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

[ronald_smith6]

<p>This YouTube clip exemplifies all my frustrations about people who get into the wedding photography business who are absolutely clueless. For some unknown reason, ownership of a DSLR and a lens gives them a professional photography license. In my neck of the woods, this means such individuals charge a few measly bucks for wedding work, making those of us who are seasoned shooters look way overpriced.</p>

<p>These photogs come an go quickly after they botch a few jobs, then a new crop arrives.</p>

<p>I now only do weddings for select people whom I want to be part of their special day, I usually charge for my time and materials and don't make any money - I keep my shooting skills sharp for the day maybe when I can earn money from this craft when people can appreciate me for what I an do.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>ok - I finally broke down and watched the video....</p>

<p>in many respect's it's hilarious - and okay entertainment. </p>

<p>However - for anyone to judge whether or not the photos were decent is impossible to do, since (i don't think) any of us were there and we don't have access to the original jpeg files.</p>

<p>A couple of points that have already been made (i think)<br>

1. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't remember and certainly can't tell just by looking at a photo what f-stop I used to shoot it. </p>

<p>2. Granted wikipedia isn't the be-all, end all of all knowledge, but nowhere in Judge Brown's entry does it mention that he is, was or will a photographer.</p>

<p>3. Yes, the Canon used is plastic (or mostly so) - So what? It has as much of a chance of failure as a camera that costs twice as much. I think that the bigger issue should be - Did she have a backup?</p>

<p>4. Would I be comfortable using that camera to do a wedding? (actually - the Nikon equal D40)? absolutely - as long as I had a backup and knew my lens selection and flash support.</p>

<p>5. The judge keeps mentioning that you can't get a bigger print off of that camera...B.S. I've seen 8x10's 16x20's and bigger from it. </p>

<p>Again - entertaining (slightly); amusing - highly; and stupidity beyond all belief... the only reason someone would agree to be on one of those shows would be for the free trip and food. Definitely not because you wanted a fair and accurate settlement or you wanted to look intelligent.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[rayt]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3687314">David Haas</a><br>

I think that the bigger issue should be - Did she have a backup?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you say that? The wedding is over. There was no need for a backup. After the fact in my opinion that is not a relevant issue. Had the bride been litigating over missing images because of failed equipment then a backup (or lack of) would have been relevant.</p>

<p>The bride was angry over bad images. We never saw the images that were supposedly bad. The picture shown was OK, not terrible.</p>

<p>And the<em> judge</em> was an fool. He would ask questions then not allow the defendant to answer. He gave the plaintiff time to speak but did not give the defendant any time to present her side of the issue. In a real court the outcome may have been very different.</p>

<p>Unfortunately some people will see this show and think it is OK to sue their photographer because they can. Regardless of the skills, or lack of skills, of the photographer Joe Brown did a major disservice to all photographers that ply their trade and skills at weddings.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>David, all good points. As much as I have wanted to not look at this thread again, here I am.</p>

<p>1. I agree for the most part, except I know when I have specifically used a shallower or deeper DOF. For some shots I could say: "I took that with my 28-75 in low light, so it looks like an f/2.8". Or, "I was worried about getting both rows in focus, so I think I switched to f/11. Let me check the EXIF data and get back to you." The real problem is the photographer's lack of knowledge on the subject.</p>

<p>2. I'll take Joe Brown's word on it. He talks like someone who used to shoot pictures back in the day...</p>

<p>3. I think this point has been mentioned several times already.</p>

<p>4. Yeah, even low end cameras are sufficient in most cases. There are certainly enough competent photographers using them. The problem arises apparently from the lack of quality of the actual photos, which Joe Brown must have looked at closely (we can only assume). If the photos are bad, the cheap camera is an easy scapegoat. It's the photographer's fauilt one way or another. In some cases, it IS the camera's fault, and it becomes the photographer's fault for bringing along the wrong tool for the job.</p>

<p>Of course, photography is easier with a better camera. If she had used a 40D or had picked up a used 1D Mark II somewhere, she would be impervious to this kind of scrutiny. This is my best argument for using pro gear. Nobody will blame you for using the wrong tools. The pro cameras just work better. They feel better in your hands and instill you with confidence, and instill your clients with confidence. If your clients can see that you know something about cameras, they will believe you know something about photography. While the Rebel XTi might be as good as the 40D in many situations, nobody ever argued that the 40D isn't actually a BETTER camera than the XTi. I would rather have the 40D by my side in a pinch than a Rebel. And yes, the pro cameras ARE more durable, and therefore more reliable. They have Magnesium-Alloy bodies, weather sealed joints and buttons, thicker plastic shells, rubber handgrips, and longer-lasting shutters and mirror mechanisms. They also have larger viewfinders with better coverage for more accurate framing, and superior autofocus technology. Each generation of Canon cameras has had better ability to autofocus in lower light (which, by the way, totally sucks on the XTi).</p>

<p>5. I don't know what the judge's problem was on this point. I think he was off base a little. An 11x14 or thereabouts is about as big as most people will have the enlargements. Most of the shots never get enlarged. Only the formal portrait would usually be made 16x20 or larger, so I don't know why he made such a big deal about it. However, the photographer didn't know how to stand her ground, and she exaggerated big time with the "26x32" comment. Talk about pulling random numbers out of a hat. Still, Joe Brown seems like a little bit of a gear fascist, and still believes the Megapixel Myth. He was obviously one of those intolerable amateur photographers who thinks the camera's resolution is everything.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"As much as I have wanted to not look at this thread again, here I am."</strong></em><br>

<em><strong></strong></em><br>

:)</p>

<p>WW</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'd bet James Nachtwey with a Rebel could outshoot all of you with 1Ds MkIII's if he was so inclined to shoot a weddin</em>g.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No he couldn't. Maybe with a fast prime lens he could. But not the junk wedding kit brought to this case. ISO 800 on an XTi is noisy as hell (kind of like ISO 400 on the 10D or ISO 3200 on a 7D)</p>

<p>Indoors in this dim church no flash allowed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>And the</em><em> judge</em><em> was an fool. He would ask questions then not allow the defendant to answer. He gave the plaintiff time to speak but did not give the defendant any time to present her side of the issue. In a real court the outcome may have been very different.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As if!</p>

<p>In a real small claims court both sides would be lucky to have 2-3 mins. to talk! It is SMALL CLAIMS -- a dime a dozen plaintiffs. No serious money involved.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>If you watch the video carefully, at 3:47 or so the judge addresses the photograpgher's "written" answer, so he obviously has (many) more details that we didn't hear. Then around 4:37 you can pause the video and click through about six shots or so.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>No he couldn't. Maybe with a fast prime lens he could. But not the junk wedding kit brought to this case. ISO 800 on an XTi is noisy as hell (kind of like ISO 400 on the 10D or ISO 3200 on a 7D)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're doing James Nachtwey an incredible disservice.</p>

<p>The largest part of his work to date was shot on ISO 400 film, often with equipment of lesser specification than the Xti. (After all, he's been doing this since 1976). Please don't tell me you think the camera does the work. If you look at his portfolio with any level of care you'll see evidence of his technique. He's a master of spotting relative light intensity, exposing for the highlights in a dark scene, framing his subjects with whatever light source is available, and pulling strong diagonal compositions out of the seemingly innocuous. The angle of light is what's important for him - not the intensity. And of course the real magic is he can do this consistently under battlefield conditions. I find it disappointing that anyone would seriously claim something as simple as wedding would be beyond his means with an Xti and kit lens.</p>

<p>Frankly, all this talk about this or that camera not being good enough for the job is just nonsense, and betrays not only complete ignorance of the history of photography, but also an absolute failure to understand the purpose of technique. Any competent photographer will adjust their approach to match the equipment and situation available.</p>

<p>I agree that having excellent equipment makes any job easier. But not having excellent equipment doesn't make the job unachievable.</p>

<p>If in doubt, look at photography between 1920 and 1950. See what people did in the early 20th century when the fastest lens was f5.6 and the fastest ISO was 125...</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I'm just wondering how this thread gets well over 100 comments when the subject is about bad wedding coverage, while a newcomer to P-net with excellent images gets only a couple of comments when asking for feedback on his new website? <a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VuiD">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VuiD</a> I donnno...........just sayin'.</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>Neil, as for history, I'd argue that Cartier-Bresson, his peers, and all of those after him who prescribe to decisive moment would not have been able to take the same photos without the technology of the time. Winogrand?- he'd be lost without his Liecas. Likewise, I believe there are many photographs today, that can't be taken with a Rebel that could be taken with, say 1DS or equivalent. Take for example, a low-light photograph, perhaps even a Nachtwey, that simply couldn't be recorded well enough on a cheap point-n-shoot sensor. I'm not saying that he couldn't get good results, just not as good.<br>

I agree that a competent photographer will adjust their approach and that you can get a great shot from just about any camera (you don't have to be competent, either). But as for achievability of a job, I'd say that has more to with your goals than the equipment. If you can't get what you want from a camera less than a Lieca, then you better have that Lieca on the job, or lower your standards. </p>

<p> </p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Senor, I see no reason why adapting the goal to the equipment has to mean the photographer chooses to lower their standards. They'd be a poor photographer if they did. A better choice would be to consider the equipment and define the goal accordingly.</p>

<p>For example, many people tend to use a high ISO camera to make an average exposure, where all elements of the scene are of comparable brightness. They shoot with evaluative metering and let the camera do the thinking. In these cases ISO 4000 becomes a necessity because the tonal range is predominantly even across the whole image, and the exposure is based on illuminating the scene.</p>

<p>But Nachtwey (and other good available light photographers) do something different - they model the subject with the available light, they don't try to illuminate it. The result is the large part of the image is rendered in shadow tones, and they can work at a moderate ISO. In Nachtwey's case, he's worked around 75% of his career with mostly 400 speed films. Similarly, so has Salgado, although in his case he's used film even more extensively. Neither of them make lesser images than other photographers. I'm sure most people would agree they make far better ones. Hence I'd argue the standard is as high as the photographer wants it, providing they use their skills and ability to visualise the image and draw something worth seeing.</p>

<p>The converse to this type of thinking (of pre-visualising the image for best rendering of the light on the film/sensor), is there are many photographers who limit their involvement in the image to flexing their index finger. I'd argue that's actually a more fitting description of lower standards.</p>

<p>There's no doubt that better specified equipment always pushes boundaries on what can be achieved. But let's not forget that images are arbitrary, mere moments in time that were presented a certain way. Nothing says those same moments couldn't be presented differently and be equally or more special.</p>

<p>People have been making fantastic photographs for over a hundred years with whatever they had available at the time. I don't understand this tendency for some people to think that improvements in one camera automatically invalidates the other cameras that came before it. If a camera made good images five years ago - or fifty years ago - then it can make good images today, if placed in the right hands.</p>

<p>The real problem is the right hands are harder to find, and automated and powerful cameras are easy to find. So the less competent photographer makes the camera do the work, and feeds this crazy fallacy that good images depend on good cameras.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Neil,</p>

<p>I see your point related to the camera/kit. In fact my first DSLR was a drebel; the original. I used it to lead me into digital for a modest price (modest, yeah right) and then once immersed began to refine what I wanted to use. Coming from film bodies, the digital transition was huge. From that standpoint, I dare say I became less refined due to the kits ability to do things at a button push, that I had to plan for with film (at least for some time). So, kit can have its effect on the final image in that sense. However, giving a more powerful tool to an unskilled hand does not result in better quality of work IMO, just a nicer quality image (pixel density, pixel size, sensitivity etc) of the same level of work. So, I agree that poor quality cameras can produce high quality work, in the same way that quality cameras/gear can produce poor work. It is mostly dependent on the one who drives.</p>

[wogears]

<p>The gearhead response to this 'case', from across the Internet, is the funniest part of the whole thing. God, what if the defendant had been an 'old-timer' who still used (shudder) <em>film</em>? Comments like, "The pro's would never use a kit lense." or "She didn't know what apature her lense was. What an amature!" This is a 1300 dollar wedding; we're not talking Monte Zucker here.</p>

<p>I will mention that somewhere around the 500th comment to the YouTube video, someone purporting to be from a local (to the plaintiff) lab claims that the files were shot JPEG, medium resolution and edited with Picasa. If true (a big if) this would be pretty damning, IMO--particularly the medium res bit.</p>

[steve_murray1]

<p>I do think minimizing the importance of the gear in this case and similar situations is fairly dangerous. Yes, a competent person could get good photos, but combine dim lighting, f/3.5 aperture at most, and heavy noise past ISO 400 with that camera, you will have a very hard time getting a decent exposure without flash and/or a tripod. It's not always possible to use either. You can take great photos with just the XTi and kit lens in the proper conditions, but it's not very likely in the situation here.<br /> <br /> You're being paid to take great photos, not to prove an XTi kit is the little camera that could. There's also a great aesthetic difference between film grain and noise from pushing ISO too far.</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The first wedding I was a co shooter for was when films were slightly slower. Color print was asa 50 then.<br /> Today one has asa/iso films of 800; one has a 4 f stop advantage compared to eons ago. Today one shoots in smaller formats; thus one can use faster lenses. Thus on can go from a F4 MF/LF lens to a F2 35mm lens. Now one has the advantage of 6 f stops compared to eons ago. In a no flash allowed wedding folks used tripods; prefocused and got results.<br>

<br /> IF the situation was so dark one was not going to deliver; one dictated that one had to use a flash; or added lighting; or one was not going to be able to deliver. In a less whussy era you told it like it is; you did not assume; you did experiments in an unknown gig to reduce the chance of a total failure.<br>

<br /> Blaming equipment instead of oneself was consider a copout; ie looser whining childish gambit. If an event was too dark in a cave and a customer dictated no-flash; you ran some tests and found that one was in the mire. You were up front about it; you did not do the amateur assuming stuff; you did a dry run to find if one was in trouble. In marginal case maybe one could rent a faster lens and try some more tests.<br /> <br /> Ten years from now if cameras have ultra low noise iso 12500 sensors somebody will again botch a job and say the lighting was too dim; and blame the gear; instead of their assuming and lack of "being prepared". Lets face it; the Boy Scouts are out; and a slacker I am not responsible for my actions is in today. A child blames his tools since he is not man enough yet to blame himself when he screws up.<br>

<br /> A pro photographer from 120 years ago would use glass plates and flashpowder; and a tripod and would know beforehand what will work.</p>