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

[tobycline]

<p>People are actually supporting the "pro" photographer in a round about way by being upset over a judge's actions on a staged television show? This forum makes me laugh!</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Couldn't you photograph a wedding in 1973 with a Canon FTb?</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>What a judge!!! or not.</p>

<p>I think the images shown were fine (not spectacular). I thought the defendant did not get to present their case at all, though they were on a limb in any case. </p>

<p>Kit is irrelevant... though its wise to use quality gear to get quality work. And as a side not, if I really had to, I could shoot a wedding with my iPhone.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Toby, no one is supporting the photographers--read carefully. Saying the photographers were not able to present a case does not equal support.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

It's just made for TV court. Come on Judge Judy makes 25 million USD per year. How realistic is that?

 

</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Yes, I understand this is pure entertainment. I still wouldn't agree to be on anything remotely like this. The expense paid trip, and payment of any 'awards' is nothing compared to the shame I'd feel for even being associated with anything so crass. Not to mention the swan dive one's reputation would take.</p>

<p>I've seen similar wedding photography cases on Judge Judy, and actually thought she was pretty fair, and the cases were reasonably resolved. It's entertainment, and since it is supposed to follow the court format, that doesn't mean it has to be completely jaw dropping in lack of judicial procedure.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Did anyone else notice the Judge Brown lied about his own experience? Early on he said it had been years since he did this (shoot a wedding), then later on said "months"..... Hmmm.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Couldn't you photograph a wedding in 1973 with a Canon FTb?....."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

In 1973 that camera was alot more than $25, even today with people almost giving away old film cameras, I suspect a decent one in working order would be closer to $100 than to $25.</p>

<p>Really David, you can shoot a wedding with your iPhone..........puuullleeeeaze. I guess if I had to, I could shoot a wedding with a six dollar disposable camera. What's the point?</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>The photographers had a very good chance to present their case. At the beginning when the judge said something to the effect that the printing was done at Walmart possibly for proofing he had an open mind. When he asked what speed the lenses were he had an open mind. When the photographer said that the officiant of the ceremony said no flash and that was an excuse, then that closed the deal. How many images of the actual ceremony did the program show? None. Maybe they're good, maybe not. But if the images were as good as she said they were then why didn't she show them?</p>

<p>This person obviously bought a kit at Costco or Walmart and hung out a shingle. XTi, 18-55, 70-300? She didn't have a clue. Sorry, that's the way I see it. The judge was harsh, sure. But that's the way he usually is. And if you think this is bad you should see Judge Judy. I don't know about real court cases but from what I've seen of TV court cases, you'd better have a good case to start with. It's that way with just about any court TV that I've seen, and even good ole Harry Wapner said that if you're not prepared, even if you're in the right, you won't win. You'd better know your stuff walking in otherwise you're done for.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>It seemed like the judge was trying to prove he knew something about photography more than trying to get the facts of the case.</p>

[mark_t5]

<blockquote>

<p>Mark T my question to you is:<br /> How fast was that lens, since you find it amusing?<br /> How fast is a lens?!?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well.considering i don't know what brand of lens she has i can only speculate. but i would assume she has the canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 from her other lens choices... <br /> when someone asks me how fast is a lens..i usually assume they want to know about the aperture.</p>

<p>and i really have no clue what the rest of your post is trying to say.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<blockquote>

<p>Really David, you can shoot a wedding with your iPhone..........puuullleeeeaze. I guess if I had to, I could shoot a wedding with a six dollar disposable camera. What's the point?.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, you are so last century.... ;-) not to mention needing a sense of humor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote><div></div>

[brian_m.1]

<p>I still did not see those "bad" pictures, not on youtube anyway. People who are taking sides here are arguing equipment, not results. What was wrong with the pictures you actually saw? </p>

[cre8tiveparadigm]

<p>The pictures I actually saw on utube were possibly the same quality as the above iphone photo. You can clearly see the colors are off in the concrete. Those pixels are not resolving and would not make a quality photographic enlargement. If that is what the judge saw it is likely at the heart of his ruling against her. That said he did not allow her to answer his questions. He hammered her on tripod/pro gear vs photographic skill. Many churches will not allow flash. Why would you want to freeze motion with flash in a half lit church? Your background will go too dark and the images will not have the quality they should have. He should have asked her what her shutter speed was without flash and what iso she chose with the camera. He could have then asked her about noise. But the images inside the church, were not seen. We the audience and if that were the whole case arguably a jury could never have had the facts to make a decision. In realty he was arrogant but that may or may not mean he was wrong. The photographer was not highly skilled (or prepared). Most likely the images shown were low resolution and pixilating. She probably set her rebel to the maximum number of photos which equals thumbnails, low quality images not right for enlargement. While I could see nothing wrong with the pictures on a utube video there may have been more wrong with them than the one pictured above. That said the above is a cool shot of a high contrast back lit composition. It is amazing a phone can do that. I like the picture. I'd be upset to pay a pro 1300 dollars for a weddings worth of iphone pictures. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>David (Wegwart) - it needs a little Flash Fill.<br>

WW</p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>Dude, your post doesn't make any sense, thats why you can't understand what I'm saying.<br />SO, is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 a fast lens? -Alin</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Alin, no f4-5.6 is not a fast lens. When referring to a lens being fast you are generally talking about something in the f/2.8 range or larger.<br>

<em></em></p>

<p>David W., Flash fill and rescue the highlights from the gorgeous Colorado sky that I remember from my youth.............OK, you were just kidding :-)</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>First time I've seen anything like it.</p>

<p>I can only assume this isn't a legal court and the judge is not a practicing member of the judiciary. He certainly seemed to know nothing about due process. That he ought to listen equally to both sides of the case seemed beyond his comprehension... That, and the notable absence of any legal representation.</p>

<p>So this is nothing more than a reality chat show where the presenter wears robes? It was a short-sighted choice of the 'defendant' to appear on the show. A real court would have heard the facts at least.</p>

[mark_t5]

<blockquote>

<p>Dude, your post doesn't make any sense, thats why you can't understand what I'm saying.<br /> SO, is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 a fast lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>now i know you are the one with the issue here.</p>

[katrin_d.]

<p>I'm ashamed to say it but Neil, this is an actual judge. Both litigants agree to drop their claims pending in whatever jurisdiction they were filed and "settle" this thing on TV. Since it's small claims, there aren't any attorneys present. Are you telling us that England doesn't have c r ap like this on TV?</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Thankfully we've been spared it so far. Possibly Judge Judy might exist in the further reaches of the imported cable/satellite channels, but we don't have any pseudo legal reality shows of our own. Or at least, none that I'm aware of .....</p>

[hal_b]

<p>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. You're about 20 years too late for that argument. Let's make this discussion about the photography, not the justice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did anyone else notice the Judge Brown lied about his own experience? Early on he said it had been years since he did this (shoot a wedding), then later on said "months"..... Hmmm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's pay attention to the conversation. I know Joe Brown talks fast, but you should still be able to follow him. It's been years since he's shot photography, but months since he's officiated at a wedding. Joe Brown is an actual judge, albeit retired. If you watch the show, you understand that he is usually harsh to those who are incompetent but pose as professionals, but reasonably fair to the understanding of most people. Within the rules of the TV show, he's allowed to behave however he wants. He's not bound by the ordinary standards of justice. It's Joe Brown justice. That's why it's a TV show!</p>

<p>Now regarding the photographer: she had an attitude, and no knowledge of photography. Joe Brown gets to review the evidence from both sides, including contracts and all the photos, before the taping of the show. I don't know why they kept showing that shady outdoor picture, because it looked great. For some reason they chose not to show the interior ceremony pictures, which must have been the really bad ones. He seemed to be focusing on the obvious artifacts dealing with cheap reproduction. The producers only show on TV what they feel is most entertaining, even if they don't show the entirety of both arguments. When it comes to what happened on camera, this photographer showed IN A HURRY that she is ill-prepared to shoot a professional wedding. She's not invested in what is considered by today's standard to be professional gear. She doesn't know the difference between f stops. She doesn't know her own lenses. And she lied about using a tripod. There's no way she used a tripod for 100% of the shots. Nobody can do that all the time.</p>

<p>Of course you technically CAN shoot an event with a Rebel XTi, but let's not pretend that an iPhone is just as good as a 5D. Even Chase Jarvis only used the iPhone to prove a point. In his professional work, he shoots with the 1Ds. It's one thing to prove a point. It's quite another to actually commit to using an inferior camera in front of paying clients. It just sets up additional hurdles that needn't be there.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>few things:</p>

<p>1. As pointed out - the participants agree to appear on the show to air their differences and settle. They agree to drop all other actions and accept whatever the "judge" gives them.</p>

<p>2. The producers pick what they feel will be compeling TV...they don't go for cases that are boring / cut and dried.... plus I'm sure that they (producers) do as they do in all reality TV and edit / cut / coach / stage to make it more interesting and to make one or the other seem smarter / dumber than they are in real life. Ex: Pawn Stars on History Channel - people that know "Chumlee" say that he's very intelligent, but the producers needed a class clown - so guess what? they feed him dumb lines...</p>

<p>3. Both parties get paid on these things... The old "People's Court" show with Judge Wapner didn't do that - they expected the party who lost to actually pay... what they found is that the loser didn't always fork over the money - so the new generation show pays.</p>

<p>4. Anyone that believes this is real or what would really occur in a court of law - I've got some really good swampland in MN and a bridge in NYC for sale...cheap!</p>

<p>It's entertainment at best, misleading at worst... </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>Did anyone else notice the Judge Brown lied about his own experience? Early on he said it had been years since he did this (shoot a wedding), then later on said "months"..... Hmmm.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

The reference to months was reflecting his participation in an official capacity at weddings as an officiant not his photographic experience. Yes, he's a real judge. TV court is not "real court" and the show has been edited down to just the time allowed and they are only showing the juicy parts......pulllleeeze, it's just TV!</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>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 ...Let's make this discussion about the photography, not the justice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The original post is about the video clip, not the photography. No one has access to the photography that was pictured, and no one can talk about it — at least not without meaningless speculation, because no one knows the facts in this case beyond what aired in the video.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm astounded by the number of responders here who are seeing Judge Joe Brown for the first time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it may have been on TV for 20 years in your neck of the woods, but it hasn't in mine. The world is a little bigger than your town, your state or your country.</p>

[mart_e]

<blockquote>

<p>how fast was that lens ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kinda depends on what car you are travelling in, and the velocity at any given moment.</p>