Judge Joe Brown vs wedding photographer

[mjs1973]

[Grandpaw]

Mike, thanks for posting this! I imagine it should give a lot of want to be wedding photographers something to think about, Jeff

[EOSThree]

Yup, buy your Rebel kit and start shooting weddings...

A Rebel is certainly a capable camera, but at least throw something better than a kit lens on it for a "professional" wedding photography session. Wal Mart for prints?? That's certainly going to raise a red flag with me.

She had every right to complain. No scouting the location, No test shots, isn't it normal practice to go to the rehearsal and check angles and lighting? I'm not a wedding photog, but I know that's what I'd do.

It kind of surprised me, but Judge Joe Brown did his research, he knew what he was talking about, the "wedding photographer" didn't have a chance. Completely stumped her when he asked her how fast her lens was.

I would think this is something that you wouldn't just jump into. If I were to go that direction with my photography, I would apprentice as an assistant for several weddings to see how it's done. Just like with anything there is skill and technique involved, that takes education, then there's always that pesky experience thing...

[draymorton]

"What speed is it?"

"I don't know."

Says it all.

[mjs1973]

I remember doing my first solo wedding... I was using my DRebel at the time. I bought a new f/2.8 lens and a flash and went to the church weeks before the wedding to check the lighting. I had the Pastor set the lighting the way it was going to be on the wedding day so I could take test shots. I specifically asked if using a flash was going to be OK. I must say that I now turn down all weddings because I don't enjoy dealing with all that kind of crap.

For my own wedding we hired a friend. We had seen lots of her work before and knew exactly what we were going to get. When I told her that the Pastor did not allow flash during the ceremony, I offered her the use of my f/1.8 & f/2.8 lenses to use. She choose to use here much slower lenses. Any photos where people were moving were unusable. I'm not complaining, I knew what we were getting into from the start. My point is, there is a reason good wedding photographers charge a lot of money, and have nice equipment. It takes a lot of work to turn out great wedding photos.

I must also say that she is no longer doing weddings for the same reasons as me.

[OldClicker]

It's always amazed me on the forums when I see postings like:

'I shot three weddings last weekend and have four this coming weekend and just don't have time to figure this stuff out - how do I get pictures that aren't all blurry?'

TF

[Axle]

Excellent video and so true. There are plenty of people out there that just go ahead and pickup a cheap camera and a kit and go nuts.

As for the flash comment, it really does depend on the pastor performing the ceremony and the pastor of the church. The first wedding I did, the pastor wanted no photography...period during the ceremony. (I broke the rule by using my 50 1.8 during the first kiss, photos turned out pretty bad actually).

But there have been other weddings where the pastor of the church didn't want flash photography but the pastor doing the ceremony didn't care, I will always listen to the pastor of the church as it is "his" building. However most pastors are open to flash photography from the professionals.

[n8]

This is sad really. One of my good friends had that kind of "pro" at his wedding, and out of the hundreds I saw, there wasn't but a dozen that were acceptable. Flash use was acceptable at the church, but they relied on their fill flashes all night (not to mention horrible composition and blown highlights). I don't know the model (canon), but it certainly didn't sound pro either. Even worse, his brother is using the same photog, and has already put a retainer down (I certainly expressed my concerns).

To pull the topic a bit...would it be inappropriate to address the photographer at this future wedding with my concerns based on their work from the last one?

[LightBright]

Thanks for posting this. I had no idea the judge new so much about photography lol Also the "photographers" composition in those photo's are bland and weak. Its funny, now that DSLR's are becoming more popular and affordable, people think there photographers the minute they buy one.

[Liz]

Thanks Mike!

This is a great video which I enjoyed viewing. Kudos to the judge!

Liz

[schrackman]

Interesting. I actually had the same situation where the pastor did not want me to use flash during the wedding. Did some test shots but knew it wasn't going to be easy. So, I not only informed my client beforehand that this could severely limit the quality of the photos but I even included a stipulation to that effect in the contract. Good thing too, because even with my 50mm f/1.8 it was extremely difficult to get any decent shots in the church.

Ray

[draymorton]

This just gets more brilliant with each viewing. He knows more about photography than she does! Pathetic.

[Loupey]

Very entertaining video!

But it seems to me that the plaintiff should have done her homework and research before booking the photographer.

"What kind of equipment will you be using?"
"Have you shot at this church before?"
"Can I have a reference list?"
"How long have you been shooting weddings?"

I was quite young when I married (going on 19 years now) and we not only asked those questions but met the photographer in his home and saw his equipment and wedding albums of recent clients (finished but not yet delivered).

Yeah, I don't do weddings either

[Nicci]

Love it when he says "I've done what you did" and she says "how many years ago"
oooooh!