is.</p>

<p>The questioning of what f/stop she was at looks like he was giving them a chance to prove their knowledge of something.</p>

<p>What was missing in this discussion? Where's the contract? What did it say? How can the judge rule without knowing what was agreed upon? That's a fuzzy issue on this one, but the fact that the photographers didn't point to it doesn't make me think it would have done them any good.</p>

[katie_odell1]

<p>I know someone who went on Judge Joe Brown once. The show pays for you to travel to wherever it's shot, put you in a hotel for a couple days and feeds you. Then, they cover the cost of the ruling for the loser. So, while that photographer was obviously rude and may have truly not known her equipment very well....she didn't have to fork over $2500 to anyone.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I'm not so amused with miscarriages of justice. The judge basically peppered the photographers with questions, most of which he didn't allow them to answer, and then made a judgement based on the gear used and on prints which may or may not have shown technical deficiencies (since you can't tell this on a screen). He implied that the prints were soft because of the non-professional gear used, and this was not the issue at hand, which, as far as I could tell, was about the quality and source of the <em>prints</em> the customer received.</p>

<p>So the photographers couldn't answer technical questions. They may or may not have been any good, but regardless, they were robbed of their chance to make their case.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Katie--that's interesting. I was wondering why anyone in their right mind would go on these kinds of shows. That explains a lot, particularly why the Judge can conduct himself so brazenly. Even so, I would refuse. Does anyone know if you <strong>can</strong> refuse?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>It seems to me this TV dramatization was to wind up the public and lambaste Wedding Photographers generally – and to also sell TV advertising space.</p>

<p>Certainly the show does establish that fast lenses and perhpas a tripod are requred for low light Photography, when Flash is not allowed.</p>

<p>But the overwhelming impact of the clip is the attack on the premise of Justice, the Integrity of the Bar, and the Professionalism of the Judiciary.</p>

<p>I would not like my Legal System reflected to the world in that light - I think that issue is far more important than selling TV advertising or making the public aware that there are incompetent or uneducated photographers around and measures should be taken to address it and that should be the main topic of any social conscience discussion.</p>

<p>But sadly we too have our own home grown TV Dramatizations and also evening Current Affairs Shows which equally masquerade as investigative and unbiased Journalism.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>In principle you get what you pay for........however, I've seen newcomers with less than a handful of weddings charge over $2000 under the belief that they were that good. I've also seen veteran shooters who have seriously discounted a wedding for the business.</p>

<p>Looks to me like Judge Joe knows a thing or two about photography and the two ladies that presented themselves as photographers shot themselves in the foot repeatedly while they demonstrated thier ignorance of basic photgraphy skills. Like Dan, I would have liked some discussion regarding the actual contract but that would have eaten away at the entertainment value of all the courtroom drama.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>its tv...</p>

<p>maybe the photographer thought she had a case and it would be good publicity for her business to show up on the show... she made a bet and it went bad.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>If this were an informal affair, I would have no trouble siding with the couple. The photographer was

obviously oblivious and has no business photographing weddings.</p>

 

<p>Yet, ostensibly, this was a legal proceeding. And, as such, I find the actions of the

“judge” even more horrifying than the actions of the photographer. That was such a travesty

of a trial that words fail me.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</;p>

[mike_hollander]

<p>Everyone's talking and no-one's listening. I suppose it's good for the show. The guy has worked as a real judge... a little disturbing.</p>

<p>Hey, maybe this should be the format for PN criticism threads. Get an inquisition on the bench in front of a camera to bark comments at the candidate. Better than Idol.</p>

<p>I understand that it's not allowed to post links to other photographer's sites? I just happened to see a site of one wedding photographer in the Caribbean whose packages ranged from $1900 to $4900 and the portfolio showed a handful of snapshot-quality pictures. I got the impression that this person had been in business for at least a couple of years, although based on the size of the portfolio, it looked as if he may have not done very much. Anyway, it's not particularly difficult to find bad portfolios on the net from people who cite prices of over $1500.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I don't feel too sorry for the photographer. Once the judge determined that they didn't have at least some "pro" equipment, and were using basically novice kit stuff, it was already over. Also aside from the big attitude I didn't hear the photog say anything much even worth listening to. And, to not even know what your lens aperture is with a clear answer shows novice big time, she obviously didn't "know" her equipment. I wonder if she knows any of the minimum focus distances, lol. </p>

[katie_odell1]

<p>Nadine -<br>

Both parties agree to go on the show, knowing that it involves an expenses paid trip, and that they waive their right to appeal in an actual court of law. They also know that if they lose their case, they won't have to pay out of pocket. SO, knowing that, I would say much of this is dramatized for TV, and that if the photographer knew they didn't have a good case in an actual court, then this was the easier way to go, because they ended up with a free trip and not having to pay the plantiff.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>It's television, so it must be real. :)</p>

[ed_te_pas]

<p>$2500 could buy you a fine L-lens. Who says that equipment doesn't matter? (LOL)</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Was this a court or a photography course? What a blowhard! He missed no opportunity to make sure everybody knows he knows gear. I bet she didn't even know her hyperfocal distance either. What a rank amateur. So what that she used a Rebel. Millions of weddings have been photographed with cameras that sell for $25 now. Did anybody get what his beef was were the pictures? </p>

[riley_s1]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not so amused with miscarriages of justice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a TV show, not a real court. The only legal authority the 'court' can exercise exists because the parties involved have a signed agreement to abide by the arbitration (if you can call it that) provided on the show.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I realize it is a TV show and none of the proceedings would have happened in a real court. It is a miscarriage of justice nonetheless, since the arbitration you mention takes the form of a court in which each party gets to make a case. The photographers' case was never given a chance. I don't find that amusing.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Millions of weddings have been photographed with cameras that sell for $25 now....." -Brian</em><br>

<em></em><br>

??? Can you name one?</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>Well, true enough, except that both parties would have to have agreed, in writing, to participate in the show. Obviously the 'judge' is completely ridiculous, and you're right that the photographer didn't get much of a chance. But that's the unfortunate thing about informed consent...you pays your money and you takes your choice.<br></p>