Toronto Photography Meetup Group

This is being posted across many photography forums but in case you haven't seen it:

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

Makes me giddy hearing him talk photog... The only thing better is if it is judge Judy instead

"What happened to your 1 series" haha

Ahahaha!! Go Joe Brown! I see Joe Brown and I think of Cleveland from Family Guy. lol

If you don't know the speed of your lens, you shouldn't be shooting a wedding.

I believe this is what is referred to as fauxtography.

I'm hardly a fan of that misogynist Joe Brown, but he had it right in this case. The photographers really need to just shut their mouths. Every time that woman opened hers, she just compounded the impression that she wasn't professional, not in skill nor demeanour.

Hell, people are surprised when they ask if I'll shoot a wedding for them and I suggest that they let me find them an actual wedding photographer, instead. I've got the gear so I should be able to do it, right?

Sounds like Judge Joe Brown knows his photography .. I think he mentions that he has published some photos.

Boy do I ever hear you! I have shot 4 weddings for friends and I will NEVER shoot another one. They are, often, more hassle than they are worth, especially for friends, and one wedding I wasn't even paid for....not even a tip for my 10 hours of work. I used to bowl with the couple ad after the wedding, they told me they loved the photos and I almost told them to bite me.

Cheers,

Brian J.

I drove for 15 hours in order to shoot a wedding in Alabama, as it was the only "gift" that the bride and groom wanted from me. I didn't get to see the location until the night before the (outdoor) ceremony, when the light was nothing like what it would be during the actual shoot. I was far from happy with what I got, but the bride and groom were.

I'll bring a camera when I attend a wedding, but you won't likely catch me shooting another. It takes a sort of person that I'm clearly not.

The photographer said she "evidently didn't have it", referring to her 1-series.. she doesn't know what equipment she has or does she rent? I thought that was kinda bizarre.

Great vid!

I thought there was too much focus on the gear on that video. The fundamental problem was that the photographer was unprofessional and didn't know what they were doing.

A pro would've done a half decent job with even a Rebel. Gear limitations were certainly a factor, but not the be all and and all that they were made out to be.

Nevertheless, good and entertaining find

True, but generally speaking a pro would have had a higher standard of gear too. Perhaps Brown didn't see the need to go any further as the lack of professionalism was adequately demonstrated by the choice of lens, lack of gear knowledge, and general demeanour of the defendant? Hell, I'd have summarily ruled against her because of her inability to shut her mouth.

I'd agree.... there was far too much emphasis on the gear... its the final product that counts, and obviously, the product just wasn't there! She deserves what she got.

Notr to mention that Judge Joe was right on the money....to not know the speed of your lenses shows that the photographers are anything but a professional.

haha, I love that clip. He's got a point... an original rebel with 1600ISO max (not that great either at max ISO) on a stock lens...

hehe.. I caught this today via Facebook and figured SOMEONE would post it here.

Totally hilarious.

Both myself and Brian Tao are definitely not professional wedding photographers - we don't have the Canon 1D series cameras...

I agree that the "photographer" in this case is a total imbecile and, as many have stated, totally let Joe Brown get under her skin.

If this had been a real court of law, at least here in Canada, then neither the judge nor the defendant would get away with such behaviour.

Then again.. it DOES make for great TV.. *LOL*

Dave

FYI: If you wanna see some more of this photographer's work - http://www.photographypros.com/midland_mi/index.php

Ha, yeah I tracked that down too.. However, I wonder why on earth the woman ever hired her in the first place if those were the samples she was looking at!


All this rebel hating is a little unnecessary. With the kit lens, sure, it's not so great.. but through work I'm using the rebel XT with L glass and while it's still not the best for low light, the pictures are 100 times better with L glass. Oh, and knowing how to use it helps.

LOL the samples! hahaha o man.. too much too much! rofl

Likely, if the plaintiff speaks the truth and they actually did see the "photographer" at a bridal show, the defendant probably showed off work that wasn't even THEIRS.

I've heard (although not seen this in person) of this happening via sample albums offered by a particular album company. They would send you samples with other people's work in them just to show you what the albums looked like. You could take these album samples and, if you wanted to be underhanded, display them as your own.

Suddenly you're booking clients with work that isn't yours...

Cheers,
Dave

I would have liked to see the church shots and how they came out with a dark lens and no flash!

I can't believe they were charging $1300US and getting it.

They might have met the photographer at a bridal show, at someone else's booth. I've often wondered if people 'troll' for customers at such events when they aren't displaying, themselves.

OMG, it's her (the photog) attitude that has a problem.
and I though every bride nowadays will ask to see at least two full set of full wedding pictures, not just some really nice 11X14 enlargments at a show.

Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

Oh, I forgot. The customer is always right.

Wow - I was impressed by the Judge's photographic knowledge.

I always wonder if they edit out bits where the defendant makes the judge look foolish.

The legal word of the day is "misrepresentation."